ACTION:
____________________________
Clerk/Secretary
Department: Community Development Item No: PH2
Prepared by: Chris Winters, Senior Planner Meeting Date: August 11, 2026 Approved by:
Joe Vacca, Community Development Director
John Conley, City Manager Agenda Location: Public Hearing SUBJECT: APPEAL OF P24-0164, 552 WEST BOBIER DRIVE PROJECT RECOMMENDATION:
1.Open, conduct, and close a public hearing to receive testimony regarding Planning Case No. P24-0164, a 15-Lot Tentative Subdivision Map and Site Development Plan at 552 W. Bobier Drive.
2.Adopt City Council Resolution No. 2026- , adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 552 W. Bobier Drive Project, Planning Case No. P24-0164.
3.Adopt City Council Resolution No. 2026- , denying the appeal and approving Tentative Subdivision Map and Site Development Plan to construct 15 single-family attached residential units on a 1.67-acre site located at 552 W. Bobier Drive (APN 161-030-07-00).
CORRELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS: Homelessness and Housing.
PRIOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On June 16, 2026, adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-07, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 552 W. Bobier Drive Project, Planning Case No. P24-0164, and adopted Resolution 2026-08, approving a Tentative Subdivision Map and Site Development Plan to construct 15 single-family attached residential units on a 1.67-acre site located at 552 W. Bobier Drive (APN 161-030-07-00). (Vote: 6-0). The decision added the following Condition of Approval: The CC&Rs for the subdivision shall require the HOA to be responsible for the maintenance of the painted frog rock located within the ESA open space easement onsite, including but not limited to, as-needed paint application. The Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes from June 16, 2026, are included as Exhibits 3 and 4. An appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed by Council Member Contreras on June 26, 2026 (Exhibit 5).
STATEMENT ON THE SUBJECT: The project proposes a Tentative Subdivision Map and Site Development Plan to construct 15 single-family attached homes on individual lots ranging from 2,564 to 5,768 square feet in size, with an average lot size of 3,808 square feet. Each unit would be approximately 2,200 square feet in size, with three bedrooms and a two-car enclosed garage. The project’s landscape areas, open space, and biofiltration basins would cover approximately 49.5 percent of the project site. The northern central portion of the site encompassing several existing large rock outcroppings would be incorporated into an open space easement as an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) which would prohibit future development. The project would construct a 24-foot private road and frontage improvements on W.
Bobier Drive consisting of a new curb and gutter, and sidewalk. Additional details regarding the home’s architectural design, grading, and drainage improvements are included in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit 3).
AGENDA
REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
SUCCESSOR AGENCY
BUENA SANITATION DISTRICT
JOINT POWERS FINANCING AUTHORITY
Opened, conducted, and closed the public hearing. Adopted the following: 1) City Council Resolution No. 2026-142. Vote: 5-0; 2) City Council Resolution No. 2026-143. Vote: 5-0
AGENDA
REPORT
® CITY COUNCIL
❑ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
❑ SUCCESSOR AGENCY
❑ BUENA SANITATION DISTRICT
❑ JOINT POWERS FINANCING AUTHORITY
Department: Community Development Item No: PH2
Prepared by: Chris Winters, Senior Planner Meeting Date: August 11, 2026 Joe Vacca, Community Development Director
Approved by: John Conley, City Manager Agenda Location: Public Hearing SUBJECT: APPEAL OF P24-0164, 552 WEST BOBIER DRIVE PROJECT RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open, conduct, and close a public hearing to receive testimony regarding Planning Case No. P24-0164, a 15 -Lot Tentative Subdivision Map and Site Development Plan at 552 W. Bobier Drive.
2. Adopt City Council Resolution No. 2026- , adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 552 W. Bobier Drive Project, Planning Case No. P24-0164.
3. Adopt City Council Resolution No. 2026- , denying the appeal and approving Tentative Subdivision Map and Site Development Plan to construct 15 single-family attached residential units on a 1.67 -acre site located at 552 W. Bobier Drive (APN 161-030-07-00).
CORRELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS: Homelessness and Housing.
PRIOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On June 16, 2026, adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-07, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 552 W. Bobier Drive Project, Planning Case No. P24-0164, and adopted Resolution 2026-08, approving a Tentative Subdivision Map and Site Development Plan to construct 15 single-family attached residential units on a 1.67 -acre site located at 552 W. Bobier Drive (APN 161-030-07-00). (Vote: 6-0). The decision added the following Condition of Approval: The CC&Rs for the subdivision shall require the HOA to be responsible for the maintenance of the painted frog rock located within the ESA open space easement onsite, including but not limited to, as -needed paint application. The Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes from June 16, 2026, are included as Exhibits 3 and 4. An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was filed by Council Member Contreras on June 26, 2026 (Exhibit 5).
STATEMENT ON THE SUBJECT: The project proposes a Tentative Subdivision Map and Site Development Plan to construct 15 single-family attached homes on individual lots ranging from 2,564 to 5,768 square feet in size, with an average lot size of 3,808 square feet. Each unit would be approximately 2,200 square feet in size, with three bedrooms and a two -car enclosed garage. The project's landscape areas, open space, and biofiltration basins would cover approximately 49.5 percent of the project site. The northern central portion of the site encompassing several existing large rock outcroppings would be incorporated into an open space easement as an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) which would prohibit future development. The project would construct a 24 -foot private road and frontage improvements on W.
Bobier Drive consisting of a new curb and gutter, and sidewalk. Additional details regarding the home's architectural design, grading, and drainage improvements are included in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit 3).
ACTION:
08/11/2026
Clerk/Secretary
PH2
1 of 876
MEETING DATE: August 11, 2026 PAGE 2
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF P24-0164, 552 WEST BOBIER DRIVE PROJECT Planning Review.
Current General Plan & Zoning: The site is designated as Medium Density Residential (MD) under Vista's General Plan, which allows for a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre. The site is zoned R -1-B Residential, which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet. Given that the project site is approximately 1.67 acres in size, the General Plan MD land use designation would allow for a maximum of 16 dwelling units, whereas the R -1-B zone would allow for a maximum of 12 units.
State Law. The project utilizes Senate Bill SB 330 (Housing Crisis Act (HCA)) and the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) to facilitate the development of 15 residences consistent with the allowable density under the General Plan. Under these state laws, the city must allow development at the proposed density when the project is consistent with the General Plan density although it is inconsistent with underlying zoning, and the city shall not require rezoning. Also, HCA/HAA prohibit local agencies from denying projects that comply with all objective standards, or conditioning such projects in a manner that reduces their density, unless the agency makes written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence that project would (i) have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety or violate specific state or federal law; and (ii) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact other than disapproval of the project or imposition of a condition that reduces its density.
The HAA also requires the city to waive objective development standards if their application to the project would prevent development of the allowable maximum density on the site and as proposed by the housing development project. The HAA also clarifies that if the zoning standards and criteria are inconsistent with applicable, objective general plan standards, but the development project is consistent with the applicable objective general plan standards for the site, then the housing development project cannot be found inconsistent with the standards and criteria of the zoning. Based on these restrictions, the City would not apply the following R -1-B Zone standards that would prevent physical development of the allowable maximum density under the General Plan and as proposed by the housing development project:
• VDC Section 18.28.040: 5 -foot minimum side setback. The project proposes zero -lot line side setbacks (attached units);
• VDC Section 18.30.060: minimum lot size 6,000 square feet. The project proposes lot sizes that range from 2,564 to 5,768 square feet, with the average lot size being 3,808 square feet; and • VDC Section 18.30.070: 60 percent maximum lot coverage by main buildings and required driveways. The project proposes lot coverage of up to approximately 77 percent (Lot 13).
Section 17.16.010 in the Vista Development Code contains design standards for all major subdivisions of land. The proposed single-family residential subdivision has been designed to comply with most applicable subdivision standards. However, the following standards have not been met: every lot shall contain the minimum lot area specified in the zoning ordinance for the zone; every lot shall be at least 50 feet wide exclusive of side yards required in the zone in which the lot is located measured at the building setback line; and lot depth shall be at least 90 feet and shall be no greater than three times the average width. These deviations are required to comply with the HAA (must waive objective development standards if their application to the project would prevent development of the allowable maximum density on the site and as proposed by the housing development project). In this case, lot area (VDC Section 17.16.010(B)), lot width (VDC Section 17.16.010(C)), and lot depth (VDC Section 17.16.010(1)) requirements are being waived due to HAA requirements.
Environmental Review. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the proposed project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which determined that the project would not result in any unmitigated significant environmental impacts. The MND was circulated for public review from April 3, 2026, to May 4, 2026. No comment letters were received by the City during public review of the environmental document. The project will be required to comply with the mitigation measures 08/11/2026
PH2 2 of 876
MEETING DATE: August 11, 2026 PAGE 3
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF P24-0164, 552 WEST BOBIER DRIVE PROJECT required by the MND (Exhibit 1A) and included within the project's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP, Exhibit 1B).
Required Findings. The draft findings for approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map and Site Development Plan are included in the attached Resolution (Exhibit 2). The required discretionary approvals are:
• Tentative Subdivision Map: Per Chapter 17.12 in the Vista Development Code, this map is required for the 15 -lot subdivision and private street shown in Exhibit 2B. • Site Development Plan: Per Chapter 18.64 in the Vista Development Code, this plan is required for determining project consistency with the City's General Plan 2030, Development Code, and Landscape Manual.
Planning Commission Hearing. A public hearing was held at the Planning Commission on June 16, 2026, to consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Site Development Plan for the project. At the completion of the hearing, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to approve the project as outlined in the meeting minutes (Exhibit 4).
Reason for Appeal. The appeal states the reason as, "Ensuring the preservation of sensitive artifacts in perpetuity by amending conditions to include information relevant for the proper stewardship and preservation of sensitive artifacts."
Project Information Relevant to Appeal:
• Cultural Resources Report: The Cultural Resources Survey Report conducted for the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Appendix C to MND) concluded that the site is not eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources and that project impacts are not considered significant under CEQA.
The property has been disturbed due to previous development and clearing. Nonetheless, archeological records indicate that the surrounding area remains sensitive for prehistoric resources and there remains the potential for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources during grading. Therefore, based on the report's recommendations, the MMRP includes mitigation measures related to archaeological and Native American monitoring during grading of the subject property. The report does not consider the on -site rock outcroppings (including Frog Rock) to be cultural resources under CEQA. Cultural resources must be either a "historic resource" or a "unique archeological resource" as defined under CEQA.
• AB 52 Tribal Cultural Resources: Pursuant to AB 52, the city conducted government -to -government consultations with two Native American Tribes. Both tribes concluded consultation with the city in February 2026, having reviewed the project's proposed cultural mitigation measures which include archaeological and tribal monitoring, and protocols for discovery of cultural material and human remains.
• Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures: In summary, mitigation measures in the MMRP (Exhibit 1B) ensure: Archeological and Native American monitoring during grading operations and subsequent reporting requirements; Cultural items discovery, evaluation, recordation, and treatment protocols; Preservation in perpetuity of the Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) open space easement to limit any potential impacts to cultural resources from ground disturbing activities such as construction or staging; Grading and construction protocols. • Froc Rock Maintenance/Painting: During the June 16, 2026 Planning Commission hearing:
o The project applicant recognized that there was social media buzz regarding the frog rock, and that he was open to establishing a condition of approval requiring the future HOA to maintain the frog painting.
o The Commission was pleased that the rock outcropping was being maintained in the project's design and incorporated into the ESA open space easement. o Staff commented that the frog painting was on private property and the city would not be responsible for its upkeep; the ESA open space easement would protect that easement area and the rock outcropping would remain in place, but would not require ongoing maintenance related to the painting.
08/11/2026
PH2 3 of 876
MEETING DATE: August 11, 2026 PAGE 4
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF P24-0164, 552 WEST BOBIER DRIVE PROJECT o The Planning Commission motion to approve the project included the added condition, "The CC&Rs for the subdivision shall require the HOA to be responsible for the maintenance of the painted frog rock located within the ESA open space easement onsite, including but not limited to as -needed paint application."
• June 26, 2026 Letter from Applicant: In response to the appeal, the project applicant, Michael Schweitzer, submitted a letter (Exhibit 6) to propose that the project CCR's specify that the frog rock painting maintenance to be performed by the HOA would follow the painting scheme and colors for the current appearance of the frog rock as shown in the photo images attached to said letter. The photo images would be placed into the project's CC&Rs for the HOA to reference for its maintenance obligations.
Levine Act Disclosure. Applicant submitted a complete disclosure form attached as Exhibit 7.
FISCAL IMPACT: This project, if completed, is estimated to generate approximately $19,980 in annual property tax revenue for the City. The project would also be responsible for the payment of development impact fees as a condition of development. The property tax revenue generated by the project is anticipated to offset any increase in public services generated by the project.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 2026- , adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 552 W. Bobier Drive Project, Planning Case No. P24-0164, with Exhibits A and B.
2. City Council Resolution No. 2026- , denying the appeal and approving Tentative Subdivision Map and Site Development Plan to construct 15 single-family attached residential units on a 1.67 -acre site located at 552 W. Bobier Drive (APN 161-030-07-00), with Exhibits A and B.
3. June 16, 2026 Planning Commission Staff Report
4. June 16, 2026 Planning Commission Minutes
5. June 26, 2026 Appeal of P24-0164
6. June 26, 2026 Letter from Applicant
7. Levine Act Disclosure Schweitzer 07-20-2026
8. Location Map
9. Large Scale Plans (limited distribution)
08/11/2026
PH2 4 of 876
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2026-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CHARTERED CITY OF
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE 552 W. BOBIER DRIVE PROJECT, PLANNING CASE NO. P24-0164
The City Council of the City of Vista does resolve as follows:
1. Findings. The City Council hereby finds and declares the following:
A. The applicant, SWS Engineering, Inc., filed an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map and Site Development Plan to allow for the construction of 15 attached single-family residences, a private roadway, and associated improvements on an approximately 1.67 -acre site located at 552 W. Bobier Drive (APN 161-030-07-00).
B. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared for the proposed project.
C. A notice describing the proposed project and the intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was duly mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the property boundaries and published in the "The Coast News," a newspaper of general circulation on April 3, 2026, more than 30 days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing in order to provide an opportunity for public comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
D. The City did not receive any comment letters regarding the information included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
E. Potential environmental impacts in the areas of Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Land Use and Planning, and Noise would be mitigated to less than significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto as Exhibit "B".
F. On June 16, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, duly noticed and conducted in the manner required by law, on said application and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, and at said public hearing every person wishing to address the Planning Commission regarding said application and Mitigated Negative Declaration had an opportunity to do so.
G. On June 26, 2026, an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval was filed.
H. On August 11, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMRP, Tentative Subdivision Map and a Site Development Plan to P24-0164 RESO MND
08/11/2026
EXHIBIT 1
PH2
5 of 876
RESOLUTION 2026 -
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CHARTERED CITY OF VISTA
PAGE NO. 2
construct 15 single-family attached homes and associated site improvements on a 1.67 - acre site located at 552 W. Bobier Drive.
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered said application and Mitigated Negative Declaration, all written comments received, and all comments presented at the public hearing in reaching its recommendation on the application.
2. Action.
A. The above recitals are true and correct.
B. Based upon the Initial Study and the reports, comments and recommendations received, the City Council finds and determines that there is no substantial evidence in the record before it that the project, if mitigated as proposed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, may have a significant effect on the environment.
C. The City Council, pursuant to Section 15074 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B".
D. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Planner to prepare and file a Notice of Determination with respect to said Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in the office of the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, as provided in the California Environmental Quality Act. [Continued on next page]
P24-0164 RESO MND
08/11/2026
PH2 6 of 876
RESOLUTION 2026 -
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CHARTERED CITY OF VISTA
PAGE NO. 3
3. Adoption. PASSED AND APPROVED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the Chartered City of Vista held on August 11, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
JOHN B. FRANKLIN, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
Walter Chung, City Attorney Kathy Valdez, City Clerk
By: By:
Exhibits:
A. Mitigated Negative Declaration
B. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
APPROVED
Walter C. Chung
20260727133520
P24-0164 RESO MND
08/11/2026
PH2 7 of 876
CITY OF VISTA
C A L I F O R N I A
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P24-0164
PROJECT NAME:
552 West Bobier Drive Project
PROJECT LOCATION: 552 West Bobier Drive, southeast of the intersection of Sports Park Way and West Bobier Drive
APN:
161-030-07-00
PROJECT APPLICANT: SWS Engineering, Inc
1635 Lake San Marcos Drive
San Marcos, CA 92078
(760) 744-0011
LEAD AGENCY:
PUBLIC REVIEW
PERIOD:
City of Vista
Community Development Department
Planning Division
200 Civic Center Drive, Vista, California 92084
Chris Winters, Senior Planner
(760) 643-5394
April 3, 2026, to May 4, 2026
08/11/2026
PH2 8 of 876
This page intentionally left blank
08/11/2026
PH2 9 of 876
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Topic Page
Chapter 1 - Introduction 1-1
CEQA Overview 1-1
Authority 1-1
Scope 1-1
Chapter 2 - Environmental Setting and Project Description 2-1 Project Overview 2-1
Existing Environmental Setting 2-1
Surrounding Land Uses 2-2
Proposed Project Description 2-2
Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist 3-1
Project Information 3-1
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 3-2
Environmental Determination 3-2
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 3-3
Aesthetics 3-4
II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources 3-6
II I. Air Quality 3-7
IV. Biological Resources 3-12
V. Cultural Resources 3-15
VI. Energy 3-18
VII. Geology and Soils 3-19
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3-23
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3-25
X. Hydrology and Water Quality 3-28
XI. Land Use and Planning 3-31
XII. Mineral Resources 3-37
XIII. Noise 3-38
XIV. Population and Housing 3-47
XV. Public Services 3-48
XVI. Recreation 3-50
XVII. Transportation/Traffic 3-51
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources 3-53
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems 3-54
XX. Wildfire 3-56
XXI. Mandatory Finding of Significance 3-58
Chapter 4 - References and List of Preparers 4-1
References 4-1
Individuals and Organizations Consulted 4-4
Preparers 4-4
552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
08/11/2026
PH2
10 of 876
Attachment A Figures
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report Biological Technical Report
Cultural Resources Survey Report
Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report
Drainage Study
Priority Development Project (PDP) Storm Water Management Plan (SWQMP) Noise Assessment Study
Project Information Form
Water Study
552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
08/11/2026
ii
PH2 11 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 1 - Introduction
Chapter 1 - Introduction
CEQA Overview
The City of Vista (City) Planning Division has prepared this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) to evaluate the potential environmental consequences associated with the proposed 552 West Bobier Drive Project ("proposed project" or "project"), which would include a Tentative Subdivision Map and Site Development Plan. As part of the permitting process, the proposed project is required to undergo an environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). One of the main objectives of CEQA is to disclose to the public and decision makers the potential environmental effects of proposed activities. CEQA requires that the lead agency prepare an IS to determine the appropriate CEQA document needed. The City's Planning Division is the lead agency for the proposed project under CEQA.
Authority
The preparation of this IS/MND is governed by two principal sets of documents: CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). Specifically, the preparation of an IS and an MND is guided by the State CEQA Guidelines; Section 15063 describes the requirements for an IS, and Sections 15070-15073 describe the process and requirements for the preparation of an MND. Where appropriate and supportive to an understanding of the issues, reference will be made either to the CEQA statute or State CEQA Guidelines. This IS/MND contains all the contents required by CEQA, which includes a project description, a description of the environmental setting, potential environmental impacts, mitigation measures for any significant effects, consistency with plans and policies, and names of preparers.
Scope
This IS/MND evaluates the proposed project's effects on the following resource topics:
• aesthetics
• agriculture and forestry resources
• air quality
• biological resources
• cultural resources
• energy
• geology and soils
• greenhouse gas emissions
• hazards and hazardous materials
• hydrology and water quality
• land use and planning
• mineral resources
• noise
• population and housing
• public services
• recreation
• transportation
• tribal cultural resources
• utilities and service systems
• wildfire
• mandatory findings of significance
552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
08/11/2026
1-1
PH2 12 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 1 - Introduction
This page intentionally left blank
552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
08/11/2026
1-2
PH2 13 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 2 - Environmental Setting and Project Description Chapter 2 - Environmental Setting
and Project Description
Project Overview
The project proposes a Tentative Subdivision Map and Site Development Plan for the construction of 15 attached single-family residential units. The units would each be approximately 2,200 square feet (SF), and the total project building area would be 33,000 SF. The project site is 1.67 acres in size and is comprised of one parcel (Assessor's Parcel Number [APN] 161-030-07-00).
The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential (MD). The MD designation allows a residential density of up to 10 dwelling units per acre. The project site is zoned Single -Family Residential (R -1-B), allowing up to 10 dwelling units per acre.
The project site is located at 552 West Bobier Drive in the northwestern portion of the City of Vista (City) within San Diego County (County). See Figure 1, Regional Location. More specifically, the project site is located southeast of the intersection of West Bobier Drive and Sports Park Way, directly east of the City's boundary with the City of Oceanside. The project site is bordered by West Bobier Drive to the north, single-family residences to the south, the Moderna Melrose Mixed -Use Development Project to the west, and single-family residences to the east. Access would be provided by one driveway on the northeastern edge of the site along West Bobier Drive. See Figure 2, Aerial Photograph.
Existing Environmental Setting
City of Vista
The City is a largely developed, predominantly low -density residential community located approximately seven miles inland from the Pacific Ocean in the northern portion of the County. Clusters of urbanizing higher -density areas are scattered throughout the central portion of the City and along arterial roads. The City is located in the rolling topography of the western foothills of the San Marcos Mountains, with elevations ranging from approximately 200 feet to about 750 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). Broad views are provided from various points throughout the City, with some higher elevations offering vistas of the Pacific Ocean to the west. In addition to the topography of the mountains and hills, the City is vegetated from the low-level creek beds to the steep slopes of the foothills, which also provide some scenic attributes of the community. The City also has two major creeks that flow through its boundaries, Buena Vista Creek and Agua Hedionda Creek.
Project Site
The project site is generally characterized by previously graded and disturbed flat land comprised of scattered trees, bushes, and several large rock outcroppings. The site was previously occupied by a single-family home and associated landscaping, which were subsequently demolished and cleared in approximately 2008 or 2009. The site has remained vacant since.
Elevations range from approximately 440 to 470 feet AMSL, sloping generally from east to west on the eastern portion of the property. The topography suggests that the property generally drains to the south. The vegetation communities/land use types that occur on the project site include disturbed habitat and urban/developed land. In addition, several large boulders occur in the northern portion of the project site.
552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
08/11/2026
2-1
PH2 14 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 2 - Environmental Setting and Project Description Surrounding Land Uses
Land uses surrounding the project site include West Bobier Drive to the north, single-family residences to the south, the Moderna Melrose Mixed -Use Development Project to the west, and single-family residences to the east. Multi -family residential uses exist to the north of West Bobier Drive. See Figure
2. The closest school to the site is Maryland Elementary School, located at 700 North Avenue, approximately 0.4 mile southwest of the project site. The closest City fire station to the site is Vista Fire Department (VFD) Station No. 6, located at 651 East Vista Way, approximately 1.5 miles to the southeast of the project site. The closest police station to the site is the San Diego County Sheriff's Department Vista Station, located at 325 South Melrose Drive #210, approximately 1.9 miles south of the project site. The nearest public airports to the project site are McClellan Palomar Airport, located approximately 6.2 miles southwest of the project site, and Oceanside Municipal Airport, located approximately 5.3 miles west of the project site.
Proposed Project Description
The applicant seeks approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map and Site Development Plan for the construction of 15 single-family attached residential units. The units would each be approximately 2,200 SF, and the total project building area would be 33,000 SF. The residential units would each be comprised of three bedrooms and would be two stories tall. The lot sizes would range from 2,564 SF to 5,768 SF, with the average lot size being 3,808 SF. Each unit would include approximately 1,067 SF of private outdoor space in the form of a backyard and patio. See Figure 3, Site Plan and Figure 4, Building Renderings.
Access to the project would be provided via one 24 -foot driveway located on West Bobier Drive, approximately 250 feet east of the intersection of Sports Park Way and West Bobier Drive, which would connect to a private drive aisle located in the central portion of the site between the residential buildings. Resident parking would be provided via two -car garages attached to each of the residences.
The project would include various drainage improvements and pollutant control best management practices (BMPs), including grouted rip rap and multiple biofiltration basins throughout the project site.
The northern central portion of the site encompassing several existing large rock outcroppings would be incorporated into an open space easement as an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) which would prohibit future development. Project landscaping would include the planting of 31 trees along with various shrubs, groundcover, and grasses throughout the site.
The project would include improvements on West Bobier Drive, including a new curb and gutter, replacement of the existing sidewalk, and enhanced paving. The project would include connections extending from the private drive to existing water and sewer infrastructure in West Bobier Drive.
The project's proposed 15 single-family dwelling units, which provide a net density of 9 units per acre, would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the project site of MD (10 dwelling units/acre) and the zoning designation of R -1-B (10 dwelling units/acre).
Project construction activities would consist of grading, site preparation, installation of underground utilities, physical building construction, paving, and application of architectural coatings. Construction of the project would last approximately nine months. Site preparation would require the removal of approximately 200 cubic yards of debris and vegetation. Grading is estimated to require even cut and fill of 6,500 cubic yards with no export. Due to the several large rock outcroppings that occur on the site, blasting may be required for subsurface rocks.
552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
08/11/2026
2-2
PH2 15 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 2 - Environmental Setting and Project Description Construction Best Management Practices
The project would incorporate BMPs during construction to reduce emissions of fugitive dust. The San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) Rule 55 - Fugitive Dust Control states that no dust and/or dirt shall leave the property line. SDAPCD Rule 55 requires the following (SDAPCD 2009):
(1) Airborne Dust Beyond the Property Line: No person shall engage in construction or demolition activity subject to this rule in a manner that discharges visible dust emissions into the atmosphere beyond the property line for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any 60 -minute period.
(2) Track-Out/Carry-Out: Visible roadway dust as a result of active operations, spillage from transport trucks, erosion, or track-out/carry-out shall:
(i) be minimized by the use of any of the following or equally effective track-out/carry-out and erosion control measures that apply to the project or operation:
(a) track -out grates or gravel beds at each egress point; (b) wheel -washing at each egress during muddy conditions, soil binders, chemical soil stabilizers, geotextiles, mulching, or seeding; and for outbound transport trucks;
(c) using secured tarps or cargo covering, watering, or treating of transported material; and
(ii) be removed at the conclusion of each workday when active operations cease, or every 24 hours for continuous operations. If a street sweeper is used to remove any track-out/carry-out, only PMio-efficient (particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter) street sweepers certified to meet the most current South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1186 requirements shall be used. The use of blowers for removal of track-out/carry-out is prohibited under any circumstances.
The control measures listed below are the BMPs that the project would incorporate for dust control and are included in the air emissions modeling:
• A minimum of two applications of water shall be applied during grading between dozer/grader passes;
• Paving, chip sealing, or chemical stabilization of internal roadways shall be applied after completion of grading;
• Grading shall be halted when winds exceed 25 miles per hour (mph); • All exposed surfaces shall maintain a minimum soil moisture of 12 percent; • Dirt storage piles shall be stabilized by chemical binders, tarps, fencing, or other erosion control; and
• Vehicle speeds shall be limited to 15 mph on unpaved roads. 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
08/11/2026
2-3
PH2 16 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 2 - Environmental Setting and Project Description Additional Approvals
Besides review under CEQA, the applicant and/or contractor of the proposed project would be required to obtain the following additional approvals and/or permits from the City: Site Development Plan, Right - of -Way Permit, grading permit, Landscape Construction Plan, and (eventually) Building Permits. These approvals require meeting certain Conditions of Project Approval prior to obtaining the required permits. In addition, before the Final (Subdivision) Map is recorded, all Conditions of Project Approval (which include the mitigation measures identified in this document) must be satisfactorily completed.
Other public agency approvals are identified in Chapter 3. 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 2-4
08/11/2026 PH2 17 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist Chapter 3 - Initial Study
Environmental Checklist
Project Information
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
CONTACT PERSON:
PROJECT LOCATION:
PROJECT APPLICANT:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
ZONING DESIGNATION:
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
552 West Bobier Drive Project
City of Vista
Community Development Department
Planning Division
200 Civic Center Drive
Vista, California 92084
Chris Winters, Senior Planner
(760) 643-5394
Southeast of the intersection of Sports Park Way and West Bobier Drive at 552 West Bobier Drive in Vista, California.
SWS Engineering, Inc.
1635 Lake San Marcos Drive
San Marcos, CA 92078
(760) 744-0011
MD (Medium Density Residential; 10 du/acre)
R -1-B (Single -Family Residential; 10 du/acre)
See Chapter 2, Proposed Project Description.
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING: See Chapter 2, Proposed Project Description.
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVALS:
The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is responsible for approving the Notice of Intent and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the requirements of the most recent National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Activities Permit.
552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
08/11/2026
3-1
PH2
18 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Based upon the initial evaluation presented in the following IS, it is concluded that the proposed project would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts.
Environmental Determination
On the basis of the initial evaluation of the attached Initial Study:
▪ I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
▪ I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
▪ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
▪ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
April 3, 2026
Signature Date
The signature below signifies that the applicant has read and accepts the mitigation measures detailed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
77t,tc‘aaeE D. Scluueiripic
April 1, 2026
Applicant or Owner Date
552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
08/11/2026
3-2
PH2 19 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
The following IS checklist provides an analysis of the proposed project's potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts. Section 15063(c) of the Guidelines indicates that the purpose of an Initial Study is to:
1. Provide the Lead Agency ("City of Vista") with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration;
2. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a Negative Declaration;
3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by:
a) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant; b) Identifying the effects determined not to be significant; c) Explaining the reasons why potentially significant effects would not be significant; and, d) Identifying whether a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process can be used for analysis of the project's environmental effects.
4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project.
5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs.
7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.
Impact Terminology
The following terminology is used to describe the level of significance of impacts:
• A finding of no impact is appropriate if the analysis concludes that the project would not affect the particular topic area in any way.
• An impact is considered less than significant if the analysis concludes that it would not cause substantial adverse change to the environment and requires no mitigation. • An impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated if the analysis concludes that it would not cause substantial adverse change to the environment with the inclusion of environmental commitments that have been agreed to by the applicant. • An impact is considered potentially significant if the analysis concludes that it could have a substantial adverse effect on the environment.
552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-3
08/11/2026 PH2 20 of 876
City of Vista
Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics
Would the project
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
❑
•
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views of the site and
its surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would
the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
E El
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
❑
la
r
Discussion
a. No IMPACT. A scenic vista is generally defined as a public viewpoint that provides expansive or notable views of a highly valued landscape and is typically identified in planning documents, such as a community plan or general plan, but can also include locally known areas or locations where high - quality public views are available. According to the Vista General Plan Update 2030 Program EIR (General Plan EIR), based on general viewing areas, there are two main viewsheds in the City: the San Marcos Mountains to the east and northeast, and the canyons in the southwestern portion of the City.
In accordance with these two viewsheds, the City has identified six public vantage points, which are a combination of routes and specific locations from which these viewsheds are most prominent (City 2011).
The project site is not located within one of the six public vantage points identified in the General Plan EIR. The nearest public vantage point is Public Vantage Point 3: West Bobier Drive, located approximately 0.35 mile east of the project site. According to the General Plan EIR, the vantage point from West Bobier Drive within the northwestern area of the City offers views of the San Marcos Mountains to the east (City 2011). At a distance of 0.35 mile and with intervening topography and the proposed project height of two stories, project implementation would not have a substantial adverse effect on views from this designated public vantage point. Thus, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. No impact would occur. b. No IMPACT. There are no officially designated state scenic highways in the vicinity of the project site.
The nearest state scenic highway is State Route (SR) 52, which is approximately 25 miles south of the project site. The nearest eligible state scenic highway is SR -76, which is approximately 2.25 miles north of the project site. At this distance, project elements would not affect views from SR -76.
Additionally, the City's General Plan does not identify any scenic roadways near the project site (City 2011). Therefore, the proposed project would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. No impact would occur.
552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
08/11/2026
3-4
PH2 21 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist C. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Public Resources Code 21071 defines the term "urbanized area" for the purpose of CEQA to mean an incorporated city that has a population of at least 100,000 persons or has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) data from 2024 indicates that the City has a population of 107,444 and the adjacent City of Oceanside has a population of 167,567 (SANDAG 2O24a; SANDAG 2O24b). The project site is within an urbanized area as defined by Public Resources Code 21071 and, therefore, is evaluated relative to applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
The project site is zoned for single-family residential uses, which is not indicative of a zoning to protect scenic resources. According to Vista Development Code Chapter 18.30, the R -1-B zone is intended for uses, including but not limited to, one -family dwellings, home occupations, flower and vegetable gardening, and residential care homes. The project involves the construction of 15 attached single- family residences and would be designed to adhere to the General Plan land use and community design goal of sharing common development patterns among neighborhoods.
Currently, the project site is vacant and is comprised of previously graded and disturbed flat land comprised of scattered trees, bushes, and several large rock outcroppings. The project would transform the site into the proposed residential land uses while maintaining the central northern area where the rock outcroppings are located as a designated open space easement. The project would provide landscaping with groundcover, grasses, shrubs, and trees that would contribute to improved visual quality of the site. Further, since the current R -1-B zoning is not intended to protect scenic resources, the project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. In addition, the project would meet the density, bulk, and height requirements of the zoning code. Impacts would be less than significant.
d. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. There are two primary sources of light: light emanating from building interiors that passes through windows and light from exterior sources (e.g., street lighting, parking lot lighting, building illumination, security lighting, and landscape lighting). The introduction of light can be a nuisance by affecting adjacent areas and diminishing the view of the clear sky, depending on the location of the light sources and their proximity to nearby light-sensitive areas. The project site is located in an area that is developed with residential land uses. The existing light sources in the project area include building lights, streetlights, and security lights.
The project would introduce residential lighting that would be similar to the existing residential lighting in surrounding neighborhoods. Such lighting would include security or ambiance lighting as well as light cast from the interior of the homes. Proposed lighting would be required to conform to the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), as well as Vista Development Code Section 18.58.260, which regulates lighting. Such adherence would require that the project equip outdoor lighting used for architectural or decorative purposes with automatic timing devices, fully shield or direct the lights towards the ground, and use lights that only emit the minimum amount of light necessary. Additionally, the proposed lighting would be similar to the existing project area lighting and would not introduce new and unique sources of light that would be substantial in relation to the existing lighting characteristics of the project area. Although the project would introduce new sources of light, the sources would be similar in nature to the surrounding land uses, and the project would adhere to the applicable regulations. Therefore, the project would not create a new source of substantial light, which would adversely affect views in the area. Impacts would be less than significant.
Glare impacts can occur because of artificial light or sunlight reflecting off a surface. Glare can create discomfort or present safety concerns. The project is to be constructed with primarily stucco facades, which would not be a source of glare. Glass would be limited to windows and doors, typical of residential construction, and no other highly reflective surfaces would be provided. The extent and 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-5
08/11/2026 PH2 22 of 876
City of Vista
Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist
surface area of glass on the homes would not be at a scale to generate adverse glare effects. As such, the project would not create a new source of glare that would adversely affect views in the area.
Impacts would be less than significant.
II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Would the project
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
[l
No
Impact
(0
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
El
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non- forest use?
Discussion
a. No IMPACT. According to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Department of Conservation (California Department of Conservation [DOC] 2020), the project site is classified as Farmland of Local Importance (land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county's board of supervisors and a local advisory committee). However, the project site does not contain Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. In addition, the project site is zoned for single-family residential uses and has not historically been utilized for agricultural purposes.
Implementation of the project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. No impact would occur. b. No IMPACT. The Williamson Act is designed to prevent the premature and unnecessary conversion of open space lands and agricultural areas to urban uses and enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land for use as agricultural or related open space. As stated in item II.a, the project site is zoned for single family residential uses and has not historically been utilized for agricultural purposes. The Williamson Act is only applicable to parcels within an established agricultural preserve consisting of at least 20 acres of Prime Farmland, or at least 40 acres of land not designated as Prime Farmland. Additionally, it is not within an established agricultural preserve consisting of at least 20 acres of Prime Farmland or at least 40 acres of land not designated as Prime Farmland, and there is no Williamson Act contract that 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
08/11/2026
3-6
PH2 23 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist directs land use at the site. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur. c. No IMPACT. Public Resources Code Section 1222O(g) defines "forest land" as land that can support ten percent native cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. Based on this definition, no forest land occurs within or adjacent to the project site. Timberland is land, other than land owned by the Federal government and designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire (CAL FIRE) Board of Forestry as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. The project site is currently vacant and is comprised of scattered trees, bushes, and several large rock outcroppings, and does not contain forestlands, timberlands, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Moreover, there is no land zoned as forest land or timberland that exists within the project site or within its vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land or timberland. No impact would occur. d. No IMPACT. As stated in item II.c, there is no land zoned as forest land or timberland that exists within the project site or its vicinity. The site has not been historically, and is not currently, used or planned to be used for forest land. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. No impact would occur. e. No IMPACT. As stated in item IL.a, the project site is in an area classified as Farmland of Local Importance by the DOC. However, the project site is zoned for single-family residential uses and has not historically been utilized for agricultural purposes. According to the General Plan EIR, since no substantial areas of agricultural use occur within the majority of the General Plan planning area, the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use would not occur (City 2011). Thus, the project would not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. No impact would occur.
III. Air Qualit
Would the project
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
❑
a
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non- attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
❑
a
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
❑
❑
❑
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
❑
❑
❑
❑
552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
08/11/2026
3-7
PH2
24 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist The discussion below is summarized and based on the analysis and conclusions contained within the Bobier Property Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report prepared for the project by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX; 2025a). The report is included as Appendix A to this IS/MND.
Discussion
a. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. SDAPCD and SANDAG are responsible for developing and implementing the clean air plan for the attainment and maintenance of the ambient air quality standards in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). In addition, the SDAPCD relies on the State Implementation Plan (SIP), which is a series of comprehensive plans that describe how an area will attain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The SIP also includes the SDAPCD's plans and control measures for attaining the ozone NAAQS. The regional air quality plan for San Diego County is SDAPCD's 2020 Plan for Attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego County (Attainment Plan).
The two principal criteria for conformance to the Attainment Plan are (1) whether the project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards, and (2) whether the project would exceed the assumptions in the Attainment Plan.
The Attainment Plan relies on information from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and SANDAG, including projected growth in San Diego County, and mobile, area, and all other source emissions to project future emissions and determine from that the strategies necessary for the reduction of stationary source emissions through regulatory controls. CARB's mobile source emission projections and SANDAG's growth projections are based on population, employment and transportation trends, and land use plans developed by the local governments. Accordingly, projects that propose development that is consistent with the population and employment growth anticipated by these land use plans would be consistent with the Attainment Plan. If a project proposes development that results in growth greater than that anticipated in the adopted land use plans and SANDAG's growth projections upon which the Attainment Plan is based, the project may conflict with the Attainment Plan and could have a potentially significant impact on air quality. This situation would warrant further analysis to determine if the project would exceed the growth projections used in the Attainment Plan for the specific subregional area.
The project site has a land use designation of MD in the City's General Plan and is zoned as R -1-B, which each allow for a residential density of 10 dwelling units per acre. The project proposes a single- family residential development with a density of approximately 9 dwelling units per acre, which is below the 10 dwelling units per acre density allowed by the project site's land use designation and zoning.
Therefore, the project would be consistent with the land use plans and growth projections upon which the Regional Air Quality Standards and Attainment Plan are based. As such, residential growth in the City as a result of the project, and the related changes in regional emissions, are accounted for in the SIP, which is crafted to bring the basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants. As detailed in item Ill.b below, the project would not result in any operational period emissions in exceedance of established thresholds. However, impacts associated with blasting during construction of the project are assessed as potentially significant, and mitigation measure AQ-1 would be required. Therefore, the proposed project could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Attainment Plan. However, with implementation of mitigation measure AQ-1, which would require the preparation of a site -specific analysis related to blasting, impacts would be less than significant. 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-8
08/11/2026 PH2 25 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist b. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The project would generate criteria pollutants in the short-term during construction and the long-term during operation. To determine whether a project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutant emissions that would violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, the project's anticipated emissions were evaluated using the quantitative emission thresholds established by the SDAPCD.
Construction Emissions
The project's temporary construction emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) Version 2022.1. The results of the modeling of the project's construction emissions of criteria pollutants and ozone precursors are shown in Table AQ-1, Maximum Daily Construction Emissions. The data are presented as the maximum anticipated daily emissions for comparison with the SDAPCD thresholds. The complete CaIEEMod output and methodology discussion is provided in Appendix A.
Table AQ-1
MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Year/Season
VOC*
NOx*
CO*
SOx*
PMio*
PM2.5*
2025/Summer
4.5 23.5
26.9 <0.1
3.6 2.1
2025/Winter
4.8 14.6
18.5 <0.1
0.7 0.6
Maximum Daily Emissions
4.8 23.5
26.9 <0.1
3.6 2.1
SDAPCD Thresholds
137
250
550
250
100
67 Exceed Thresholds?
No
No
No
No
No
No
Source: CaIEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix A) * Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day)
VOC = volatile organic compound; NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PMio = 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 As shown in Table AQ-1, the project's modeled temporary construction -related criteria pollutant and precursor emissions would be below the SDAPCD's significance thresholds. The daily emissions presented in Table AQ-1 do not include potential emissions from blasting.
Although the large rock outcroppings located on the northern portion of the site would be protected in place, blasting may occur due to the likely presence of subsurface rock formations on the site. Blasting involves drilling small holes into the rock and placing explosives. Flyrock protection is installed prior to blasting, and seismographs are placed to measure and record peak particle velocity and air blast levels at various distances from the blast site. However, the type and quantity of explosive material used, and the potential timing and need for blasts cannot be determined at this time because this information depends on the site -specific conditions and requirements of each location. As such, details regarding blasting for project components are unavailable at the current level of project design, and analysis of impacts associated with blasting would be speculative and likely inaccurate. Where blasting may be used, dust control measures are also implemented and include a combination of steel plate covers, geo-textile fabric with chain link fence covering, and wetting of the blasting surface. In the event that blasting is utilized, the blasting contractor would be required to obtain a blasting permit and an explosive permit. However, a site -specific analysis would be necessary to ensure that emissions from blasting activities would be within the daily SDAPCD emission limits. Therefore, impacts associated with blasting for the project are assessed as potentially significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 below, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
08/11/2026
3-9
PH2 26 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist
MITIGATION MEASURES
AQ-1 Site -specific Analysis Related to Blasting. Prior to the commencement of blasting activities, the Applicant shall require the preparation of a project -specific air quality impact analysis by a qualified air quality consultant for any project activities that requires blasting to verify that blasting emissions are less than the daily SDAPCD significance thresholds listed in Table 7. If blasting results in exceedances of emissions thresholds, the Applicant shall implement additional measures to reduce emissions to within SDAPCD daily screening level thresholds.
These measures may include reducing the size, extent, or number of blasting events on a given day. The specific additional measures, if required, shall be determined by the qualified air quality consultant based on the results of the final air quality analysis. If the measures are unable to reduce emissions to within SDAPCD daily screening level thresholds, no blasting shall occur. In this scenario, any substitute method for blasting shall also have an air quality analysis performed as described above that demonstrates the emissions would be within SDAPCD screening level thresholds.
Operational Emissions
The project's long-term maximum daily and annual operational emissions were estimated using CaIEEMod. The results of the modeling of the project's operational emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors are shown in Table AQ-2, Operational Emissions. The data are presented as the maximum anticipated daily emissions and annual emissions for comparison with the SDAPCD thresholds. The complete CaIEEMod output and a thorough discussion on methodology are provided in Appendix A.
Table AQ-2
OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source
VOC*
NOx*
CO*
SOx*
PMio*
PM2.5*
Daily Emissions (pounds per day)2
Area
0.6 0.4
3.7 <0.1
0.8 0.2
Energy
0.8 -
0.9 <0.1
<O.1
<0.1
Mobile
<0.1
0.1 <0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Total Project Emissions1
1.4 0.5
4.6 <0.1
0.8 0.2
SDAPCD Daily Thresholds
137
250
550
250
100
67 Exceed Daily Threshold?
No
No
No
No
No
No
Annual Emissions (tons per year)
Area
<0.1
<0.1
0.6 <0.1
0.1 <0.1
Energy
0.1 <0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Mobile
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Total Project Emissions)
0.2 <0.1
0.7 <0.1
0.1 <0.1
SDAPCD Annual Thresholds
15 40
100
40 15
10 Exceed Annual Threshold?
No
No
No
No
No
No
Source: CaIEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix A) 1 Totals may not sum due to rounding.
2 Winter emissions are very slightly higher for most substances.
VOC = volatile organic compound; NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PMio = 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 As shown in Table AQ-2, the project's long-term emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors would not exceed the SDAPCD daily or annual screening thresholds. Therefore, the project's operational activities would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants that would 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
08/11/2026
3-10
PH2 27 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Impacts would be less than significant.
C. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Impacts to sensitive receptors are typically analyzed for operational period carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots and exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs). An analysis of the project's potential to expose sensitive receptors to these pollutants is provided below.
Construction Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions
Implementation of the project would result in the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, haul trucks, on -site generators, and construction worker vehicles. These vehicles and equipment could generate the TAC diesel particulate matter (DPM). Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a localized area (e.g., at the project site) for a short period of time. Because construction activities and subsequent emissions vary depending on the phase of construction (e.g., grading, building construction), the construction -related emissions to which nearby receptors are exposed to would also vary throughout the construction period. During some equipment -intensive phases, such as grading, construction -related emissions would be higher than other, less equipment - intensive phases, such as building construction. Concentrations of mobile -source DPM emissions are typically reduced by 70 percent at approximately 500 feet.
The dose (of TAC) to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk.
Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance in the environment and the extent of exposure a person has with the substance; a longer exposure period to a fixed amount of emissions would result in higher health risks. Current models and methodologies for conducting cancer health risk assessments are associated with longer -term exposure periods (typically 30 years for individual residents based on guidance from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment) and are best suited for evaluation of long duration TAC emissions with predictable schedules and locations.
These assessment models and methodologies do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. Cancer potency factors are based on animal lifetime studies or worker studies where there is long-term exposure to the carcinogenic agent. There is considerable uncertainty in trying to evaluate the cancer risk from projects that will only last a small fraction of a lifetime. Considering this information, the highly dispersive nature of DPM, and the fact that construction activities would occur at various locations throughout the project site for a limited duration, it is not anticipated that construction of the project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial DPM concentrations. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Localized Carbon Monoxide Hots Dots
A CO hotspot is an area of localized CO pollution caused by severe vehicle congestion on major roadways, typically near intersections. Vehicle exhaust is the primary source of CO. In an urban setting, the highest CO concentrations are generally found within close proximity to congested intersections.
Under typical meteorological conditions, CO concentrations tend to decrease as distance from the emissions source (i.e., congested intersection) increases. Project -generated traffic has the potential of contributing to localized "hot spots" of CO off -site. Because CO is a byproduct of incomplete combustion, exhaust emissions are worse when fossil -fueled vehicles are operated inefficiently, such as in stop -and -go traffic or through heavily congested intersections, where the level of service (LOS) is severely degraded.
Based on SANDAG's trip generation guide (SANDAG 2002), the project's 15 single-family homes would generate 150 average daily trips (ADT) with 12 morning peak trips and 15 afternoon peak trips. Based on the Project Information Form prepared for the project (Appendix H), the project would not be required to prepare a Local Transportation Study or LOS analysis, and the peak hour trips generated 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
08/11/2026
3-11
PH2 28 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist by the project would not be enough to substantially affect the roadway network. The project would not contribute to a CO hotspot, and impacts would be less than significant. d. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The State of California Health and Safety Code Sections 41700 and 41705, and SDAPCD Rule 51, prohibit emissions from any source whatsoever in such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to the public health or damage to property. Any unreasonable odor discernible at the property line of the project site will be considered a significant odor impact.
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting activities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding operations. The project, involving a residential development, would not include any of these uses, nor are there any of these land uses in the project vicinity.
Emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from architectural coatings and paving activities may generate odors; however, these odors would be temporary, intermittent, and not expected to affect a substantial number of people.
Additionally, noxious odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of construction equipment. By the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites, they would be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. Furthermore, short-term construction -related odors are expected to cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor -producing materials. Long-term operation of the project would not be a substantial source of objectionable odors. Therefore, the project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts would be less than significant.
IV. Biological Resources
Would the project
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
❑
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
T
No
Impact
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish
and Wildlife Service?
❑
❑
❑
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
❑
❑
❑ at
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
❑
❑
❑
®
552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
08/11/2026
3-12
PH2
29 of 876
City of Vista
Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Would the project
Less than
Significant
Potentially with Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
El
El
El
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
❑
The discussion below is summarized and based on the analysis and conclusions contained within the Bobier Property Project Biological Technical Report prepared by HELIX (HELIX 2025b). The report is included as Appendix B to this IS/MND.
Discussion
a. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. During biological surveys conducted on February 1, 2021, and May 28, 2025, HELIX identified a total of 45 plant species in the study area, of which 39 (87 percent) were non-native species. A total of 18 animal species were observed or detected in the study area, including one invertebrate, two reptiles, 13 birds, and two mammal species.
No special -status plant species were identified during biological surveys. One special -status animal species was determined to have moderate potential to occur on the project site: San Diego tiger (coastal) whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri). However, potential impacts on this species would be limited to the temporary displacement of individuals during project construction. In addition, based on the quality and size of the habitat that could be impacted, the project site is not expected to support locally or regionally significant populations of this sensitive species. The proposed project would not result in direct or indirect impacts to special -status species.
Surveys for raptors, potential nests, and other sign were conducted during the general biological survey. In its current state, the project site provides marginal and relatively low -quality foraging opportunities for common raptors that are resident and migratory to the region. The ornamental trees provide suitable perching habitat, and the rest of the property is fairly open for hunting. There is likely the presence of prey items for certain raptor species. Taller, weedy species cover a good portion of the ground and would likely make foraging more difficult. Although the project site provides some function and value for raptor foraging, it has likely not functioned as a local or regional foraging resource of importance for raptors. The fragmented and urbanized nature of the site and surrounding area limits the potential for raptors to occur, given the proximity to existing developments and related disturbances, such as ongoing human activity, noise, and lighting. Other more expansive areas occur in the local area and region that provide foraging habitat. Impacts are expected to be less than significant.
The project site contains trees, shrubs, and other vegetation that provide suitable nesting habitat for common birds, including raptors, protected under the MBTA and CFG Code. Significant impacts could occur to nesting birds if suitable nesting habitat is removed during the general bird breeding season (January 15 to September 15). Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 would ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game (CFG) Code, and that impacts on nesting birds are reduced to a less than significant level. 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-13
08/11/2026 PH2 30 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist Mitigation Measure
BIO-1 Nesting Bird and Raptor Avoidance. If initial grading and vegetation removal activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, and grubbing) must occur during the avian breeding season for migratory birds and raptors (January 15 through September 15), a pre -construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The survey shall consist of searching for nesting birds within the proposed work area and surrounding 100 feet, where feasible, and the final survey shall not be completed more than seven days before the beginning of initial grading and vegetation removal activities. If the surveys conclude there is no active nesting, the work shall resume as planned without further requirements. If the results of the survey identify nesting birds (including raptors), no -work disturbance buffers shall be implemented:
100 feet around non -listed active passerine (perching birds and songbirds) nests, 300 feet around listed passerine nests (e.g., coastal California gnatcatcher), and 300 feet around active raptor nests (e.g., Cooper's hawk). The buffers may be reduced, if appropriate, as directed by a qualified biologist. The reduction in no -work buffers shall be approved by the City before implementation. The buffers shall be respected and maintained until the end of the bird breeding season, or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. The results of the pre - construction nesting bird survey shall be reported to the City in a brief memo. b. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The existing vegetation communities on the project site include disturbed habitat and urban/developed land. Within the project site, disturbed habitat consists of dirt trails, bare ground, shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), prickly sow thistle (Sonchus asper), and non-native grasses. It is found throughout the entirety of the site. Within the project's off -site area, urban/developed land consists of pavement and covers approximately 0.09 acre.
Sensitive vegetation communities/habitat types are defined as land that supports unique vegetation communities or the habitats of rare or endangered species or subspecies of animals or plants, as defined by Section 15380 of the state CEQA Guidelines. Disturbed habitat and urban/developed land do not meet the definition of sensitive habitat under CEQA. Disturbance of these vegetation communities/land use types do not require mitigation. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, and impacts would be less than significant.
c. No IMPACT. In the context of this assessment, jurisdictional waters and wetlands include waters of the U.S., including wetlands, regulated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 404; waters of the state regulated by the RWQCB pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and State Porter -Cologne; and streambed and riparian habitat regulated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife pursuant to Sections 1600 et seq. of the CFG Code.
No drainage features, potential wetlands, riparian habitat, or other potential aquatic resources were apparent within the property during the February 2021 site visit. No jurisdictional waters or wetlands are present within the project site. No impact would occur. d. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Wildlife corridors connect isolated habitats and allow movement or dispersal of plant materials and animals. Local wildlife corridors allow access to resources such as food, water, and shelter within the framework of the wildlife's daily routine and life history. Regional corridors provide these functions over a larger scale and link two or more large habitat areas, allowing the dispersal of organisms and the consequent mixing of genes between populations. While the project site and adjacent native habitats support localized use by wildlife, particularly birds, the project site is surrounded by existing development, and as such, does not by itself function as, and does not contribute to, any wildlife corridors or linkages. As such, the project would not substantially interfere 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-14
08/11/2026 PH2 31 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist with the movement of any wildlife species or impede the use of nursery sites. Impacts would be less than significant.
e. No IMPACT. As discussed in item IV.c, the project would not result in significant impacts to riparian habitats or other natural communities, or wetlands identified by federal, state, regional, or local agencies, plans, policies, or regulations. In addition, as discussed in items IV.a, IV.b, and item IV.d, the project would result in less than significant impacts to biological resources that are protected by City or County policies, or approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures, and the project site is not located within any known or reported local or regional wildlife corridors. Further, the project would be designed to comply with all approved local policies and ordinances. No impact would occur. f. No IMPACT. The project site occurs within the boundaries of the North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP), specifically within the boundaries of the Vista Subarea, which does not have an approved or adopted Subarea Plan. The only Subarea Plan that has been approved and adopted within the North County MHCP is the City of Carlsbad MHCP Subarea Plan, also known as the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan.
Within the North County MHCP, the site is situated in areas identified as Developed/Disturbed Land, outside of areas targeted for conservation, including Focused Planning Area (FPA), Hardline Areas (90 percent to 100 percent Conservation), Softline Areas (Less than 90 percent Conservation), Hardline Preserves, Major Amendment Area, Natural Habitats (Outside of FPA), Core Gnatcatcher Conservation, Biological Core and Linkage Area, and Edge Habitat. No suitable habitat for covered species and other resources targeted for conservation under the North County MHCP occurs on the site. As such, the project is not proposed in any areas targeted for conservation and would not conflict with the provisions of the North County MHCP. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur.
V. Cultural Resources
Would the project
Less than
Significant
Potentially with Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
El
El
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
El
❑
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries?
El
❑
❑
The discussion below is summarized and based on the findings contained within the Cultural Resources Survey Report for the West Bobier Drive Project, prepared by BFSA Environmental Services (BFSA; 2024). The report is included as Appendix C of this IS/MND. 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
08/11/2026
3-15
PH2 32 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist Discussion
a. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. BFSA conducted a Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the project, which included a cultural resources survey at the project site on August 27, 2024, a records search at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC), and a Sacred Lands File search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).
The records search identified one previously recorded resource within the property (prehistoric bedrock milling site SDI -5345). Site SDI -5345 was originally recorded within what is now West Bobier Drive, as well as on the north and south sides of the current street alignment. The records search also identified four previous studies overlapping the subject property. As a result, Site SDI -5345 has been subjected to previous testing and found not eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), with most of the previously recorded bedrock milling features being destroyed by development.
During the survey of the project site, two bedrock milling features associated with Site SDI -5345 were recorded. However, no new cultural resources or artifacts associated with SDI -5345 were identified, and previous testing and evaluation have already determined that the site is not eligible for the CRHR.
Therefore, the resource is not considered a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5, and impacts would be less than significant.
The SLF search results were positive for Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance within the vicinity of the project. b. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The Sacred Lands File search was positive for Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance within the vicinity of the project. Thus, given these results and the sensitivity of the surrounding area for prehistoric resources, there is the potential for unknown subsurface archaeological resources to be encountered during ground -disturbing activities, which may result in significant impacts. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 to CR-6 below, these impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
MITIGATION MEASURES
CR-1 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 Native American Monitor have been retained at the Applicant or Owner and/or Contractor's expense to implement the monitoring program, as described in the pre -excavation agreement. A copy of the letter shall be included in the Grading Plan Submittals for the grading permit.
CR-2
Isolated cultural items discovered in the project site shall be returned to the site at a location determined prior to issuance of grading permit. The location shall be identified on the final grading plans as an environmentally sensitive area to be deed -restricted in perpetuity, mutually agreed -upon location (agreed upon by the Tribes and the Applicant/Owner).
CR-3 Cultural resource mitigation monitoring shall be conducted to provide for the identification, evaluation, treatment, and protection of any cultural resources that are affected by or may be discovered during the construction of the proposed project. The monitoring shall consist of the presence of a Qualified Archaeologist and a Native American Monitor for, but not limited to, any fence installation, tree removal, demolition and/or removal of remnant foundations, pavements, abandonment and/or installation of infrastructure; grading or any other ground 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-16
08/11/2026 PH2 33 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist disturbing or altering activities, including the placement of imported fill materials (note: all fill materials shall be absent of any and all cultural resources); and related off -site utility installations in West Bobier Drive, private driveways and/or streets. Other tasks of the monitoring program shall include the following:
• 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 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 Native American monitor during all ground disturbing or altering activities, as identified above.
• The Qualified Archaeologist and/or Luiseno Native American monitor may halt ground disturbing activities if archaeological artifact deposits or cultural features are discovered. In general, ground disturbing activities shall be directed away from these deposits or cultural features until a determination of potential significance is made, which shall be determined by the Qualified Archaeologist and the Native American monitor. Ground disturbing activities shall not resume until the Qualified Archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American monitor, deems the 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 open space easement ESA in the northern central portion of the project shall be preserved in situ and in perpetuity with no construction or staging activities occurring within the ESA during project development. Avoidance of construction activity within the ESA shall be denoted on grading and construction plans. Protective fencing shall be placed around the ESA and temporary signage shall be placed within 100 feet of the area denoting its location. Upon completion of ground disturbing activities associated with project construction, the Qualified Archaeologist, Native American monitor, and construction manager or other appropriate personnel shall observe or conduct the removal of fencing and signage as applicable. • The avoidance and protection of discovered unknown and significant cultural resources and/or unique archaeological 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 Native American monitor shall be notified and consulted in drafting and finalizing any such recovery plan.
CR-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 (such as, but not limited to, a Research Design, Data Recovery Program, etc.) shall be submitted by the Qualified Archaeologist, along with the Native American monitor's notes and comments, to the City's Director of Community Development for approval.
CR-5 The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources collected during the cultural resource mitigation monitoring conducted during ground disturbing activities, and from any 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-17
08/11/2026 PH2 34 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist previous archaeological studies or excavations on the project site, for respectful and dignified treatment and disposition in accordance with the consulting Tribe's cultural and spiritual traditions. All 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 per California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
CR-6 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 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 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 Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC would decide as to the Most Likely Descendant. If Native American remains are discovered, the remains shall be kept in situ ("in place"), or in a secure location in close proximity to where they were found, and the analysis of the remains shall only occur on -site in the presence of a Luiseno Native American monitor.
C. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The project site does not lie near any dedicated cemeteries. Although disturbance of human remains is unlikely, it is possible that construction activity could unearth previously unknown vestiges. This would be considered a potentially significant impact.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-6, as described above, would ensure that human remains were treated with dignity and as specified by law and would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
VI. Energy
Would the project
Less than
Significant
Potentially with Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a.
Result in potentially significant environmental impact
due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
El
El
El
Discussion
a. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Energy would be consumed for both construction and operation of the project. Energy consumed for project construction would primarily consist of fuels in the form of diesel and gasoline. Fuel consumption would result from the use of on -road trucks for the transportation of construction materials and water and from the use of off -road construction equipment. While 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
08/11/2026
3-18
PH2
35 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist construction activities would consume petroleum -based fuels, consumption of such resources would be temporary and would cease upon the completion of construction. The petroleum consumed during project construction would be typical of similar residential projects and would not require the use of new petroleum resources beyond those typically consumed in California annually for construction activities. In addition, as described in item VI.b below, Title 24 Building Efficiency Standards would apply to the project, requiring energy efficiency measures. The project would be constructed in accordance with the energy -efficiency standards contained in the CALGreen Building Standards, including the requirement for on -site solar electricity generation. Based on these considerations, construction of the project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and the impact would be less than significant.
During long-term operation of the project, energy would be consumed in the form of diesel and gasoline used by vehicles traveling to and from the project site; natural gas for heating and hot water; electricity required to source and treat water used by the project; and electricity used directly by the project.
While the project would consume energy related to electricity, natural gas, water, and wastewater, because the project would be consistent with the General Plan growth projections, the energy use would be consistent with the energy projections for the state and the region. Therefore, the operation of the project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Impacts would be less than significant.
b. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The 2022 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards include provisions applicable to all buildings, which are mandatory requirements for efficiency and design. The project would be consistent with the requirements of Title 24 through implementation of energy - reduction measures, such as energy -efficient lighting and appliances, water -efficient appliances and plumbing fixtures, water -efficient landscaping and irrigation, and the on -site generation of renewable solar energy, as described above. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct with a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts would be less than significant.
VII. Geology and Soils
Would the project
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication
42. ❑
❑
❑
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
❑
❑
❑
L
iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
❑
❑
❑
iv. Landslides?
❑
❑
❑
0 b. Result in substantial soil erosion, or the loss of topsoil? ❑
❑
❑
0 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
08/11/2026
3-19
PH2
36 of 876
City of Vista
Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Would the project
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
❑
❑
❑
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? ❑
❑
❑
a
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
❑
❑
❑
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
❑
❑
a
The discussion below is based on the Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report prepared for the project by CW Soils (CW Soils 2024), which is included as Appendix D of this IS/MND.
Discussion
a-i. No IMPACT. Seismically induced surface or ground rupture occurs when movement on a fault deep within the earth breaks through to the surface as a result of seismic activity. Fault rupture almost always follows preexisting faults, which are zones of weakness. Sudden displacements are more damaging to structures because they are accompanied by shaking. Under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, which was passed in 1972, the California State Geologist identifies areas in the State that are at risk from surface fault rupture. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act's main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act also requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones, known as Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps that identify these zones.
According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the project site is not located within Alquist-Priolo Fault Rupture Hazard Study Zone, and active faults are not known to exist within the site. The nearest known active faults are part of the Elsinore system, located approximately 16.5 miles from the project site.
Therefore, the potential for fault surface rupture on the project site is low. See Appendix D for additional details. No impact would occur.
a -ii. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. As discussed in item VII.a-i above, there are no known active faults that cross the project site. However, there are several active faults that run throughout San Diego County. Like most of southern California, the project site is within a seismically active area and can therefore be subject to strong seismic ground motion.
The project would comply with the seismic design parameters outlined in the California Building Code (CBC), which provides requirements for earthquake safety based on factors such as occupancy type, the types of soils on -site, and the probable strength of ground motion. Compliance with the CBC would include the incorporation of: (1) seismic safety features to minimize the potential for significant effects as a result of earthquakes; (2) proper building footings and foundations; and (3) construction of the 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-20
08/11/2026 PH2 37 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist building structure so that it would withstand the effects of strong ground shaking. In addition, the City's Building Department would review the building plans through building plan checks, issuance of a building permit, and inspection of the residences during construction, which would ensure that all required CBC seismic safety measures are incorporated into the residences. Compliance with the CBC and the Building Department's review process, permit application, and inspection would reduce the potential for substantial impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking. Impacts would be less than significant.
a -iii. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which a saturated cohesionless soil causes a temporary transformation of the soil to a fluid mass, resulting in a loss of support. Seismic agitation of relatively loose saturated sands, silty sands, and some silts can result in a buildup of pore pressure. If the pore pressure exceeds the overburden stresses, a temporary quick condition known as liquefaction can occur. Liquefaction effects can manifest in several ways, including: (1) loss of bearing; (2) lateral spread; (3) dynamic settlement; and (4) flow failure. Lateral spreading has typically been the most damaging mode of failure. In general, the more recent that a sediment has been deposited, the more likely it will be susceptible to liquefaction.
According to the General Plan EIR, most of the City is situated on bedrock with a thin veneer of soil/sediment where there is little to no potential for liquefaction (City 2011). As stated in the Geotechnical Investigation, the potential for design level earthquake induced liquefaction and lateral spreading to occur beneath the proposed project structures is considered very low to remote due to the proposed use of compacted fill and shallow bedrock underlying the site. The project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction. Impacts would be less than significant.
a -iv. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Figure PSFS-3, Slope Analysis, of the General Plan indicates that the project site contains slopes categorized as 0 to 15 percent, which would not be susceptible to landslides (City 2012). Therefore, the project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. Impacts would be less than significant.
b. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The project would convert vacant land comprised of scattered trees, bushes, and several large rock outcroppings to a single-family residential development. Construction of the proposed project would involve a variety of heavy equipment associated with intensive earthwork, structural, and paving phases. Soil exposed by construction activities, such as excavation, could be subject to erosion if exposed to heavy rain, winds, or other storm events. The project applicant would be required to submit a Notice of Intent to the San Diego RWQCB for the preparation of a SWPPP.
Generally, a SWPPP demonstrates how water quality during and post construction would be maintained in accordance with mandated objectives. Often this is achieved by employing BMPs (see Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality). Many BMPs designed to protect water quality also serve to reduce soil erosion and loss of topsoil.
Specific BMPs may include the following:
• Preservation of existing vegetation within staging/parking areas where feasible. • Covering stockpiled, excavated, and/or fill materials to reduce potential off -site sediment transport.
• Use of erosion control devices, such as straw wattles, mulch, mats, and/or geotextiles. 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-21
08/11/2026 PH2 38 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist • Use of sediment controls to protect the site perimeter and prevent off -site sediment transport, including measures such as silt fencing, fiber rolls, gravel bags, temporary sediment basins, street sweeping, stabilized construction access points and sediment stockpiles, and use of properly fitted covers for sediment transport vehicles. • Compliance with local dust control measures.
• Daily backfill, compaction, and/or covering of excavated pipeline trenches to minimize erosion potential.
• Paving of disturbed roadway areas as soon as feasible after completion of trenching. • Regular inspection and maintenance of all erosion control and sediment catchment facilities to ensure proper function and effectiveness.
Further, required adherence to the City's Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance (Vista Development Code Chapter 17.56) ensures that certain measures or conditions, such as those that prevent erosion and siltation, are included prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Once operational, the project site would transition from primarily vacant or undeveloped land to impermeable surfaces and landscaped areas, eliminating large areas of exposed soils that may be subject to erosion and sedimentation.
With implementation of required standard erosion control measures and storm water construction BMPs, construction -related erosion and sedimentation impacts would be less than significant.
Additionally, once constructed, the project site would not include expansive areas of exposed soils that would contribute to erosion and sedimentation. Impacts would be less than significant.
C. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. As discussed in items VII.a-iii and VII.a-iv above, the project site would not be subject to risks associated with liquefaction or landslides. The Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report concluded that, based on the shallow bedrock on the project site and implementation of the recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation related to compacted fill, the potential for loss of bearing, lateral spread, dynamic settlement, and flow failure on -site would be considered negligible. Impacts would be less than significant. d. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report concluded that, based on preliminary laboratory test results, the on -site soils exhibit a low expansion potential. Therefore, the project would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property due to being located on expansive soils. Impacts would be less than significant. e. No IMPACT. The proposed project would connect to the existing municipal wastewater system through local connections and does not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impact would occur.
f. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The General Plan EIR (City 2011) defined levels of paleontological sensitivity (High, Moderate, Low, and Zero) for individual geologic formations within each of the City's neighborhoods. Based on the Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report, the project site was determined to be underlain by cretaceous -age tonalite. The General Plan EIR identifies types of geologic deposits found in the North Vista neighborhood, where the project is located, as having high, low, or zero paleontological sensitivity (City 2011). Specifically, the General Plan EIR identifies geologic deposits of Quaternary alluvium in the northern portion of the North Vista neighborhood as having high paleontological sensitivity. As the Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report did not identify the site 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-22
08/11/2026 PH2 39 of 876
City of Vista
Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist
as being underlain by Quaternary alluvium, the project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or unique geologic feature. Impacts would be less than significant.
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project
Less than
Significant
Potentially with Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
El
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
El
The discussion below is summarized and based on the analysis and conclusions contained within the Bobier Property Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report prepared for the project by HELIX (HELIX 2025a). The report is included as Appendix A to this IS/MND.
Discussion
a. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth, including temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Global temperatures are moderated by atmospheric gases. These gases are commonly referred to as greenhouse gases (GHGs) because they function like a greenhouse by letting sunlight in but preventing heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth's atmosphere. The GHGs defined under California's Assembly Bill 32 include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes that range from one year to several thousand years. Long atmospheric lifetimes allow for GHG emissions to disperse around the globe. Because GHG emissions vary widely in the power of their climatic effects, climate scientists have established a unit called global warming potential (GWP). The GWP of a gas is a measure of both potency and lifespan in the atmosphere as compared to CO2. For example, because methane and N20 are approximately 25 and 298 times more powerful than CO2, respectively, in their ability to trap heat in the atmosphere, they have GWPs of 25 and 298, respectively (CO2 has a GWP of 1). Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) is a quantity that enables all GHG emissions to be considered as a group despite their varying GWP. The GWP of each GHG is multiplied by the prevalence of that gas to produce CO2e. This analysis uses CalEEMod, which uses GWP ratios to calculate project -related CO2e emissions (Appendix A).
The City developed an interim threshold to meet the statewide GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and be on track to meet the 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 target in accordance with Senate Bill 32 and Executive Order S-3-05. However, the City has not adopted guidance or revised thresholds to account for GHG reduction target beyond 2020. Therefore, this analysis compares the project's emissions to a reduced threshold corresponding to the Senate Bill 32 reduction target of emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Accordingly, a threshold reduced by 4.98 percent for each year between 2020 and 2030 would meet the mandates of Senate Bill 32. As a conservative estimate, the first full year of operation for the project was modeled to be 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-23
08/11/2026 PH2 40 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist 2026. Therefore, a threshold of 26 percent below the City threshold of 1,185 metric tons (MT) CO2e per service population per year, or 872 MT, is used in this analysis.
The GHG emissions associated with long-term operation of the project were estimated using CaIEEMod. The results of the modeling of the project's operational GHG emissions are shown in Table GE -1, Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The data are presented as the maximum anticipated operational GHG emissions for the first full year of operation (2026) and compared to the City threshold (adjusted for the year 2026).
Table GE -1
OPERATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Source
Emissions
(MT CO2e/year)
Vehicular (Mobile)
145.0
Area
0.2 Energy
24.7 Water and Wastewater
0.8 Solid Waste
3.1 Refrigerants
<0.1
Total Annual Emissions1
173.9
Amortized Construction Emissions
6.1 Total Amort/zed Construction + Operation/ Emissions 180.0
2026 Adjusted Threshold
872.0
Exceed Threshold?
No
Source: CaIEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix A) 1 Totals may not sum due to rounding.
MT = metric ton; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
As shown in Table GE -1, the project's GHG emissions would be approximately 180 MT CO2e per year, which is below the adjusted City threshold of 872 MT CO2e per year. Therefore, the project would not generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment, and the impact would be less than significant.
b. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. As discussed in item VIII.a above, the project's GHG emissions would not exceed the City's threshold (adjusted for the year 2026) during construction and operation of the project. By achieving the City's threshold, the project would not conflict with the goals of the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP) and may be seen to exceed its fair share in achieving the state's reduction target. Additionally, through compliance with AB 341 and Chapter 13.17 of the City's Municipal Code, the project would be consistent with CAP measure W-1, Reduce Solid Waste Disposal, and Increase Recycling. The project would additionally comply with CAP measure T-7 by using alternative fuel or electric -powered equipment during construction of the project. The project would be constructed in accordance with the energy -efficiency standards, water reduction goals, and other "green" standards contained in the CALGreen Building Standards, including the requirement for on -site solar electricity generation. As such, the project would be consistent with local plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, the project would not conflict with applicable plans, policies, and regulations related to GHG emission reductions, and the impact would be less than significant.
552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-24
08/11/2026 PH2 41 of 876
City of Vista
Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist
•
IA. Hazaras and Hazaraous Materials
Would the project
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
❑
❑
I
❑
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
❑
❑
a
a
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
❑
❑
❑
6 d. Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
❑
❑
®
❑
e. Fora project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
❑
❑
■
L
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
❑
❑
//
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
❑
❑
❑
A/
Discussion
a. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Materials and waste are generally considered hazardous if they are poisonous (toxicity), can be ignited by open flame (ignitability), corrode other materials (corrosivity), or react violently, explode, or generate vapors when mixed with water (reactivity). The term "hazardous material" is defined in the State Health and Safety Code (Chapter 6.95, Section 25501[o]) as any material that, because of quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment. Hazardous waste is defined as any hazardous material that is abandoned, discarded, or recycled, as defined in the State Health and Safety Code (Chapter 6.95, Section 25125). The transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, as well as the potential releases of hazardous materials to the environment, are closely regulated through many state and federal laws. 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
08/11/2026
3-25
PH2
42 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist During the project construction period, hazardous substances used to maintain and operate construction equipment (such as fuel, lubricants, adhesives, and solvents) would be present. The use of these materials could potentially result in significant impacts through accidental discharge associated with the use and storage of hazardous materials. The transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and/or wastes would be conducted in accordance with applicable federal and state laws. In addition, implementation of the proposed project would require conformance with the NPDES Construction General Permit, as described in Section VI, Geology and Soils. Specifically, this would entail implementation of a SWPPP to address the use of hazardous materials and the potential discharge of contaminants, including construction -related hazardous waste through the installation of appropriate BMPs. While specific BMPs would be determined during the SWPPP process, BMPs would include standard industry measures and guidelines contained in the NPDES Construction Permit and the Stormwater Best Management Practices Construction Handbook (California Stormwater Quality Association [CASQA] 2019). Based on implementation of appropriate BMPs, hazardous material impacts related to construction activities would be less than significant.
Operation of the proposed single-family residences would include the storage and use of standard household hazardous materials and waste. Typical household hazardous materials associated with the residential land use could include cleaning products, paints, solvents, adhesives, other chemical materials used in building maintenance and interior improvements, automotive lubricants, small combustion engine fuels and lubricants, expired pharmaceuticals, mercury thermometers, sharp or used needles, and electronic wastes from household and car batteries. No special permits would be required for such limited use or disposal of common agents and products. Therefore, operation of the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than significant. b. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. As discussed above in item IX.a, limited quantities of hazardous materials such as gasoline, diesel, oils, and lubricants may be required to operate the construction equipment. Construction activities would be short-term, and the use of these materials would cease once construction is complete. The hazardous substances used during construction would be required to comply with existing federal, state, and local regulations regarding the use and disposal of these materials. In the event of an accidental release during construction, containment and clean-up would be in accordance with existing applicable regulatory requirements.
Project operation would include the use of household hazardous materials and wastes on -site. Typical household hazardous materials associated with the residential land uses could include cleaning products, paints, solvents, adhesives, other chemical materials used in building maintenance and interior improvements, automotive lubricants, small combustion engine fuels and lubricants, expired pharmaceuticals, mercury thermometers, sharp or used needles, and electronic wastes from household and car batteries. The limited use of such products does not require a special permit. In the event of an accidental release during project operation, containment and clean-up would be conducted in accordance with existing applicable regulatory requirements. As such, the project would not 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. Impacts would be less than significant.
c. No IMPACT. The closest school to the site is Maryland Elementary School, located at 700 North Avenue, approximately 0.4 mile southwest of the project site, and no additional school facilities are proposed within one -quarter mile of the project site. As such, the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. No impact would occur. 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-26
08/11/2026 PH2 43 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist d. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. A search of environmental databases, including the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker (SWRCB 2025) and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor (DTSC 2025), was conducted pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. According to the SWRCB GeoTracker database, there are no sites with an "open case" status on the project site or within the vicinity of the project site. The nearest open case is the Camino Largo Cleanup Program Site located approximately 0.95 mile northeast of the project site. In addition, according to the DTSC EnviroStor database, there are no sites with an "active" status on the project site or within the vicinity of the project site. The nearest active site is the Vista Burn Dump Voluntary Cleanup site located approximately 0.5 mile southwest of the project site. Therefore, the project would not be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Impacts would be less than significant. e. No IMPACT. The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest public airports to the project site are McClellan Palomar Airport, located approximately 6.2 miles southwest of the project site, and Oceanside Municipal Airport, located approximately 5.3 miles west of the project site. No impact would occur. f. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. During construction, slow -moving construction vehicles could interfere with emergency response to the site or emergency evacuation procedures. However, the City would require the preparation of a traffic control plan prior to the initiation of project construction activity that could disrupt traffic flow on City streets. In addition, the project conditions of approval would require that emergency access be maintained during construction.
Once operational, site access would be provided via a new driveway located on West Bobier Drive approximately 250 feet east of the intersection of Sports Park Way and West Bobier Drive, which would function as a side -street stop -controlled intersection. Internal roadways on the project site would allow for a two-way flow of vehicle traffic and provide access to garages. The project would be required to adhere to the design requirements as established by Vista Development Code Title 19 (Streets/Sidewalks) and the VFD. These standards ensure that private streets are properly sized and located to facilitate emergency vehicle access and the positioning of emergency response crews during emergencies.
The City participates in the County's Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, which is implemented on a regional level and outlines the jurisdictional concerns, resources, and action items to ensure community -wide safety from both natural and man-made threats. At a project level, through adhering to the required municipal and development codes, including those that have been adopted to enact the CBC and the California Fire Code, ensure that the project would not interfere with the implementation of emergency response plans. Impacts would be less than significant. g. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. According to the Fire Hazard Severity Zone map prepared by CAL FIRE, the proposed project is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ; CAL FIRE 2025). The project site is in a developed environment. There are no wildlands or open spaces immediately adjacent to the project site, which significantly reduces the risk of wildland fire damage to people and structures in the area. Further, the proposed project would adhere to the CBC, the California Fire Code, and the County of San Diego Fire Code, and plans for the project would be approved by the City Fire Marshal prior to construction to ensure compliance with applicable codes.
Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to expose people or structures to wildland fires, and impacts would be less than significant.
552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-27
08/11/2026 PH2 44 of 876
City of Vista
Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist
X. Hydrology and Water Quali
Would the project
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
❑
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
❑
Less than
Significant
Impact
❑•
No
Impact
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
❑
❑
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site?
❑
❑
❑
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off- site?
❑
❑
I
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional resources of polluted
runoff?
❑
❑
❑
A
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
❑
❑
❑
•
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
❑
❑
❑
I
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
❑
❑
❑
rA
The following discussion is based on the Drainage Study and the Priority Development Project (PDP) Storm Water Management Plan (SWQMP) prepared for the project by SWS Engineering, Inc. (SWS Engineering, Inc. 2025a; 2025b). The Drainage Study and the PDP SWQMP are each attached to this IS/MND as Appendix E and Appendix F, respectively.
Discussion
a. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed project includes the construction of 15 single-family residences and associated infrastructure. As such, the proposed project would alter the site through grading and the addition of impervious surfaces, such as building roofs, paved drives, and access roads, that would alter the hydrological patterns of the site and could introduce new sources of water pollutants in site runoff. There is the potential for water pollutants to be generated in the short-term during construction activities and in the long term due to the permanent changes to the site.
Construction -related pollutants could include loose soils, liquid and solid construction materials and wastes, and accidental spills of concrete, fuels, and other materials. As an urban development, the 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
08/11/2026
3-28
PH2
45 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist proposed project would add typical, non -point -source pollutants to stormwater runoff, primarily due to runoff from impervious surfaces where a variety of pollutants can collect over time, such as driveways, streets, roofs, patios, and other paved surfaces. Landscaped areas could also generate water pollutants such as fertilizers and weed control agents, as well as green waste from landscape maintenance cuttings. The project would be required to implement and adhere to several measures to protect water quality and limit discharges as directed by and implemented through adherence to established regulatory programs and the required plans as discussed below.
The City is within the jurisdiction of the San Diego RWQCB, which is tasked with protecting the region's water quality objectives that meet the standards set forth in Section 303 of the federal Clean Water Act, as well as the state's Porter -Cologne Water Quality Act. The San Diego RWQCB designates beneficial uses of surface water and groundwater, sets qualitative and quantitative water quality objectives that must be met to protect designated beneficial uses, and develops implementation programs to protect the regional water resources through its Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (Basin Plan).
Additionally, the NPDES program regulates point source and non -point source pollutant discharges to surface waters. Municipalities are required to obtain permits for the water pollution generated by stormwater in their jurisdictions. These permits are known as municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permits. Because the proposed project's stormwater runoff would be discharged into the local municipal storm drain system, the project is required to demonstrate that it would be consistent with the standards established in the MS4 permit as encoded in Chapter 13.18 of the Vista Municipal Code (Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Program).
The project would adhere to the NPDES Construction General Permit during construction, which includes BMPs that serve to protect groundwater quality. To prevent water quality impacts due to construction -related stormwater pollutants, the project applicant would be required to develop a SWPPP, as stated in the Vista Municipal Code Section 12.16.112 (Construction Pollutant Reduction).
The project SWPPP would detail BMPs, such as desilting basins or other temporary drainage or control measures as may be necessary to control construction -related pollutants. The City would not issue a grading permit for the project until the SWPPP has been submitted to and approved by the City (Vista Municipal Code Section 12.16.112[D]). Once the project is operational, a series of project design features, including a biofiltration basin, underground detention system, and modular wetlands, would serve to capture and treat runoff.
Therefore, the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Impacts would be less than significant.
b. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The project would increase a demand for potable water and non -potable water for irrigation. However, the improvements associated with the proposed project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. The project site is within a developed area serviced by the Vista Irrigation District (VID), and the project does not involve the use of groundwater during construction or operation. Therefore, the project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Impacts would be less than significant.
C -I. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Under current conditions, surface runoff from Basin 1 of the project site currently flows from the undisturbed natural terrain north onto West Bobier Drive, where it enters the existing storm drain system located on the west of the high point on West Bobier Drive that drains to Guajome Lake and ultimately into the San Luis Rey River. Basin 2 currently drains into West Bobier Drive, where it also enters into existing storm drain systems located on Moa Drive and ultimately 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-29
08/11/2026 PH2 46 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist discharges into Buena Vista Creek. Runoff from basins 3, 4, and 5 currently sheet flow along natural terrain in the southeasterly direction towards the existing residential development on Waxwing Drive and Mynah Place to the southeast, which then discharge into existing storm drain systems located on Moa Drive and ultimately into Buena Vista Creek. Runoff from Basin 6 currently surface flows along the natural terrain that discharges off -site in the southwesterly direction into the existing concrete lined channel along the southern portion of the adjacent property, which then flows into the public storm drain system to Loma Alta Creek and ultimately into the Pacific Ocean. Refer to Exhibit A of Appendix E for a map of the pre -development drainage conditions.
The proposed project involves the construction of 15 single-family residences, which would increase the impervious surface area at the site. Under post -development conditions, the proposed site drainage from Basins 1 and 3 would surface flow via proposed site roofs, hardscape, and curb -gutter into the proposed biofiltration basins located in the north and northeast portion of the site prior to discharging into West Bobier Drive. Basin 2 would surface flow in northerly direction into West Bobier Drive. Basin 4 would sheet flow off -site in the easterly direction similar to the existing condition. All the runoff from basins 1 through 4 ultimately discharge into existing storm drain systems located on Moa Drive similar to the existing condition prior to discharging in Buena Vista Creek.
Basin 5 would sheet flow in the easterly direction into the proposed biofiltration basin before being routed off -site via the proposed storm drain system into the southwest corner of the site. Basins 6 and 7 would discharge via curb gutter and catch basins into the proposed biofiltration basins located on the west north and south side of the project site prior to discharging toward the southwest off -site corner of the site via the proposed storm drain systems. All the discharge runoff from basins 5 through 8 would be discharged into the existing lined channel along the southern portion of the adjacent property on the west via a concrete ditch that is built along the eastside of the adjacent property. Basin 8 is a small landscape area that would sheet flow off -site in the westerly direction. Refer to Exhibit B of Appendix E for a map of the post -development drainage conditions.
Overall, the development of the site would not have adverse impacts to the adjacent properties on the east, west and south as the development of the site would reduce the site runoff below existing conditions by constructing multiple biofiltration basins which would detain any excess water on -site.
In addition, rip rap would be added at the discharge point of each biofiltration basin to reduce the velocity of runoffs as well as the discharge point into off -site. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off -site. Impacts would be less than significant.
C -ii. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed project site would transition from a vacant site to a developed site that would support a combination of impervious surfaces and landscaped conditions, which would increase the rate and amount of runoff. This increase in runoff would be addressed by the stormwater control project design features. As stated above in item X.a, a PDP SWQMP has been prepared for the project (see Appendix F), and a SWPPP would be prepared as required under the NPDES Construction General Permit. Both the required SWPPP and PDP SWQMP would establish BMPs that would minimize impacts to existing drainage patterns of the area in a manner that would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff, which would result in flooding on- or off - site.
The biofiltration basins and hydromodification designs would decrease surface runoff velocities, reducing the chances of flooding on- or off -site. Project runoff would be treated through the installation of multiple biofiltration basins with riprap at the discharge point of each basin. Flows would then be discharged to off -site infrastructure. With the project storm water and water quality infrastructure, site flow would satisfy the hydromodification management requirements of the City's BMP Design Manual.
As discussed in the Drainage Study prepared for the project, the proposed conditions would not 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-30
08/11/2026 PH2 47 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off -site. Impacts would be less than significant. c -iii. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. As stated above in item X.a, a SWPPP would be implemented for the proposed project, which would establish BMPs that would minimize impacts to existing drainage patterns of the area. Additionally, as discussed in item X.c-ii, the Drainage Study found that project implementation would not result in a substantial adverse change in the existing drainage pattern at the site, and with the project -related storm water infrastructure, rates and velocity of stormwater discharges would match pre -project conditions. Therefore, the project would not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional resources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant.
C -iv. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the project site is located in an area with a 0.2 percent Annual Chance Flood Hazard (Zone X; FEMA 2012). Although the project would result in an increase of impervious surfaces at the site, project implementation of the project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on the drainage pattern at the site, as discussed in item X.c-ii above. Therefore, the project would not impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant. d. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. As discussed in item X.c-iv, the project would not result in a flooding hazard. Tsunamis are usually caused by displacement of the ocean flood, causing large waves, and are typically generated by seismic activity. The proposed project is located approximately seven miles from the Pacific Ocean; therefore, a tsunami hazard is not present for the project site. A seiche is a standing wave in an enclosed or partly enclosed body of water. Seiches are normally caused by earthquake activity, and can affect harbors, bays, lakes, rivers, and canals. The nearest body of water, Guajome Lake, is approximately two miles northwest of the project site, which is too far to present impacts by a seiche event. Impacts related to floods, tsunamis, or seiches would be less than significant.
e. No IMPAcr. As stated above in item X.a, a SWPPP would be implemented for the proposed project.
Additionally, the project would comply with all City storm water quality standards during construction and operation. Adhering to the BMPs and all storm water quality standards would minimize any potential negative impacts associated with hydrology and water quality. Additionally, according to the General Plan EIR, the buildout of the General Plan would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge or groundwater supplies (City 2012). Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. No impact would occur.
XI. Land Use and Plannin
g
Would the project
Less than
Significant
Potentially with Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
El El
552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
08/11/2026
3-31
PH2
48 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist Discussion
a. No IMPACT. The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a linear feature, such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks, or removal of a means of access, such as a local road or bridge, that would impact mobility within an existing community or between a community and outlying area. No new major supporting infrastructure facilities would need to be constructed and/or extended to the project site that could result in a physical disruption to an established land use or the local pattern of development. The project site is within an urban area developed primarily with residential uses. The proposed project includes the construction of 15 attached single-family homes on a lot that is currently vacant within an area that is surrounded by residential land uses. The project is designed to adhere to the General Plan land use and zoning designation. Thus, the project would be consistent with the surrounding land uses and would not divide an established community. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur.
b. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The proposed project's consistency with the General Plan (City 2012), the Vista Municipal Code and Vista Development Code, and other land use plans and policies is discussed below.
General Plan 2030 Update
Circulation Element
As discussed in Section XVII, Transportation/Traffic, of this IS/MND, the Circulation Element of the General Plan (City 2012) states that the City has established LOS D as the threshold for acceptable operating conditions in designated areas. In addition, if a roadway or intersection is currently operating at a capacity less than LOS, additional traffic will have a substantial effect if it adds more than an average of two seconds of delay.
Although the project would result in an increase in traffic near the site, the roadways and intersections within the project area would not conflict with the City's established LOS goals. In addition to LOS, the General Plan Circulation Element contains several alternative transportation policies, including policies that can be implemented individually on a project -by -project basis, and policies that are programmatic. The project would be consistent with the Circulation Element policies by providing internal sidewalks, enhancing public pedestrian facilities, and providing adequate parking for project residents. See Section XVII, Transportation/Traffic, below for additional information. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan.
Healthy Vista Element
The Healthy Vista Element includes goals and policies that can improve community health by encouraging healthful behaviors and choices and providing more healthful options and opportunities for individuals. The project would include both public and private outdoor spaces, such as backyards attached to each dwelling unit and the designated open space area in the northern central area of the site. The provision of public open spaces would increase community cohesion and encourage outdoor activity. The project would not conflict with the goals and policies outlined in the Healthy Vista Element of the City's General Plan.
Housing Element
The project's proposed 15 single-family dwelling units, which provide a net density of 9 units per acre, would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation of MD (10 dwelling units/acre) and 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-32
08/11/2026 PH2 49 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist the zoning designation of R -1-B (10 dwelling units/acre). As such, the project would not require a General Plan Amendment or zone change to accommodate the residential land uses. Therefore, the project would not constitute a conflict with a land use plan adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and would be consistent with the City's Housing Element.
Land Use and Community Identity Element
The environmental goals and policies that apply to the proposed project are as follows:
LUCI Goal 2: Preserve and enhance the characteristics and features of neighborhoods that share common development patterns, topography, major streets, and zoning patterns.
LUCI Policy 2.4: Discourage subdivision design that disrupts the existing development pattern within established neighborhoods.
The design of the proposed project would maintain the existing residential character of the surrounding area. The homes would be single-family, similar to the surrounding neighborhood to the south, and would not disrupt the existing pattern of development. Currently, the site is vacant and comprised of scattered trees, bushes, and several large rock outcroppings. Conversely, the project would be a continuation of the residential development that occurs to the north, south, east, and west, creating a cohesive development pattern. In addition, the proposed residences would be two stories tall, which would be similar to the scale of the developments to the north, across West Bobier Drive and to the west. Therefore, the proposed development would be compatible and consistent with the Land Use and Community Identity Element of the City's General Plan.
Noise Element
The discussion below analyzes potential exterior/interior noise impacts after completion of the project as evaluated as part of the project Noise Assessment Study prepared by HELIX and included as Appendix G of this IS/MND.
Exterior Noise Levels: The City General Plan Noise Element provides exterior noise level limits for multi- family patios and balconies (with a depth of 6 feet or more). The General Plan requires the exterior use areas of new residential uses to be exposed to noise levels of 65 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or less. The exterior use areas proposed by the project include back patios and yards. No balconies are proposed.
The closest exterior use areas to West Bobier Drive would be the backyards of Lots 1 through 3, as depicted in Figure 3. These yards, assuming they extend to the proposed sidewalk, would be approximately 60 feet from the roadway centerline of West Bobier Drive. The exterior use areas of Lots 4 through 6 would be located at a distance of approximately 100 feet from West Bobier Drive. Modeling using Existing + Project traffic conditions was conducted using the Traffic Noise Model (TNM), which is further described in XIII, Noise, below. The model assumed no attenuation from existing topography as a conservative analysis, but Lots 4 through 6 were modeled with loose soil to account for the areas of the project site left to be undisturbed. At these distances, noise levels at the exterior use areas of Lots 1 through 3 would be approximately 69 CNEL. At Lots 4 through 6, noise levels would be 63.4 CNEL. Therefore, the exterior use areas for Lots 1 through 3 may not be compatible with the City General Plan limits for residential developments. Mitigation measure LU-1 would require the placement of permanent noise walls to reduce noise levels at these locations. 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-33
08/11/2026 PH2 50 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist Mitigation Measure
LU-1 On -Site Noise Barriers. Noise levels within the backyard areas of Lots 1, 2, and 3 may be exposed to noise levels exceeding the City General Plan noise compatibility standards and shall be reduced to below 65 CNEL.
Noise reduction for these exterior use areas shall be accomplished through on -site noise barriers (walls). The wall shall be at least 6 feet in height and would break the line -of -sight between the backyards of Lots 1, 2, and 3 and Bobier Drive. To appropriately reduce noise levels, the wall should be constructed at the pad elevation for each lot.
The sound attenuation barrier must be solid. It can be constructed of masonry, wood, plastic, fiberglass, steel, or a combination of those materials, as long as there are no cracks or gaps, through or below the wall. Any seams or cracks must be filled or caulked. If wood is used, it can be tongue and groove and must have a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) 22 rating. Where architectural or aesthetic factors allow, glass or clear plastic 3/8 of an inch thick or thicker may be used on the upper portion.
Interior Noise Levels: Traditional architectural materials are conservatively estimated to attenuate noise levels by 15 CNEL; therefore, if exterior noise levels at a building facade exceed 60 CNEL, interior noise levels may exceed the 45 CNEL limit set forth in the City General Plan Noise Element for residential uses. Modeling using Existing + Project traffic conditions was conducted using TNM to assess the noise levels that would affect the project's future residences. Residences would be approximately 120 feet from the roadway centerline. At these distances, noise levels at the facades of the homes for Lots 1 through 6 would be approximately 65.3 CNEL. Because noise levels at project buildings would exceed 60 CNEL, interior spaces may exceed 45 CNEL. To ensure that the project's habitable rooms do not exceed 45 CNEL, mitigation measure LU-2 would be required.
Mitigation Measure
LU-2
On -site Interior Noise Level Reduction. For the project's Lots lthrough 6 habitable areas (living rooms and bedrooms), interior noise levels shall be reduced to 45 CNEL or less. The following measures may be incorporated in the design of the project to reduce interior noise levels:
• Minimum exterior wall requirement of STC 46 with a construction of standard 3/8 -inch exterior one coat stucco over 1.0 -inch rigid R-4 insulation over 1/2 -inch shear wall on 2x6 studs with 5/8 -inch Type "X" Drywall.
• Minimum window requirement of STC 28 with a vinyl frame window construction of dual glazing window thickness 1/8 -inch and 1/2 -inch air gap. • Appropriate means of air circulation and provision of fresh air intake shall be incorporated in the project to allow windows to remain closed for extended intervals of time so that acceptable levels of noise can be maintained on the interior. • Buildings shall provide mechanical ventilation in accordance with the 2022 California Mechanical Code.
With implementation of mitigation measures LU-1 and LU-2, the project would be consistent with the Noise Element of the City's General Plan.
552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-34
08/11/2026 PH2 51 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist Public Safety Element
The proposed project would be adequately served by existing public services and facilities. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the City's building and fire codes, the seismic regulations within the CBC, and state and federal regulations regarding the use and disposal of hazardous materials during construction and operation. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the Public Safety Element of the City's General Plan.
Resource Conservation and Sustainability Element
The applicable goals and policies that apply to the proposed project are as follows:
RCS Goal 2: Reduce GHG emissions from community activities and municipal facilities and operations within the City boundaries to support the State's efforts under Assembly Bill 32, Senate Bill 375, and other state and federal mandates, and to mitigate the community's contributions to global climate change.
RCS Policy 2.7: Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents, evaluate and disclose the contribution new projects could have on climate change and require mitigation measures as appropriate.
RCS Goal 4: Preserve, protect, and enhance water quality in watersheds to which the City contributes storm water and urban runoff.
RCS Policy 4.6: Require the incorporation of Low Impact Development (LID) techniques in accordance with current storm water regulations to manage storm water and urban runoff, reduce runoff and pollution, reduce the footprint of development on each parcel, and assist in maintaining or restoring the natural hydrology of the site.
RCS Goal 12: Acknowledge, preserve, and protect the City's Native American heritage.
RCS Policy 12.2: In collaboration with NAHC and the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, adopt procedures for protecting significant archeological features, and apply to projects requiring discretionary City approval.
RCS Policy 12.3: Ensure that the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians is notified of any proposed discretionary planning or grading applications affecting lands with potential archaeological resources.
The proposed project would be consistent with RCS Policy 2.7 and Goal 2 through the preparation of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report (Appendix A) as described in Section VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, which found that the project would not exceed GHG emissions thresholds. As described in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, the design of the proposed project incorporates a number of LID techniques and facilities that meet RCS Policy 4.6 and Goal 4. The project would additionally be consistent with RCS Goal 12 and Policy 12.2 and 12.3, as the project would implement mitigation measures CR-1 through CR-6, which would require the protection and preservation of cultural resources through measures such as Native American monitoring. See Section V, Cultural Resources, for additional details. As such, the project would not conflict with the Resource Conservation and Sustainability Element of the City's General Plan. 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-35
08/11/2026 PH2 52 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist Additional Land Use Plans and Policies
Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Preservation Plan The MHCP is a comprehensive, multiple jurisdictional planning program designed to develop an ecosystem preserve in northwestern San Diego County. Implementation of the regional preserve system is intended to protect viable populations of key sensitive plant and animal species and their habitats, while accommodating continued economic development and quality of life for residents of the north county region.
As discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources, project site occurs within the boundaries of the North County MHCP, specifically within the boundaries of the Vista Subarea, which does not have an approved or adopted Subarea Plan. The only Subarea Plan that has been approved and adopted within the North County MHCP is the City of Carlsbad MHCP Subarea Plan, also known as the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan. Within the North County MHCP, the site is situated in areas identified as Developed/Disturbed Land, outside of areas targeted for conservation, including FPA, Hardline Areas (90 percent to 100 percent Conservation), Softline Areas (Less than 90 percent Conservation), Hardline Preserves, Major Amendment Area, Natural Habitats (Outside of FPA), Core Gnatcatcher Conservation, Biological Core and Linkage Area, and Edge Habitat. No suitable habitat for covered species and other resources targeted for conservation under the North County MHCP occurs on the site. As such, the project is not proposed in any areas targeted for conservation and would not conflict with the provisions of the MHCP. As such, the project would be consistent with the MHCP.
Zoning Ordinance
Per Vista Development Code Chapter 18.30, the project site has a zoning designation of Single -Family Residential (R -1-B). The project's proposed 15 single-family dwelling units, which provide a net density of 9 units per acre, would be consistent with the site's zoning designation of R -1-B, which allows for 10 dwelling units per acre. In addition, the project's proposed single-family development would be consistent with the permitted uses outlined in Vista Development Code Chapter 18.30. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the City's Zoning Ordinance.
Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
The City's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines includes a list of project types that are screened out for CEQA purposes since the project has vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reducing characteristics and is assumed to decrease VMT. This includes projects generating less than 500 ADT if inconsistent with the General Plan, or less than 1,000 ADT if consistent with the General Plan. As discussed in Section I II, Air Quality, the project's 15 single-family residential units are anticipated to generate 150 ADT. As such, the project is presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact and would not require a detailed VMT analysis. As such, the project would be consistent with the City's Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (Appendix H).
Summary
With implementation of mitigation measures LU-1 and LU-2, the project would not conflict with any plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding an environmental impact. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-36
08/11/2026 PH2 53 of 876
City of Vista
Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist
XII. Mineral Resources
Would the project
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
❑
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
El
El
El
Discussion
a. No IMPACT. Mineral resources are commonly defined as a concentration or occurrence of natural, solid, inorganic, or fossilized organic material in or on the earth's crust in such form and quantity and of such a grade or quality that it has reasonable prospects for economic extraction. Mineral resources can be categorized into three classes: fuel, metallic, and non-metallic. Fuel resources comprise coal, oil, and natural gas. Metals include such resources as gold, silver, iron, and copper. Lastly, non-metal resources include industrial minerals and construction aggregate. Industrial minerals include boron compounds, rare-earth elements, clays, limestone, gypsum, salt, and dimension stone. Construction aggregate includes sand and gravel, and crushed stone.
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) is the primary regulator for surface mining in the state. The act requires the state geologist (California Geological Survey) to identify all mineral deposits in the state and to classify them based on their significance. SMARA defines a mineral deposit as a naturally occurring concentration of minerals in amounts or arrangement that under certain conditions may constitute a mineral resource. The concentration may be of value for its chemical or physical characteristics. The classification of these mineral resources is a joint effort of the State and local governments. It is based on geologic factors and requires that the State Geologist classify the mineral resources area as one of the four Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs), Scientific Resource Zones (SZs), or Identified Resource Areas (IRAs), described below:
• MRZ-1: A Mineral Resource Zone where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or likely to be present.
• MRZ-2: A Mineral Resource Zone where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or a likelihood of their presence and development should be controlled.
• MRZ-3: A Mineral Resource Zone where mineral resource significance is undetermined. • MRZ-4: A Mineral Resource Zone where there is insufficient data to assign any other MRZ designation.
• SZ Areas: Containing unique or rare occurrences of rocks, minerals, or fossils that are of outstanding scientific significance shall be classified in this zone. • IRA Areas: County or State Division of Mines and Geology Identified Areas where adequate production and information indicate that significant minerals are present. 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-37
08/11/2026 PH2 54 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist According to the Generalized Mineral Land Classification Map of Western San Diego County prepared by the California DOC Division of Mines and Geology, the project site is classified as MRZ-3 (DOC 1996). Therefore, the significance of mineral resources in the project region is undetermined.
The General Plan EIR states that the potential for viable extraction of mineral resources within the MRZ-3 is limited due to the City's urbanized character (City 2011). In addition, the City's General Plan does not identify the project site as a locally important mineral resource recovery site (City 2012).
Therefore, there would be no loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. No impact would occur. b. No IMPACT. As stated above in item XII.a, the project area is not used for mineral extraction and is not known as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Further, the project area is not delineated on any plan for mineral resource recovery uses. No impact would occur.
XIII. Noise
Would the project result in
Less than
Significant
Potentially with Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
El
El
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
El
El
❑
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
El
El
IZI
The discussion below is summarized and based on the analysis and conclusions contained in the Bobier Property Project Noise Assessment Study prepared by HELIX (2025c) for the proposed project.
The report is included as Appendix G to this IS/MND.
Discussion
a. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Implementation of the project would result in an increase in noise during project construction and operation. Noise -sensitive receptors (i.e., land uses associated with indoor and/or outdoor activities that may be subject to stress and/or significant interference from noise) typically include residential dwellings, hotels, motels, hospitals, nursing homes, educational facilities, and libraries. According to the Noise Assessment Study (Appendix G), sensitive receivers near the project site include the existing multi -family residential uses to the north across West Bobier Drive and single-family residential uses directly to the south and east of the project site, in addition to the Modera Melrose Mixed -Use Development directly to the west of the project site. 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-38
08/11/2026 PH2 55 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist Noise Thresholds and Standards
Rapid variations in ambient air pressure are perceived as sound by the human ear when they occur within certain limits. A decibel (dB) is a unit used to express the intensity of a sound wave. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire auditory spectrum, the dBA descriptor (or A -weighted sound level) is used because it factors sounds more heavily within the range of maximum human sensitivity to sound frequencies. Although the A -weighted sound level may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise includes a conglomeration of sounds from distant sources that create a relatively steady background noise in which no particular source is identifiable.
For this type of noise, a single descriptor called the LEQ (or equivalent sound level) is used. The minimum change in sound level that the human ear can detect is approximately three dBA. This increment is commonly accepted under CEQA as representing an impact threshold. This limit is also accepted by the City as the significance threshold to determine a proposed project's impact on the affected (existing) environment.
A
D
Dlicable Noise Thresholds
The City has adopted the County of San Diego Noise Ordinance for the purpose of controlling excessive noise levels, including noise from construction activities.
Table N-1, Applicable Exterior Property Line Noise Limits, lists the applicable exterior property line noise limits.
Table N-1
APPLICABLE EXTERIOR PROPERTY LINE NOISE LIMITS
Zone
Time
Applicable Limit One -hour
Average Sound Level
(Decibels)
A-1, E-1, 0, OSR
7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p. m.
50 R -1B, MHP
10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a. m.
45 R M
7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.
55 50
C-1, C-2, 0-3, C -T, OP, M -U and Downtown
7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.
60 Specific Plan
10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.
55 M-1, I -P, all areas of the Vista Business
Park Specific Plan and Specific Plan 14
Any time
70 Source: Vista Municipal Code, Section 8.32
A-1 = Agricultural; C-1 and C-3 = Commercial; C -T = Commercial Transient; E-1 = Estate; l -P = Industrial; M-1 = Light Manufacturing; MHP = Mobile Home Park; M -U = Mixed Use; 0 = Open Space; 0-3 = Office Park; OP = Office Professional; OSR = Open Space Residential; R-1 and R -1B = Single-family Residential; R -M = Multi -family Residential
Per the Vista Noise Ordinance, impacts would be significant if the project would generate noise levels at a common property line with the adjacent residential zones to the west, south, and east that would exceed the following one -hour average exterior noise levels: 50 dBA from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 45 dBA from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
For traffic -related noise, impacts are considered significant in areas where traffic noise at single-family residential uses exceeds 65 CNEL, and implementation of the project would result in an increase of the noise level by 3 CNEL or more.
552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
08/11/2026
3-39
PH2
56 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist Construction activity would be considered significant for nearby residences if it exceeds an 8 -hour average exterior noise level of 75 dBA, or a maximum impulsive noise level of 82 dBA on an occupied residential use. The ordinance prohibits construction and building work between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of the next day, on Sundays, or on a holiday. Construction noise exceeding 10 dBA above ambient noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors would be considered a substantial increase.
Existing Noise Levels
Ambient Noise Levels
Two measurements were taken for the ambient noise survey. One measurement was taken along the northern portion of the project site, approximately 30 feet south of West Bobier Drive, and another measurement was taken along the southern portion of the project site along Waxwing Drive. The measured noise level is shown in Table N-2 Noise Measurement Results.
Table N-2
NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
Measurement 1
Date:
December 17, 2024
Conditions:
Temperature: 66°F. Wind Speed: 3 mph. 34% humidity.
Time:
11:02 a.m. - 11:17 a.m.
Location:
Along the northern boundary of the project site 30 feet south of West Bobier Drive.
Measured Noise Level:
69.4 dBA LEQ
Notes:
Dog barking at adjacent residential property to the east and distant aircraft noise. Minimal noise from adjacent property under construction to the west. Noise primarily from traffic on West Bobier Drive.
Measurement 1
Date:
December 17, 2024
Conditions:
Temperature: 68°F. Wind Speed: 3 mph. 34% humidity.
Time:
11:25 a.m. - 11:40 a.m.
Location:
Along the southern boundary of the project site adjacent to Waxwing Drive.
Measured Noise Level:
53.9 dBA LEQ
Notes:
Distant train noise to the southwest and distant aircraft noise.
Source: HELIX 2025c; Appendix G
Existing Traffic Levels
Based on SANDAG's trip generation guide (SANDAG 2002), the daily trip generation for single-family residential land uses is 10 trips per dwelling unit. Using this metric, the anticipated trip generation for the proposed project's 15 single-family homes would be 150 ADT. Because exact distribution of traffic is not available, this analysis conservatively assumes the entire length of each modeled roadway would receive the project's entire ADT.
Average daily traffic data for West Bobier Drive was based on volumes identified for the adjacent Modera Melrose Mixed -Use Development project (Dudek 2022). Based on traffic observations completed by HELIX staff along West Bobier Drive, a traffic distribution of 95.5 percent automobiles,
2.5 percent medium trucks, and 2 percent heavy trucks was used in this analysis for the existing traffic. Project -generated traffic is assumed to be comprised entirely of automobiles. 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
08/11/2026
3-40
PH2
57 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist Future Noise Prediction Modeling
Modeling of the exterior noise environment for this report was accomplished using TNM version 2.5.
The TNM was released in February 2004 by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and calculates the daytime average hourly LEQ from three-dimensional model inputs and traffic data (Caltrans 2004).
Peak -hour traffic volumes are estimated based on the assumption that approximately 10 percent of the average daily traffic would occur during a peak hour. The one -hour LEQ noise level is calculated utilizing peak -hour traffic. Peak hour LEQ can be converted to CNEL using the following equation, where LEQ(h)pk is the peak hour LEQ, P is the peak hour volume percentage of the ADT, d and e are divisions of the daytime fraction of ADT to account for daytime and evening hours, and N is the nighttime fraction of ADT:
CNEL = LEQ(h)pk + 10log10 4.17/P + 10log10(d + 4.77e + 10N) The model -calculated one -hour LEQ noise output is therefore approximately equal to the CNEL (Caltrans 2013).
Project construction noise was analyzed using the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM; USDOT 2008), which utilizes estimates of sound levels from standard construction equipment.
Operational On site Noise Generation
Specific planning data for the future heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and exact building site locations are not available; however, analysis using a typical to larger -sized residential condenser mounted on ground -level pads provides a reasonable basis for analysis.
Modeling assumed that the HVAC unit would be a Carrier 38HDR060 split system condenser. This unit typically generates a noise level of 56 dBA at a distance of 7 feet. If placed on the proposed patios, the HVAC units would be located approximately 25 feet from the project boundary to the south. At this distance, a single HVAC would generate a noise level of approximately 44.9 dBA. Therefore, operational noise from HVAC units would not exceed the City's nighttime allowable hourly limit of 45 dBA, and impacts would be less than significant.
Operational Off -site Transportation Noise Generation
The project would generate vehicular traffic that would utilize West Bobier Drive and have the potential to result in increased noise levels at existing residences along the roadway. As noted in Section 3.2 above, existing and future traffic noise levels presented in this analysis are based on traffic volumes estimated for the adjacent Modera Melrose Mixed -Use Development by Dudek (2022). Refer to Table 6 above for the forecasted ADT data for existing and project -added traffic volumes.
TNM software was used to calculate the noise contour distances for Existing and Existing + Project conditions. The off -site roadway modeling represents a conservative analysis that does not consider topography or attenuation provided by existing structures. The results of this analysis for the CNEL at the nearest NSLUs to the roadway centerline are shown below in Table N-3, Off -site Traffic Noise Levels. Full modeling inputs and outputs can be found in Appendix G. 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-41
08/11/2026 PH2 58 of 876
City of Vista
Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Table N-3
Off -site Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment
CNEL @ 50 feet
Existing
Existing +
Project
Change from
Existing
Direct
Impact1
West Bobier Drive
Melrose Drive to Sports Park Way
Sports Park Way to North Santa Fe Avenue
70.6 69.9
70.6 70.0
+0.0
+0.1
No
No
1 A direct impact to off -site uses would occur if the project more than doubles (increases by more than 3 CNEL) the existing noise level.
As noted above, a significant direct impact would occur if existing conditions approach or exceed City standards and the project more than doubles (increases by more than 3 CNEL) the existing noise level.
The project would not cause roadway noise levels to exceed 65 CNEL and would not increase roadway noise levels by more than 3 CNEL. Furthermore, this analysis conservatively assumes the unlikely scenario where all project traffic is directed down a given roadway segment. Therefore, exterior off -site direct transportation noise impacts would be less than significant.
On site Construction Noise Generation
Construction would require the use of equipment throughout the site for the full term of construction.
General project construction activities would include grading, site preparation, installation of underground utilities, physical building construction, paving, and application of architectural coatings.
The magnitude of the noise impact would depend on the type of construction activity, equipment, duration of each construction phase, distance between the noise source and receiver, and any intervening structures. Construction would generate elevated noise levels that may disrupt nearby residences in the vicinity of the project site. Construction equipment would be continuously moving across the site, and equipment is not anticipated to be located at a single location during a typical workday. Therefore, construction equipment is modeled at an average distance of 100 feet from the nearest NSLUs. Table N-4, Construction Equipment Noise Levels, provides the 100 -foot distance noise levels for equipment anticipated to be used for general construction activities.
Table N-4
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS
Unit
Percent
Operating Time
LMAx
at 100 feet
dBA LEQ
at 100 feet
Grader
40 79.0
75.0 Dozer
40 75.6
71.7 Backhoe
40 71.5
67.6 Excavator
40 74.7
70.7 Crane
16 74.5
66.6 Generator
50 74.6
71.6 Welder/Torch
40 68.0
64.0 Paver
50 71.2
68.2 Roller
20 74.0
67.0 Concrete Mixer Truck
40 72.8
68.8 Air Compressor
40 71.6
67.7 Breaker
10 84.0
74.0 Source: RCNM; USDOT 2008 (Appendix G)
LMAX = maximum noise level; dBA = A -weighted decibel; LEQ = equivalent sound level 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
08/11/2026
3-42
PH2
59 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist Construction equipment would not all operate at the same time or location, and would not be in constant use during the 8 -hour operating day. Further, not all the pieces of equipment included in Table 8 would be used within 100 feet of off -site residences. A backhoe, grader, and dozer may be working on the site simultaneously but would not be working near one another at a given time due to the nature of their respective operations. A backhoe, grader, and dozer were analyzed together for construction noise impacts due to their likelihood of being used in conjunction with one another.
Based on these assumptions, site preparation operations using a backhoe, a grader, and a dozer at the nearest NSLU would be 77.2 dBA LEQ at 100 feet. Therefore, construction noise from this equipment was modeled to exceed the noise ordinance limit defined in Threshold 4 of 75 dBA LEQ (8 - hour). Implementation of mitigation measure NOI-1 would reduce potential construction noise impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
NOI-1 Construction Noise Management Plan. Noise levels from project -related construction activities shall not exceed the noise limit specified in San Diego County Code Sections 36.408 and
36.409 of 75 dBA (8 -hour average), when measured at the boundary line of the property where the noise is located or any occupied property where noise is being received. A Construction Management Plan that describes the measures included on the construction plans to ensure compliance with the noise limit shall be prepared by the project applicant and submitted to the City of Vista Planning Division for approval prior to issuance of the grading permit. The following measures may be included to reduce construction noise:
• Construction equipment to be properly outfitted and maintained with manufacturer - recommended noise -reduction devices.
• Diesel equipment to be operated with closed engine doors and equipped with factory - recommended mufflers.
• Mobile or fixed "package" equipment (e.g., arc -welders and air compressors) to be equipped with shrouds and noise control features that are readily available for that type of equipment.
• Electrically powered equipment to be used instead of pneumatic or internal- combustion powered equipment, where feasible.
• Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines (e.g., in excess of 5 minutes) to be prohibited.
• Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas to be located as far as practicable from noise -sensitive receptors. • The use of noise -producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only.
• No project -related public address or music system shall be audible at any adjacent sensitive receptor.
• Temporary sound barriers or sound blankets may be installed between construction operations and adjacent noise -sensitive receptors. Due to equipment exhaust pipes 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-43
08/11/2026 PH2 60 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist being approximately 7 to 8 feet above ground, a sound wall at least 10 feet in height above grade, to block the line -of -sight between project construction activities and residences along the southern, western, and eastern property lines. These barriers would mitigate noise levels to within acceptable levels. To effectively reduce noise levels, the sound barrier should be constructed of a material with a minimum weight of two pounds per square foot, with no gaps or perforations, and remain in place until the conclusion of demolition, grading, and construction activities. • The project applicant shall notify residences within 100 feet of the project's property line in writing within one week prior to any construction activity, such as demolition, hard rock handling, concrete sawing, asphalt removal, and/or heavy grading operations. The notification shall describe the activities anticipated, provide dates and hours, and provide contact information with a description of a complaint and response procedure.
• The on -site construction supervisor shall have the responsibility and authority to receive and resolve noise complaints. A clear appeal process for the affected resident shall be established prior to construction commencement to allow for resolution of noise problems that cannot be immediately solved by the site supervisor.
Rock Crushing
Rock crushing may be required for large material. If rock crushing is to be conducted on -site, machinery should be located at the furthest distance from surrounding residences. Rock crushing machinery may emit noise levels up to 95 dBA at 50 feet (Appendix G). A rock crusher, if located on -site, would be at most 140 feet from nearby residences. Assuming a noise attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance, noise levels from the breaker would reduce to 75 dBA LEQ at a distance of 500 feet. At 140 feet, construction noise from a crusher would be 86.1 dBA LEQ. This would be above the limit in Threshold 2 of 75 dBA LEQ and 82 dBA LMnx. If on -site rock crushing is required, impacts would be potentially significant. Mitigation measure NOI-2 would ensure that potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
NOI-2 Rock Crushing Noise Reduction Measures. If on -site use of a rock crusher is required, noise levels generated shall not exceed 75 dBA LEQ or 82 dBA LMnx. The crusher should be located in the furthest feasible point from nearby residences. A temporary sound barrier should be placed around the rock crusher, which shields receivers to the north, east, south, and west. The barrier should stand at least as tall as the highest part of the crusher, at a minimum of eight feet.
Prior to operation of the crushing machinery, a verified acoustician shall verify noise levels from equipment shall not exceed the limits noted above.
Blasting
If blasting is required, a full blasting analysis cannot be done until after the site is cleared of all surface material (including any rippable material) to expose the specific type of material to be blasted, and until the extent of the area of blasting and the required blasting charge type are known. Single-family residences are located on adjacent lots; however, the precise location of blasting cannot be known at this time. For this analysis, it is conservatively assumed blasting would occur 100 feet from off -site residences for safety purposes.
552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-44
08/11/2026 PH2 61 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist In accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations Section 816.67(b), flyrock is not allowed at this site beyond the direct area of the blast, under any circumstances. This analysis assumes that proper blast planning would be used, that all flyrock would be controlled with blast mats or other flyrock control techniques, and proper stemming materials for the charge hole would be utilized.
As with flyrock, control of airblast is dependent on the skill of the Blasting Supervisor, along with many factors, including but not limited to: the depth of the charge, the type of rock, the amount of fractures in the rock, and the length of correct stemming materials. Airblast is regulated by the limits from 30 CFR 816.61-68, which are provided below in Table N-4, Maximum Allowable Airblast Limits.
Table N-4
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE AIRBLAST LIMITS
Lower Frequency Limit
of Measuring System (Hz)
Maximum Level
(±3 dB)
0.1 Hz or lower
134 peak
2 Hz or lower
133 peak
6 Hz or lower
128 peak
C -weighted noise level (dBC)
105 dBC
Hz = Hertz, dB = decibel
The following analysis is based on a general description of potential impacts that would result from blasting activities. See Appendix G for additional details regarding methodology. The following scaled distance factors in Table N-5, Scaled Distance Factors, are based on the relationship between peak particle velocity and frequency. Analysis of scaled distance for the charge weight is based on the following:
Table N-5
SCALED DISTANCE FACTORS
Distance from the Blasting Site (feet)
Scaled Distance Factor
0 to 300
50 300 to 5,000
55 5,001 and beyond
65 The allowable charge weight is calculated by: W = (D/Ds)2 W = Allowable charge weight in pounds
D = Distance to the nearest structure in feet
Ds = Value from table based on D
A distance (D) of 100 feet was used in the calculation. At a distance of 100 feet, the scaled distance factor (Ds) would be 50. Therefore, for the control of ground -borne vibration impacts to the closest off - site residence, the maximum charge weight would be 4 pounds at a minimum distance of 100 feet.
Because project -specific details regarding blasting operations are not available at this time, impacts to off -site residences are conservatively assessed as potentially significant. The blasting contractor would be required to determine the allowable distances and charge weights. This analysis is general in nature and does not substitute for proper planning of any blasting and/or responsibility for any potential damages caused by the blaster. Implementation of measure NOI-3 would ensure that potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
3-45
08/11/2026 PH2 62 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist NOI-3 Blasting Management Plan. Should blasting be required on the project site, the project applicant shall prepare a Blasting Management Plan that minimizes potential blasting effects to adjacent residences within 100 feet. All blast planning must be done by a City of Vista -approved blasting contractor, and submitted to the City with the appropriate blasting permits, and all other applicable local, state, and federal permits, licenses, and bonding. The blasting contractor or owner must conduct all notifications, inspections, monitoring, and major or minor blasting requirements planning with seismograph reports, as necessary.
Construction Traffic Noise
It is anticipated that 12 round trips, or 24 one-way haul truck trips, would be required for the clearing and export of existing vegetation over the course of 24 workdays during the site preparation phase of construction. Up to two one-way haul truck trips, or passes, would occur per day. This daily traffic level associated with vegetation export is anticipated to be the highest daily traffic level associated with project construction. As a conservative estimate, four passes by a haul truck are used for all roadway segments.
The additional four construction trips were added to the existing traffic volumes on Bobier Drive north of the project site. Using TNM, receivers were modeled at 50 feet from the roadway centerline, and construction haul trips were modeled as heavy trucks. The modeled existing traffic noise levels along West Bobier Drive are 70.6 CNEL for the segment between Melrose Drive and Sports Park Way, and
69.9 between Sports Park Way to North Santa Fe Avenue. The addition of the project's four haul truck trips during the grading phase of construction would not increase these noise levels. This would not be a perceptible increase, and impacts from construction traffic noise to existing NSLUs would be less than significant.
b. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. A possible source of vibration during general project construction activities would be a vibratory roller, which may be used for compaction of soil beneath building foundations and could be used within 50 feet of the existing off -site residences east and south of the project site and the future residences of the Modera Melrose Mixed -Use Development west of the project site. Most usage of a vibratory roller, however, would occur at distances greater than 50 feet from any single residence due to the mobile nature of its use across the project site. A vibratory roller would create approximately 0.210 inch per second peak particle velocity (PPV) at a distance of 25 feet (Caltrans 2020). A 0.210 inch per second PPV vibration level would equal 0.098 inch per second PPV at a distance of 50 feet.1This would be lower than the structural damage impact to older structures of
0.5 inch per second PPV and the "strongly perceptible" impact for humans of 0.1 inch per second PPV.
Additionally, off -site exposure to such ground -borne vibration would be temporary as it would be limited to the short-term construction period. Therefore, even though vibration may be perceptible at nearby residences, temporary impacts associated with the roller (and other potential equipment) would be less than significant. In addition, as a residential development, the project would not generate excessive ground -borne vibration during operation; therefore, no impacts would occur.
C. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The project is subject to some distant aircraft noise, though the site is not located near an active airport. The nearest airports are Oceanside Municipal Airport, located approximately 5.3 miles to the west, and McClellan -Palomar Airport, located approximately 6.2 miles to the southwest. At these distances, no effects related to airport noise would occur at the project site, and impacts would be less than significant.
1 Equipment PPV = Reference PPV * (25/D)n (inches per second), where Reference PPV is PPV at 25 feet, D is distance from equipment to the receiver in feet, and n = 1.1 (the value related to the attenuation rate through the ground); formula from Caltrans 2013b.
552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-46
08/11/2026 PH2 63 of 876
City of Vista
Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist
XIV. Population and Housin
Would the project
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than
Significant
Potentially with Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
El
El
❑
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Discussion
a. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Growth -inducing impacts are caused by those characteristics of a project that foster or encourage population and/or economic growth, such as new housing (direct) or creation of a new job center or the expansion of infrastructure to increase capacity (indirect).
The proposed project would directly add to the City's population by introducing 15 new single-family residences. According to SANDAG's 2024 Population and Housing Estimates, the average household size in Vista is 3.03 people (SANDAG 2024a). Applying this rate, an additional 15 residences could result in a population increase of approximately 45 people. Based on the City's estimated population of 107,444 (SANDAG 2024a), the project would increase the City's population by 0.04 percent.
The City's General Plan designates the project site as MD and is zoned as R -1-B. The project would be consistent with the land use and zoning designations for the project site and would not require a General Plan Amendment or zone change. A Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) was prepared for the City in accordance with California law that requires local governments to facilitate and encourage the production of housing to accommodate population and employment growth. The 2021-2029 RHNA target for the City is 2,561 homes distributed among various income levels (City 2021). Given that the project would be consistent with the designated land use and zoning for the site and would provide a portion of the RHNA allocation, it would not represent a significant impact due to unanticipated or unplanned growth. Direct impacts would be less than significant.
The project would not involve activities or features that would indirectly induce growth. Infrastructure would be extended to the site; however, this extension would be from the existing municipal facilities that serve the greater project area and would not involve the installation of any infrastructure that would expand capacity beyond the site. The project site, which is already surrounded by existing development, including West Bobier Drive and multi -family residences to the north, single-family residences to the south, the Moderna Melrose Mixed -Use Development Project to the west, and single- family residences to the east, would not provide any new or future potential to accommodate development beyond the site. Therefore, the project would not indirectly contribute to substantial growth. Indirect impacts would be less than significant. b. No IMPACT. The project site does not currently support any housing. Thus, the project would not displace any people. Therefore, the project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur. 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-47
08/11/2026 PH2 64 of 876
City of Vista
Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist
XV. Public Services
Would the project
Less than
Significant
Potentially with Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a.
Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, or need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the following public services:
i. Fire protection?
El
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
El
El
v. Other public facilities?
El
El
El
Discussion
a-i. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed project would be served by the VFD. The closest City fire station to the site is VFD Station No. 6, located at 651 East Vista Way, approximately 1.5 miles to the southeast of the project site. The project would introduce approximately 45 residents to a previously vacant site, which would increase the demand for fire services. However, the project would be consistent with existing plans and zoning, so this would be a planned increase. In addition, the VFD currently provides fire protection services to the project area. Therefore, the project would not be adding new land to the jurisdiction of Station No. 1 that was not previously serviced.
The project does not represent a unique land use or type of construction that would require additional VFD resources, would not have a significant impact involving fire response times, and would not otherwise create a substantially greater need for fire protection services than already exists. The project applicant would be required to submit project plans to VFD for review and plan check approval with respect to applicable fire protection standards set forth in Chapter 16.04 of the Vista Development Code would be required prior to the issuance of building permits. Through this routine process, VFD would confirm that the project meets all applicable fire codes set forth by the State Fire Marshal and the City's building code, including sufficient fire flow and emergency access for fire engines and crews. While no new fire protection facilities would be required to serve the project, the project applicant would be required to contribute a Fire Protection Development Fee in accordance with the City's Fee Schedule for incremental increases in demand for fire protection services, which provide funding for future improvements by VFD. Such improvements would undergo separate environmental review at the time they are proposed.
Implementation of the proposed project may result in an increase in the demand for emergency services; however, the size and location of the project would not place an undue hardship on the VFD since they are presently servicing the areas surrounding the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not exceed the capacity of the VFD to serve the site with existing fire protection services and resources. Impacts would be less than significant. 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-48
08/11/2026 PH2 65 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist a -ii. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The San Diego County Sheriff's Department (SDCSD) provides police services to the City. The closest police station to the site is the SDCSD Vista Station located at 325 South Melrose Drive #210, approximately 1.9 miles south of the project site. The project would involve the construction of 15 single-family residences on a vacant site, which could generate an increase in demand for police protection services. However, the SDCSD currently provides police protection services to the site, and the project would be consistent with existing plans and zoning for the site.
Therefore, while the types of calls may differ from those that would occur with the existing land use, the project would not be adding new land to the jurisdiction of SDCSD that was not previously serviced.
Impacts would be less than significant.
a -iii. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The project includes the development of 15 single-family residences, some of whom may house school -aged children. The project site is located within the boundaries of VUSD, which serves grades pre-school through 12. The closest school to the site is Maryland Elementary School, located at 700 North Avenue, approximately 0.4 mile southwest of the project site.
As discussed in item XIV.a., the project would result in 45 new residents in the project area, some of which may be school -age children. There would be an increase in the demand for VUSD school services if the homes are ultimately occupied by people from outside the City or County. The VUSD Long Range Facilities Master Plan (VUSD 2023) states that overall enrollment across the district is projected to shrink by 11 percent from 17,698 student enrollment in 2021 to a projected 14,331 student enrollment in 2029. As such, available capacity is increasing across nearly all school sites (VUSD 2023).
Pursuant to California Education Code Section 17620 et seq. and Government Code Sections 65995(h) and 65996(b), the project would be required to pay the current statutory developer fee of $4.08 per square foot of residential construction as a condition of building permit approval (as of 2025). Payment of these fees would assist in funding VUSD's long-range plans. Senate Bill 50 states that the fees imposed by school districts shall constitute the exclusive method of considering and mitigating impacts on school facilities caused by a development project. Such payment shall provide "full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act...on the provision of adequate school facilities" (Government Code Section 65995[h]). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the need for additional or altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, and would not adversely impact performance objectives such as teacher -student ratios or capacities for schools in the area. Impacts would be less than significant. a -iv. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The project would add 15 new residences, which would introduce new residents to the area who would likely use parks. The closest public parks to the project site are Vista Sports Park, located approximately 0.3 mile northwest of the project site, and Liz Duran Park, located approximately 0.9 mile southeast of the project site. Although the project would potentially increase the utilization of existing parks and recreational facilities within the City, the combination of existing public park and recreational facilities in the project vicinity, and proposed future recreational facilities within the City would adequately serve future residents of the project site. Additionally, the project applicant would be required to contribute a Park Fee in accordance with the City's Fee Schedule for incremental increases in demand for public park facilities, which provide funding for future improvements to public park facilities by the City. Such improvements would undergo separate environmental review at the time they are proposed. Therefore, the construction of 15 single-family dwelling units would not result in substantial adverse effects to the existing parks or require the construction of new parks. Impacts would be less than significant. 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-49
08/11/2026 PH2 66 of 876
City of Vista
Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist
a -v. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Future residents of the developed project may occasionally visit other public facilities such as senior centers, community centers, pools, and libraries. Each of these facilities is intended to serve the general public. The added population from this project would have a less than significant impact on these types of facilities, as only a small percentage of the project's residents would visit a particular facility on a given day. The proposed project would not individually result in a need to construct new types of other public facilities.
XVI. Recreation
Would the project
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a.
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?
El
El
❑
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
El
El
El
Discussion
a. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. To be conservative, if the population of the project site is comprised entirely of new residents to the City, the project would increase the City's population by approximately 45 persons. Additional residents generated by the project would likely increase demand for public parks. The closest public parks to the project site are Vista Sports Park, located approximately 0.3 mile northwest of the project site, and Liz Duran Park, located approximately 0.9 mile southeast of the project site.
A slight increase in demand for the existing public recreational resources could occur from the additional 45 residents that would be generated from the project. However, impacts from the project are anticipated to be minimal due to the number of existing park and recreation facilities that are in the vicinity of the project. The slight increase in demand for public recreation facilities that could occur would be spread amongst the existing facilities. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial increase in 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. Impacts would be less than significant.
b. No Impact. The project does not include formal recreational facilities (playgrounds, picnic areas, etc.) and would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. No impact would occur.
552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-50
08/11/2026 PH2 67 of 876
City of Vista
Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist
XVII. Transportation/Traffic
Would the project
a. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
❑
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
❑•
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
El
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
El
L
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑
❑
1 Discussion
a. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. A variety of plans, policies, and ordinances address transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Roadway segment capacity and LOS standards are generally used as long-range planning guidelines to determine the functional classification of roadways. The actual capacity of a roadway facility varies according to its physical attributes. Typically, however, the performance and LOS of a roadway segment are heavily influenced by the ability of an intersection to accommodate peak -hour volumes. LOS designations range from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst operating conditions.
Within the City and the San Diego region, intersection performance rather than roadway segment performance is considered a better indicator of poor traffic operations. The Circulation Element of the General Plan states that the City has established LOS D as the threshold for acceptable operating conditions in designated areas (City 2012). In addition, if a roadway or intersection is currently operating at a capacity less than LOS D, additional traffic will have a substantial effect if it adds more than an average of two seconds of delay (City 2012). The project is anticipated to generate approximately 12 morning peak trips and 15 afternoon peak trips. As determined in the Project Information Form prepared for the project (Appendix H), the project would not be required to prepare an LOS analysis, and the peak hour trips generated by the project would not be enough to substantially affect the roadway network. Therefore, the project would not result in an increase of traffic that would conflict with the City's thresholds of acceptable operating conditions and thereby the City's General Plan Circulation Element in relation to vehicular traffic.
In addition to LOS, the General Plan Circulation Element contains several alternative transportation policies, including policies that can be implemented individually on a project -by -project basis, and policies that are programmatic. The project would be consistent with the Circulation Element policies by providing internal sidewalks, limiting drive access to main project roadways, and not providing pass through opportunities for vehicle traffic.
Transit service in the City is provided by the North County Transit District (NCTD). Within the project area, NCTD operates bus route 318, which travels along West Bobier Drive in the project area. Route 318 has two transit stops approximately 530 feet east of the project site and two transit stops
0.25 mile west of the project site. The project would not affect these existing bus operations or 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-51
08/11/2026 PH2 68 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist facilities. Sidewalks are provided along West Bobier Drive. The project would not affect these existing pedestrian facilities and would add a curb/gutter and sidewalk improvements along West Bobier Drive fronting the project. A Class II bicycle facility exists along West Bobier Drive in both the eastbound and westbound directions in the vicinity of the project. The project would not affect these existing bicycle facilities and would not preclude the implementation of future planned facilities.
Thus, the project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
b. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The Project Information Form (Appendix H) utilized methodologies identified in the City's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines to determine if the project would be required to conduct a VMT analysis. The City's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines includes a list of project types that are screened out for CEQA purposes since the project has VMT-reducing characteristics and is assumed to decrease VMT. This includes projects generating less than 500 ADT if inconsistent with the General Plan, or less than 1,000 ADT if consistent with the General Plan. The project's 15 single-family residential units are anticipated to generate 150 ADT (Appendix H). As such, the project is presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact and would not require a detailed VMT analysis. Impacts would be less than significant.
C. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. There would be no hazardous design features or incompatible uses introduced by the project. The project would be a single-family residential development that would be comparable to the surrounding land uses. Access to the project site would be provided via a driveway located on West Bobier Drive, approximately 250 feet east of the intersection of Sports Park Way and West Bobier Drive, which would function as a side -street stop -controlled intersection with West Bobier Drive as the uncontrolled approach and the driveway as the stop -controlled approach. This driveway would include one inbound lane and one outbound lane. Internal roadways on the project site would allow for a two-way flow of vehicle traffic and provide access to garages. All project circulation elements would be designed in accordance with City standards, such as Vista Development Code Title 19 (Streets/Sidewalks). No unique roadway features, traffic patterns, or incompatible vehicles would be introduced as part of the development. Development of the proposed project would not increase traffic hazards due to incompatible uses that could affect existing traffic or circulation in the project area.
Impacts would be less than significant.
d. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to emergency access. During construction of the project, heavy construction -related vehicles could interfere with emergency responses to the site or emergency evacuation procedures in the event of an emergency (e.g., vehicles traveling behind the slow -moving truck). However, such trips would be brief and infrequent. Furthermore, as discussed in item IX.f., the City requires traffic control plans for any construction activity that will disrupt traffic flow on City streets, and project conditions of approval would require that emergency access be maintained during construction. Once operational, as discussed above in item XVII.c, access to the project site would be via a driveway off of West Bobier Drive, which would be designed in accordance with City standards. In addition, the project would be designed to incorporate all required VFD standards to ensure adequate emergency access to the site and surrounding areas. Therefore, impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant. 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-52
08/11/2026 PH2 69 of 876
City of Vista
Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in
terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code Section 5020.1(k), or
❑
❑
❑
L
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
❑
❑
❑
g
Discussion
a-i - a -ii. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. As discussed in item V.b, the Cultural Resources Survey Report prepared for the project (Appendix C), BFSA Environmental Services (BFSA) concluded that a bedrock milling site (SDI -5345) has been previously recorded within the project site.
However, no associated artifacts were observed, and previous testing and evaluation have already determined that the site is not eligible for the CRHR. No other historical resources were identified; thus, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5.
BFSA contacted the NAHC for a Sacred Lands File search, which indicated for Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance within the vicinity of the project. [Responses from tribes to be inserted when available]
Due to the cultural significance of the region and the positive Sacred Lands File search, there is potential to discover previously unknown tribal cultural resources at the project site. However, implementation of mitigation measures CR-1 through CR-6 listed above in Section V, Cultural Resources, would reduce potential impacts to TCRs to less than significant levels. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-53
08/11/2026 PH2 70 of 876
City of Vista
Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
❑
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
❑
Less than
Significant
Impact
a
No
Impact
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
❑
❑
a
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
❑
❑
r
■
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
❑
❑
❑
A
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
❑
❑
❑
Discussion
a. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The project would add new residents to the area that would generate a demand for utility services, as well as introduce new impervious surfaces that would increase the amount and rate of stormwater runoff.
The Vista Irrigation District (VID), as the water service provider for the site, prepared a Water Supply Study for the project (VID 2025; Appendix l). The project would involve connections to the existing 10 - inch water main owned and operated by VID within West Bobier Drive. The project would involve the construction of a new 8 -inch water main within the private street extending from the project driveway on West Bobier Drive. Fire service would be provided from one fire hydrant within the project's private street in the southeastern portion of the site. According to the Water Supply Study, based on the unit demand factor of 1,100 gpd per acre for single-family residential development, the projected average annual water demand for the project is 1,892 gpd. The project is not expected to increase water demands over ultimate flows projected in VID's 2018 Potable Water Master Plan.
In addition, the project would include local connections to the existing municipal sewer system. The project would include sanitary sewer laterals at each building, which would connect to new sanitary sewer lines installed along the project's private drive, which would then connect to existing sewer mains in West Bobier Drive. Multiple biofiltration basins would be installed throughout the project site, and additional storm drain facilities would include a curb and gutter system. 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
3-54
08/11/2026 PH2 71 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist Dry utilities that include electric, gas, and telecommunication infrastructure would also be extended to the site from existing infrastructure. The existing utility facilities would have adequate capacity to support the proposed project. The project would not result in the need for new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities.
Impacts would be less than significant.
b. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Development of the project site, which is currently vacant, would increase the demand for water that is needed to serve the proposed 15 single-family residences. Water service for the project would be provided by VID from existing infrastructure in West Bobier Drive. The project's proposed 8 -inch water main would connect to the existing 10 -inch water main in West Bobier Drive. VID is a member agency of the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) and imports approximately 70 percent of its potable water from SDCWA, which in turn purchases water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). The remaining 30 percent of VID's supply is from Lake Henshaw, which is fed through precipitation from the San Luis Rey watershed. As stated in the Water Supply Study prepared for the project, based on the unit demand factor of 1,100 gpd per acre for single-family residential development, the projected average annual water demand for the project is 1,892 gpd (Appendix l).
According to VID's 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (VID's UWMP; VID 2020), VID will use local water resources whenever possible; however, if there is a shortfall, they would rely on SDCWA supplies.
In the analysis of a normal water supply year, as described in VID's 2020 UWMP, SDCWA, MWD, and VID supplies were developed as planned, and Senate Bill X7-7 conservation targets were achieved.
Thus, no shortages are anticipated within VID's service area in a normal year through 2045. That would mean that VID's projected potable water supply would meet the entire projected Senate Bill X7-7 water demand of 21,728 -acre feet in 2045. In the analysis of a single -dry year through 2045, VID's 2020 UWMP findings indicated that if SDCWA, MWD, and VID supplies are developed as planned and Senate Bill X7-7 conservation targets are achieved, no shortages are anticipated within VID's service area.
However, for multiple -dry year analyses, the conservative planning assumption used in VID's 2020 UWMP expects that MWD would allocate supplies to its member agencies. As a result, some level of shortage could be experienced. As stated above, when shortages occur in VID's resources, the SDCWA would use various measures to cover the shortfall.
On the local level, additional water conservation for new developments in the City is achieved through compliance with the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance in the Vista Development Code, Chapter
18.56. Prior to the provision of a grading permit, an Estimated Total Water Use Worksheet for the project would be required to be submitted in the application, which would have to be under the Maximum Applied Water Allowance established by the City.
As part of the Conditions of Approval for this project, proof of compliance with applicable VID emergency drought regulations regarding new development would be confirmed by appropriate staff during review of project plans and various inspections prior to the approval of a Certificate of Occupancy. Therefore, the project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Impacts would be less than significant.
C. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Based on the City's Sewer Master Plan Update (City 2025), the proposed project would be expected to generate approximately 2,940 gpd of wastewater based on the land use sewage flow generator factor for the proposed single-family residential land use identified in the Sewer Master Plan (196 gpd per dwelling unit x 15 dwelling units; City 2025). As described in item XIX.a, the project site would include local connections to the existing municipal sewer system.
Wastewater from the project would be treated by the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility, which has a treatment capacity of 43.3 million gpd (Encina Wastewater Authority 2025). Wastewater generation 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-55
08/11/2026 PH2 72 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist from the proposed project would represent 0.007 percent of the total daily Encina facility treatment capacity and would therefore not exceed the capacity of the facility. As such, the project's contribution of wastewater would be sufficiently handled by the wastewater treatment provider. Impacts would be less than significant.
d. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Development of the project could result in a slight increase in domestic municipal solid waste generation due to the proposed residential land use on a previously vacant lot.
The project would construct 15 single-family residences, which would result in a population increase of approximately 45 people. However, the project would be conditioned to comply with Assembly Bill 939, which requires cities to divert 50 percent of solid waste to recycling programs and away from landfills. Solid waste generated by the proposed project would be hauled to Sycamore Landfill in San Diego, which has a permitted capacity of 5,000 tons per day and a remaining capacity of 99,477,838 cubic yards (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery 2025). This solid waste facility could accommodate the solid waste generated by the proposed project. Because the project's contribution would be negligible in terms of the remaining capacity of this landfill, impacts would be less than significant.
e. No IMPACT. The proposed project would be conditioned to comply with all regulations related to solid waste, such as the California Integrated Waste Management Act and City recycling programs; therefore, no impact would occur.
XX. Wildfire
If located in or near state responsibility areas or /ands class/tied asveiyhigh fire hazard severity zones, would the project
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
❑
❑
I
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
❑
❑
1 c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
❑
❑
❑
1 d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
❑
❑
0 Discussion
a. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The project site is not located in a state responsibility area or lands classified as VHFHSZ (CAL FIRE 2025). The City participates in the County's Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (County 2017). The proposed project would be included in this plan because the project site is located within the City limits. The project site is currently vacant and does not have a designated access point. With project implementation, site access would be provided via a driveway located on West Bobier Drive to the north of the project site.
552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
08/11/2026
3-56
PH2
73 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist As stated above in item IX.f, during construction, heavy construction -related vehicles could interfere with emergency response to the site or emergency evacuation procedures in the event of an emergency (e.g., vehicles traveling behind the slow -moving truck). However, such trips would be brief and infrequent, and access for emergency vehicles would be maintained. As a result, the project's construction impacts would be less than significant. Operation of the proposed project would involve an increase in traffic in and out of the project site due to the anticipated population growth at the site.
However, project circulation elements would be required to adhere to the design requirements as established by Vista Development Code Title 19 (Streets/Sidewalks) and the VFD, which would ensure adequate emergency access to the site and surrounding areas. Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant.
b. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. See also item IX.g above. According to the Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps prepared by CAL FIRE, the proposed project is not located within a VHFHSZ (CAL FIRE 2025).
The project site is located in an urbanized environment. There are no wildlands immediately adjacent to the project site, which significantly reduces the risk of wildland fire damage to people and structures in the area. Additionally, implementation of the proposed project would not heighten wildfire risks, as it would include structures that would install standard fire safety features on a site that is almost entirely surrounded by urban uses. Further, the project would adhere to the CBC, California Fire Code, and County Fire Code. Therefore, the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, and any impacts related to exposing project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire would be less than significant.
C. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed project is located in an area developed with residential uses. The project would not involve the installation of fuel breaks, emergency water sources, or power lines. The project would involve the construction of connections to existing utilities, such as sewer, water, electricity, gas, and telecommunication facilities. Such utility connections would not exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed project would occur within an area developed with residential land uses. As stated in item XX.b above, the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire and would not expose project occupants to significant levels of pollutant concentrations from wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Further, as discussed in Section VII, Geology and Soils, the project would result in less than significant impacts related to landslides and is not subject to flooding.
Thus, the risk of people and structures experiencing significant risks such as downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes, is negligible. As such, impacts would be less than significant. 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-57
08/11/2026 PH2 74 of 876
City of Vista
Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist
XXI. Mandato Findin • of Si • nificance
Would the project
Less than
Significant
Potentially with Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a.
Does the project have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
El
IZI
El
El
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are significant when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of past, present and probable future projects)?
El
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
El
Discussion
a. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. With the incorporation of mitigation measures identified in this IS/MND, the proposed project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, reduce the habitat of any sensitive plant or animal species, or eliminate important examples of California history or prehistory.
As discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources, the proposed project could result in significant temporary (direct) impacts to active bird nests on and off -site during the bird breeding season.
However, Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 would ensure that potential impacts to birds protected under the MBTA and CFG Code are less than significant.
As described in Section V, Cultural Resources, there is a potential for unknown subsurface cultural resources or Tribal Cultural Resources, given the cultural significance of the region and the positive Sacred Lands File search. Therefore, encountering unforeseen archaeological resources during ground -disturbing activities may result in significant impacts. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 to CR-6, these impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. b. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. There are three projects considered in the cumulative analysis:
(1) 1570 North Santa Fe Avenue, which proposes a Site Development Plan for 33 apartments on 0.53 acres; (2) 1310 Tylee Street Subdivision, which proposes a Tentative Subdivision Map for 43 single- family residential lots, including four affordable lots on a 4.35 -acre lot; and (3) Camino Corto Apartments, which proposes the development of 24 multi -family units on a vacant 1.28 acre site. Each of these projects are within a two-mile radius of the proposed project. 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-58
08/11/2026 PH2 75 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist Implementation of the proposed project would not result in individually limited, but cumulatively considerable significant impacts. As discussed under item III.b., with implementation of mitigation measure AQ-1, the project's short-term and long-term emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors would not exceed the SDAPCD daily or annual screening thresholds. Therefore, the project's construction and operational activities would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants that would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Similarly, the project would have a less than significant impact in relation to GHG, which is inherently discussed in terms of cumulative impacts.
All resource topics associated with the project have been analyzed in accordance with CEQA Guidelines and found to pose no impact, less -than -significant impact, or less than significant with mitigation.
Taken in sum with other projects in the area and the scale of the proposed project, impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
C. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The project would not consist of any uses or activities that would negatively affect any persons in the vicinity. In addition, all resource topics associated with the project have been analyzed in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and found to pose no impact, less -than -significant impact, or less than significant with mitigation. As discussed in Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, and impacts would be less than significant. As discussed in Section XI, Land Use and Planning, there is the potential for land use consistency conflicts in relation to noise impacts on future residents of the project site; however, with implementation of mitigation measures LU-1 and LU-2, potential impacts are reduced to less than significant. Consequently, the project would not result in any environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings directly or indirectly. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-59
08/11/2026 PH2 76 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist This page intentionally left blank
552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026 3-60
08/11/2026 PH2 77 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 4 - References and List of Preparers Chapter 4 - References
and List of Preparers
References
Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines permits an environmental document to incorporate by reference other documents that provide relevant data. The documents listed below are hereby incorporated by reference. The pertinent material is summarized throughout this IS/MND where that information is relevant to the analysis of impacts of the proposed project. Referenced documents that are followed by a star (*) are on file and available for review at the City of Vista Planning Division office located at 200 Civic Center Drive, Vista. Referenced documents that are followed by a double star (**) are available on the City's web site at htto:// www.cityofvista.com/ .
BFSA Environmental Services (BFSA). 2024. Cultural Resources Survey Report for the West Bobier Drive Project. September 13.
California Department of Conservation. 2020. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Available at: httos://ma 3s.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed October 6, 2025. 1996. Division of Mines and Geology. Mineral Lands Classification, Aggregate Materials in the Western San Diego County Production -Consumption Region, Special Report 153.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2025. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area. Available at:
httos://experience.arcgis.com/experience/5O65c998b4bO462f9ec3c6c226c61Oa9.
Accessed October 7, 2025.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2025. Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) Facility/Site Activity Details, Sycamore Landfill. Available at:
https://www2.caI recycle.ca.gov/SoI id Waste/SiteActivity/Deta iIs/1798?siteID=2871.
Accessed October 6, 2025.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2025. EnviroStor. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ . Accessed October 8, 2025.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April. Available at: htt3s://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-a or2O2O-a11y. Ddf. 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Protocol. September. 2004. Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5. Available at:
httrs:// www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/traffic noise model/tnm v25/.
California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA). 2019. Stormwater Best Management Practices Construction Handbook.
CW Soils. 2024. Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report. April 25. 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
08/11/2026
4-1
PH2 78 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 4 - References and List of Preparers Dudek. 2022. Traffic Noise Model Calculations for the Modera Melrose Mixed -Use Development Environmental Impact Report. April.
Encina Wastewater Authority. 2025. Facilities. Available at: httos:// www.encina.3a.com/ . Accessed October 7, 2025.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2012. FEMA Flood Map Service Center.
O6O73CO757G. May 16. Available at: httos://msc.fema.gov/portal/home. Accessed October 8, 2025.
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX). 2O25a. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report. March.
2O25b. Biological Technical Report. July.
2O25c. Noise Assessment Study. March.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2O24a. Population and Housing Estimates, Vista Subregional Area. January 1. Available at:
httos://adIsdasads 3rod Jubl icwest.z22.web.core.windows.net/datasurfer/SANDAL%2Ov24% 2OEstimates%202024%2OVista%2OSubregiona I%2OArea. odf.
2O24b. Population and Housing Estimates, Oceanside Subregional Area. January 1. Available at:
httos://adIsdasads Drod Dubl icwest.z22.web.core.windows.net/datasurfer/SANDAG%2Ov24% 2OEstimates%202024%2O0ceanside%2OSubregional%2OArea. 3df. 2002. SANDAG's (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region. April. Available at:
httos:// www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/ods/ceaa/Leh manTPM/38%2OAppendi x%2OT9 SANDAG%2OTri 3%2OGeneration%2ORates.pdf.
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2009. Rule 55 Fugitive Dust Control.
Adopted June 24. Available at:
htt3s:// www.sda 3cd.org/content/dam/sdaocd/documents/rules/current-rules/Rule-55.3df.
San Diego, County of. 2017. Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. October. Available at:
httos:// www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/oes/emergency management/oes 'I mitolan .html.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2025. GeoTracker. Available at:
htt3s://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed October 8, 2025.
SWS Engineering, Inc. 2O25a. Preliminary Drainage Study for Waxwing Drive Subdivision. March 17. 2O25b. Priority Development Project Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) for Waxwing Drive Subdivision. March 17.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2008. Roadway Construction Noise Model.
Vista, City of (City). 2025. Final Sewer Master Plan. May. Available at:
htt3s:// www.vista.gov/home/show 3ublisheddocument/13765/638917209007070000. 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
08/11/2026
4-2
PH2 79 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 4 - References and List of Preparers Vista, City of (City) (cont.)
2021. Draft Housing Element Update 2021-2029. Available at:
httos:// www.cityofvista.com/home/showoubl isheddocument/24161/6375816352233700
00. 2012. Vista General Plan Update 2030. February.
2011. Vista General Plan Update 2030. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. May.
Vista Irrigation District (VID). 2025. 552 West Bobier Drive Water Supply Study. June 26. 2020. Urban Water Management Plan. Available at:
httos:// www.vidwater.org/files/beb86699a/VID+2020+UWMP.odf . 2018. Potable Water Master Plan. April 9. Available at:
httDs:// www.vidwater.org/files/b8a52bb4e/2017+Potable+Water+Master+Plan 2018-04- 09 combined 35mb. Ddf.
Vista Unified School District (VUSD). 2023. Long Range Facilities Master Plan. Published July 20, 2023. Available at: htt3s:// www.vistausd.org/departments/osc/olanning/facility-master- plan. Accessed October 7, 2025.
552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
08/11/2026
4-3
PH2 80 of 876
City of Vista Chapter 4 - References and List of Preparers Individuals and Organizations Consulted
Chris Winters, Senior Planner, City of Vista
Preparers
Jason Runyan - Project Manager, HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
Sydney Wells - Environmental Planner, HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 552 West Bobier Drive Project Draft IS/MND
April 2026
08/11/2026
4-4
PH2 81 of 876
ATTACHMENT A
FIGURES
08/11/2026
PH2 82 of 876
552 West Bobier Drive Project
ORANGE
COON-°
SAN O\
COUNT
0 0
rsi
0 0
0 N
n
0 W
i
0 NEILL LAKE
r.
'AVAIL
AVAIL LAKE
r•'
Project
Location
.— OCEANSIDE f
v VISTA
r E.` LAKE WOHLFORD
Pacific
Ocean
SAN MARCOS ESCONDIDO
CARLSBAD LAKE SAN
1 MARCOS /
Co.,' /.
_ IHODGES
ENCINITAS RESERVOIR
' ( i / LAKE RAMONA
► LAKE POWAY
SOLANA BEACH I
POWAY
DEL MAR
..l lot
MIRAMAR
\, �~ RESERVOIR
SAN DIEGO
805 trd
CORONADO
SANTEE LAKES
1 ISANTEE'
r
MURRAY
'.1RESERVOIR EL CAJON
iirba
LAKE HENSHAW
'' tSUTHERLAND
RESERVOIR
vitillr SAN VICENTE
RESERVOIR
NATIONAL CITY
IM FERIAL
BEACH
LA MESA
l._
/
LEMON / J
GROVE j
SWEETWATER
RESERVOIR
CHULA VISTA
805!
U)
/•
,.
—'LAKE JENNINGS
v
94 UPPER OTAY
RESERVOIR C.
tom.LOWER OTAY
RESERVOIR
MEXICO
CUYAMAEA
i RESERVOIRS
EL CAPITAN
RESERVOIR
0.-LOVELAND
�/�( RESERVOIR
l
c."4111^-
BARRETT
RESERVOIR
0 HELIX
8 Miles
Environmental Planning
Source: Base Map Layers (SanGIS, 2016)
Regional Location
08/11/2026
PH2
Figure 1
83 of 876
552 West Bobier Drive Project
1: \PROJECTSI SI SW5Engineering_02190\00002 BobierProperty\Map\ISMNDIISMND.aprx Fig2_Aerial : 02190.00002.001 : 10/22/2025 - DY Source: Aerial (Maxar, 2025)
0 I- I —I
HELIX
100 Feet I
Environmental Planning
Aerial Photograph
08/11/2026
PH2
Figure 2
84 of 876
552 West Bobier Drive Project
9Z0Z/ L- L-/80
9 O
401
0 m
a
T
V
r\ .)
0 0
0 m
0 0
0 m
w
ti
'0
V 1 a
0 CO
0)
e HOPE SO--
RICPILNTION 9ASw
Pc 455n --
F- L
W
I- • S1
CC N
C
2 -F OOT WHOH
--RET WALL w/
6 MRCP
17 04 4 2
767
KI JOL I '37
TR AC T' 1\r f 51D,�4817
ZLii
cC
461.91
rc 46211
1.55 TC D9 do 4601070
l e Fowqu�—
Er .
Ps
L D7 23
--6' HOPE SO
4W
PoCF nlION RASH
to un
L,O7 44
LOT 35
CROWED
RIPHAP.
-FOOT HIGH
RET. WALL
YPOOT MC41
707 WALL
LOT 35
' HOPE SO
RW RAP
4O
HELIX
Environmental P141nnin.
Sit e Plan
Figure 3
552 West Bobi er Dri ve Project
9Z0Z/ I 1. /80
2 N
03 6)
0 CO
a)
I:\PROJEC7S\S\SWSEngineering 02190\00002Bo bierPropertykMap\ISMN D\Fig4 BuildingRenderings.indd 02190. 00002.00110/29/2024-DY Source: SWS Engineering (2025
HELIX
Environmental Planning
Building Renderings
Figure 4
Appendix A
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Technical Report
08/11/2026
PH2 87 of 876
HELIX
Environmental Planning
Bobier Property Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Technical Report
November 2024 1 02190.00002.001
Submitted to:
City of Vista
Community Development Department
200 Civic Center Drive
Vista, CA 92084-6275
Prepared for:
SWS Engineering, Inc.
1635 Lake San Marcos Drive
San Marcos, CA 92078
Prepared by:
08/11/2026
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
PH2 88 of 876
This page intentionally left blank
08/11/2026
PH2 89 of 876
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES -1
LO INTRODUCTION 1
L1 Purpose of the Report 1
1.2 Project Location 1
L3 Project Description 1
L4 Construction Activities and Phasing 1
1.4.1 Construction Best Management Practices 2
2.0 AIR QUALITY 3
2.1 Air Quality Regulatory Setting 3
2.1.1 Air Pollutant Descriptors and Terminology 3
2.L2 Federal Regulations 5
2.1.3 State Regulations 7
2.1.4 Local Regulations 8
2.1.5 San Diego County Air Pollution Control District Attainment Plan 8
2.1.6 San Diego Air Pollution Control District Rules and Regulations 9
2.2 Air Quality Existing Conditions 10
2.2.1 Climate and Meteorology 10
2.2.2 Existing Air Quality 10
2.2.3 Sensitive Receptors 11
2.3 Air Quality Methodology 11
2.3.1 Construction Emissions 12
2.3.2 Operational Emissions 14
2.4 Air Quality Significance Criteria 14
2.5 Air Quality Impact Analysis 16
2.5.1 Issue 1: Consistency with the Regional Air Quality Plan 16
2.5.2 Issue 2: Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Nonattainment Criteria Pollutants 16
2.5.3 Issue 3: Impacts to Sensitive Receptors 19
2.5.4 Issue 4: Odors 20
3.0 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 20
3.1 Greenhouse Gas Setting 20
3.L1 Climate Change Overview 20
3.1.2 Greenhouse Gases 21
3.2 Greenhouse Gas Regulatory Setting 23
3.2.1 Federal Greenhouse Gas Regulations 23
3.2.2 California Greenhouse Gas Regulations 24
3.2.3 Regional Greenhouse Gas Policies and Plans 28
3.2.4 Local Greenhouse Gas Plans 28
3.3 Greenhouse Gas Existing Conditions 29
08/11/2026
PH2 90 of 876
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section Page
3.3.1 Worldwide and National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 29
3.3.2 State Greenhouse Gas Inventories 29
3.3.3 Regional Greenhouse Gas Inventory 30
3.4 Greenhouse Gas Methodology 31
3.4.1 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions 31
3.4.2 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions 31
3.5 Greenhouse Gas Significance Criteria 33
3.6 Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis 34
3.6.1 Issue 1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions 34
3.6.2 Issue 2: Conflict with Applicable Plans Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 35
4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 35
5.0 REFERENCES 36
LIST OF APPENDICES
A CaIEEMod Output
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Title Follows Page
1 Regional Location 2
2 Aerial Photograph 2
3 Site Plan 2
08/11/2026
PH2 91 of 876
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
LIST OF TABLES
No. Title I: gg
1 Summary of Common Sources and Human Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants 4 2 Ambient Air Quality Standards 6
3 San Diego Air Basin Attainment Status 7
4 Air Quality Monitoring Data 11
5 Anticipated Construction Schedule 12
6 Construction Equipment Assumptions 13
7 Screening -Level Thresholds for Air Quality Impact Analysis 15 8 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 17
9 Operational Emissions 18
10 Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetimes 22 11 California Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector 30
12 San Diego County Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector in 2019 30 13 City of Vista Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector 31
14 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions 34
iii
08/11/2026
PH2 92 of 876
This page intentionally left blank
iv
08/11/2026
PH2 93 of 876
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
°F
µg/m3
AAM
AAQS
AB
ADT
BMP
CAA
CAAQS
CAFE
CaIEEMod
CaIEPA
CALGreen
CAP
CAPCOA
CARB
CBSC
CCAA
CCR
CEC
CEQA
CH4
City
CO
CO2
CO2e
County
DPM
EMFAC
EO
EPIC
GHG
g/L
GWP
HFC
H2S
degrees Fahrenheit
micrograms per cubic meter
Annual Arithmetic Mean
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Assembly Bill
average daily trips
best management practice
Clean Air Act
California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Corporate Average Fuel Economy
California Emissions Estimator Model
California Environmental Protection Agency
California Green Building Standards Code
Climate Action Plan
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
California Air Resources Board
California Building Standards Code
California Clean Air Act
California Code of Regulations
California Energy Commission
California Environmental Quality Act
methane
City of Vista
carbon monoxide
carbon dioxide
carbon dioxide equivalent
County of San Diego
diesel particulate matter
Mobile Source Emissions Inventory
Executive Order
Energy Policy Initiatives Center
greenhouse gas
grams per liter
global warming potential
hydrofluorocarbon
hydrogen sulfide
08/11/2026
v
PH2 94 of 876
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)
IPCC
LCFS
LOS
MD
mg/m3
MMT
mph
MPO
MT
N2O
N AA QS
NASA
NHTSA
NO2
NOAA
N Ox
O3
OEHHA
Pb
PFC
PM
P M 10
PMzs
ppm
project
R -1-B
RAQS
ROG
RTP
SANDAG
SB
SCAQMD
SCS
SDAB
SDAPCD
SF6
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Level of Service
Medium Density Residential
milligrams per cubic meter
million metric tons
miles per hour
Metropolitan Planning Organization
metric tons
nitrous oxide
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
nitrogen dioxide
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
nitrogen oxides
ozone
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
lead
perfluorocarbon
particulate matter
particulate matter less than 10 microns
particulate matter less than 2.5 microns
parts per million
Bobier Property Project
Single Family Residential
Regional Air Quality Strategy
reactive organic gas
Regional Transportation Plan
San Diego Association of Governments
Senate Bill
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Sustainable Communities Strategy
San Diego Air Basin
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
sulfur hexafluoride
08/11/2026
vi
PH2 95 of 876
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)
SF
SIP
SO2
SOx
TAC
UNFCCC
USD
USEPA
VOC
square foot/feet
State Implementation Plan
sulfur dioxide
sulfur oxides
toxic air contaminant
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
University of San Diego
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
volatile organic compound
08/11/2026
vii
PH2 96 of 876
This page intentionally left blank
viii
08/11/2026
PH2 97 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents an assessment of potential air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts associated with the proposed Bobier Property Project (project) located in the City of Vista (City), California. The report evaluates the potential for criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions during the construction and operation of the project.
The proposed project involves the construction of 15 single-family residential units on a 1.67 -acre vacant lot. The project would be consistent with the site's zoning and land use designation and would not conflict with the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District's (SDAPCD's) 2020 Plan for Attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego County (Attainment Plan) or the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS). Criteria pollutant and precursor pollutant emissions generated during project construction activities would not exceed the SDAPCD thresholds. However, the construction emissions analysis did not factor in potential emissions associated with blasting, which may occur due to the several large rock outcroppings that occur on the site. With the implementation of mitigation measure MM Air -1, potentially significant impacts from blasting activities would be reduced to a less than significant level. Long-term operational emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors would not exceed the SDAPCD thresholds, and the impacts would be less than significant.
Construction and operation of the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic air contaminants, including diesel particulate matter emissions from the use of construction equipment. The project's contribution to area traffic would not result in carbon monoxide hotspots. Impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant.
Neither construction activities nor long-term operation of the project would be a source of objectionable odors that would adversely affect a significant number of persons, and odor impacts would be less than significant.
Implementation of the project would result in GHG emissions of 180 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) per year, including amortized construction and operational GHG emissions. The project's GHG emissions would be below the adjusted threshold of 872 MT CO2e (the City project level screening threshold, adjusted to demonstrate progress toward the Senate Bill 32 GHG reduction mandates for the project's first full year of operation, 2026), and the GHG emissions impact would be less than significant. The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of GHG reduction plans, including the City's Climate Action Plan and the California Air Resource Board's Climate Change Scoping Pan.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
ES -1
98 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
This page intentionally left blank
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
ES -2
99 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
This report analyzes potential air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts associated with the proposed Bobier Property Project (project), which includes an evaluation of existing conditions in the project vicinity and an assessment of potential impacts associated with project construction and project operation. As appropriate, the analysis identifies measures that can be taken to avoid adverse air quality and GHG emissions impacts.
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The project is proposed on a 1.67 -acre site at 552 West Bobier Drive in the City of Vista (City) within the County of San Diego (County). The site is comprised of Assessor's Parcel Number 161-030-07-00 and is located southeast of the intersection of West Bobier Drive and Sports Park Way, directly east of the City's boundary with the City of Oceanside. See Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2, Aerial Photograph.
The existing site is vacant and is comprised of scattered trees, bushes, and several large rock outcroppings. Multi -family residential uses are to the north, and single-family residential uses are to the south and east. The proposed project site is located directly east of the Modera Melrose Mixed -Use Development Project, a mixed -use project comprised of 323 multi -family residential units and ground - level commercial space on a 7.4 -acre site in the City of Oceanside. The Modera Melrose project was approved on April 10, 2024, and is currently under construction.
The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential (MD), which allows for a residential density of up to 10 dwelling units per acre. The project site is zoned Single -Family Residential (R -1-B).
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposes the construction of 15 single-family attached residential units. The homes would each be approximately 2,200 square feet (SF). Access would be provided by one driveway north of the project site on West Bobier Drive. Resident parking would be provided via garages along the proposed development's private drive. See Figure 3, Site Plan. The project proposes a residential density of 9 dwelling units per acre, which is within the MD allowable density of 10 dwelling units per acre.
Development of the proposed project would also include the construction of utility connections and drainage improvements. On -site improvements would include biofiltration best management practices (BMPs) including biofiltration basins.
1.4 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND PHASING
Project construction activities would consist of grading, site preparation, installation of underground utilities, physical building construction, paving, and application of architectural coatings. Construction of the project would commence in April 2025 and be completed in approximately late December 2025 for a total construction duration of approximately 9 months. Site preparation would require the removal of HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
1 100 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
approximately 200 cubic yards of debris/vegetation. Grading is estimated to require even cut and fill of 6,500 cubic yards with no export. Due to the several large rock outcroppings that occur on the site, blasting may be required. See section 2.3.1 below for additional information regarding construction activity and phasing.
1.4.1 Construction Best Management Practices
The project would incorporate BMPs during construction to reduce emissions of fugitive dust. San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) Rule 55 — Fugitive Dust Control states that no dust and/or dirt shall leave the property line. SDAPCD Rule 55 requires the following (SDAPCD 2009):
(1)
Airborne Dust Beyond the Property Line: No person shall engage in construction or demolition activity subject to this rule in a manner that discharges visible dust emissions into the atmosphere beyond the property line for a period or periods aggregating more than 3 minutes in any 60 -minute period.
(2) Track-Out/Carry-Out: Visible roadway dust as a result of active operations, spillage from transport trucks, erosion, or track-out/carry-out shall:
(i) be minimized by the use of any of the following or equally effective track-out/carry-out and erosion control measures that apply to the project or operation:
(a) track -out grates or gravel beds at each egress point; (b) wheel -washing at each egress during muddy conditions, soil binders, chemical soil stabilizers, geotextiles, mulching, or seeding; and for outbound transport trucks; (c) using secured tarps or cargo covering, watering, or treating of transported material; and (ii) be removed at the conclusion of each workday when active operations cease, or every 24 hours for continuous operations. If a street sweeper is used to remove any track -out/ carry -out, only PM10-efficient (particulate matter less than 10 microns) street sweepers certified to meet the most current South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1186 requirements shall be used. The use of blowers for removal of track-out/carry-out is prohibited under any circumstances.
The control measures listed below are the BMPs that the project would incorporate for dust control and are included in the modeling:
• A minimum of two applications of water shall be applied during grading between dozer/grader passes;
• Paving, chip sealing, or chemical stabilization of internal roadways shall be applied after completion of grading;
• Grading shall be terminated if winds exceed 25 miles per hour (mph); • All exposed surfaces shall maintain a minimum soil moisture of 12 percent; HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
2 101 of 876
Bobier Property Project
8 Mfles
HELIX
Envrronmenta! Planning
Pacific
Ocean
/♦ ONEILL LAKE
{•NAIL LAKE
. J � � •Yid' �.. 'ay..a
Project
Location
LAKE WONLFORO
f.
SAN MARCOS ESCONDID0
CARLSBAD LAKE SAN r`
MARCOS -_
SOLANA BEACH POWAY
MAR
..�..� MIRAM.4R
SAN DIEGO dAt
RESERVOIR
NATIONAL CITY
SANTEE LAKES
ISANTEE--
LA MESA
i' /
�•- • - [1KE JENNINGS
LEMON
GROVE
CHULA VISTA
4 UPPER OT.4v
Ifrik
RESERVOIR('
•J
•L OWER OTAY
RESERVOIR
LAKE NENSHA W
EL CAPJT4N
RESERVOIR
BARRETT
RESERVOIR
urce: Base Map Layers (SanG€S, 2016)
Regional Location
08/11/2026
PH2
Figure 1
102 of 876
Bobier Property Project
0 HELIX
Environmental Planning
Source: Aerial (SanGIS 2023)
Aerial Photograph
08/11/2026
PH2
Figure 2
103 of 876
B obier Pr operty Project
9Z0Z/ I. 1. /80
V
2 N
9L84O170L
HELIX
Enwrortmentar Pfannrng
Site Plan
Figure 3
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
• Dirt storage piles shall be stabilized by chemical binders, tarps, fencing, or other erosion control; and
• Vehicle speeds shall be limited to 15 mph on unpaved roads.
2.0 AIR QUALITY
2.1 AIR QUALITY REGULATORY SETTING
The project site is within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). Air quality in the SDAB is regulated by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) at the federal level, by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) at the state level, and by the SDAPCD at the regional level.
2.1.1 Air Pollutant Descriptors and Terminology
2.1.1.1 Criteria Air Pollutants
Criteria pollutants are defined by state and federal law as a risk to the health and welfare of the general public. In general, criteria air pollutants include the following compounds:
• Ozone (O3)
• Carbon monoxide (CO)
• Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
• Particulate matter (PM), which is further subdivided:
o Coarse PM, 10 microns or less in diameter (PM1o)
o Fine PM, 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5)
• Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
• Lead (Pb)
Criteria pollutants can be emitted directly from sources (primary pollutants; e.g., CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead), or they may be formed through chemical and photochemical reactions of precursor pollutants in the atmosphere (secondary pollutants; e.g., ozone, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5). PM10 and PM25can be both primary and secondary pollutants. The principal precursor pollutants of concern are reactive organic gases ([ROGs] also known as volatile organic compounds [VOCs])1 and nitrogen oxides (NOx).
The descriptions of sources and general health effects for each of the criteria air pollutants are shown in Table 1, Summary of Common Sources and Human Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants, based on information provided by CARB and USEPA. Specific adverse health effects on individuals or population groups induced by criteria pollutant emissions are highly dependent on a multitude of interconnected variables such as cumulative concentrations, local meteorology, and atmospheric conditions, and the number and characteristics of exposed individuals (e.g., age, gender). Criteria pollutant precursors (ROG 1 CARB defines and uses the term ROGs while the USEPA defines and uses the term VOCs. The compounds included in the lists of ROGs and VOCs and the methods of calculation are slightly different. However, for the purposes of estimating criteria pollutant precursor emissions, the two terms are often used interchangeably.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
3 105 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
and NOx) affect air quality on a regional scale, typically after significant delay and distance from the pollutant source emissions. Health effects related to ozone and NO2 are, therefore, the product of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout a region. Emissions of criteria pollutants from vehicles traveling to or from the project site (mobile emissions) are distributed nonuniformly in location and time throughout the region, wherever the vehicles may travel. As such, specific health effects from these criteria pollutant emissions cannot be meaningfully correlated to the incremental contribution from the project.
Table 1
SUMMARY OF COMMON SOURCES AND HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS OF CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS Pollutant
Major Human -Made Sources
Human Health Effects
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
An odorless, colorless gas formed when
carbon in fuel is not burned completely; a
component of motor vehicle exhaust.
Reduces the ability of blood to deliver oxygen
to vital tissues, affecting the cardiovascular
and nervous system. Impairs vision, causes
dizziness, and can lead to unconsciousness or
death.
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
A reddish -brown gas formed during fuel
combustion for motor vehicles and industrial
sources. Sources include motor vehicles,
electric utilities, and other sources that burn
fuel.
Respiratory irritant; aggravates lung and heart
problems. Precursor to ozone and acid rain.
Contributes to climate change and nutrient
overloading, which deteriorates water quality.
Causes brown discoloration of the
atmosphere.
Ozone (03)
Formed by a chemical reaction between
reactive organic gases (ROGs) and nitrogen
oxides (NOx) in the presence of sunlight.
Common sources of these precursor
pollutants include motor vehicle exhaust,
industrial emissions, gasoline storage and
transport, solvents, paints, and landfills.
Irritates and causes inflammation of the
mucous membranes and lung airways; causes
wheezing, coughing, and pain when inhaling
deeply; decreases lung capacity; aggravates
lung and heart problems. Damages plants;
reduces crop yield. Damages rubber, some
textiles, and dyes.
Particulate Matter
(PM10 and PM2.5)
Produced by power plants, steel mills,
chemical plants, unpaved roads and parking
lots, wood -burning stoves and fireplaces,
automobiles, and other sources.
Increased respiratory symptoms, such as
irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty
breathing; aggravated asthma; development of
chronic bronchitis; irregular heartbeat;
nonfatal heart attacks; and premature death in
people with heart or lung disease. Impairs
visibility (haze).
Sulfur Dioxide
(S02)
A colorless, nonflammable gas formed when
fuel containing sulfur is burned, when
gasoline is extracted from oil, or when metal
is extracted from ore. Examples are
petroleum refineries, cement manufacturing,
metal processing facilities, locomotives, and
ships.
Respiratory irritant. Aggravates lung and heart
problems. In the presence of moisture and
oxygen, sulfur dioxide converts to sulfuric acid,
which can damage marble, iron, and steel.
Damages crops and natural vegetation. Impairs
visibility. Precursor to acid rain.
Lead
Metallic element emitted from metal
refineries, smelters, battery manufacturers,
iron and steel producers, use of leaded fuels
by racing and aircraft industries.
Anemia, high blood pressure, brain and kidney
damage, neurological disorders, cancer,
lowered IQ. Affects animals, plants, and
aquatic ecosystems.
Source: CARB 2024a; USEPA 2024a
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
4 106 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
2.1.1.2 Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are a diverse group of air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or in serious illness or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.
TACs can cause long-term health effects such as cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, asthma, bronchitis, or genetic damage, or short-term acute effects such as eye -watering, respiratory irritation (a cough), runny nose, throat pain, and headaches. TACs are considered either carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic based on the nature of the health effects associated with exposure to the pollutant. For carcinogenic TACs, there is no level of exposure that is considered safe, and impacts are evaluated in terms of overall relative risk expressed as excess cancer cases per one million exposed individuals.
Noncarcinogenic TACs differ in that there is generally assumed to be a safe level of exposure below which no negative health impact is believed to occur. These levels are determined on a pollutant -by - pollutant basis.
The Health and Safety Code §39655, subdivision (a) defines a TAC as "an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health." A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 112 of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 United States Code Section 7412[b]) is a TAC.
Under State law, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), acting through CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it determines the substance is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.
Diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants, including both gaseous and solid material. The solid material in diesel exhaust is known as diesel particulate matter (DPM). Almost all DPM is 10 microns or less in diameter, and 90 percent of DPM is less than 2.5 microns in diameter. Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung. In 1998, the CARB identified DPM as a toxic air contaminant based on published evidence of a relationship between diesel exhaust exposure and lung cancer and other adverse health effects. DPM has a significant impact on California's population —it is estimated that about 70 percent of the total known cancer risk related to air toxics in California is attributable to DPM (CARB 2024b).
2.1.2 Federal Regulations
2.1.2.1 Clean Air Act
Air quality is defined by ambient air concentrations of specific pollutants identified by the USEPA to be of concern with respect to the health and welfare of the general public. The USEPA is responsible for enforcing the CAA of 1970 and its 1977 and 1990 Amendments. The CAA required the USEPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which identify concentrations of pollutants in the ambient air below which no adverse effects on public health and welfare are anticipated. In response, the USEPA established both primary and secondary standards for several criteria pollutants, which are introduced above. Table 2, Ambient Air Quality Standards, shows the federal and state ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for these pollutants.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
5 107 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
Table 2
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standards
Federal Standards
Primary'
Federal Standards
Secondary'
O3
1 Hour
0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3)
—
—
8 Hour
0.070 ppm
(137 µg/m3)
0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3)
Same as Primary
PM10
24 Hour
50 µg/m3
150 µg/m3
Same as Primary
AAM
20 µg/m3
—
Same as Primary
PM2.5
24 Hour
—
35 µg/m3
Same as Primary
AAM
12 µg/m3
9.0 µg/m3
15.0 µg/m3
CO
1 Hour
20 ppm (23 mg/m3)
35 ppm (40 mg/m3)
—
8 Hour
9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3)
9 ppm (10 mg/m3)
—
8 Hour
(Lake Tahoe)
6 ppm (7 mg/m3)
—
—
NO2
1 Hour
0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3)
0.100 ppm (188 µg/m3)
-
AAM
0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3)
0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3)
Same as Primary
SO2
1 Hour
0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3)
0.075 ppm (196 µg/m3)
—
3 Hour
—
—
0.5 ppm
(1,300 µg/m3)
24 Hour
0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3)
—
—
Lead
30 -day Avg.
1.5 µg/m3
—
—
Calendar
Quarter
—
1.5 µg/m3
Same as Primary
Rolling
3 -month Avg.
—
0.15 µg/m3
Same as Primary
Visibility
Reducing
Particles
8 Hour
Extinction coefficient
of 0.23 per km —
visibility ≥ 10 miles
(0.07 per km — ≥30
miles for Lake Tahoe)
No Federal
Standards
No Federal
Standards
Sulfates
24 Hour
25 µg/m3
No Federal
Standards
No Federal
Standards
Hydrogen
Sulfide
1 Hour
0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3)
No Federal
Standards
No Federal
Standards
Vinyl Chloride
24 Hour
0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3)
No Federal
Standards
No Federal
Standards
Source: CARB 2016; USEPA 2024b
1 National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, within an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health. 2 National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
O3 = ozone; ppm: parts per million; µg/m3= micrograms per cubic meter; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; AAM = Annual Arithmetic Mean; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; CO = carbon monoxide; mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; 5O2 = sulfur dioxide; km = kilometer; — = No Standard.
The CAA allows states to adopt ambient air quality standards and other regulations provided they are at least as stringent as federal standards. CARB has established the more stringent California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for the six criteria pollutants through the California Clean Air Act of 1988 (CCAA), and has established CAAQS for additional pollutants, including sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), vinyl chloride, and visibility -reducing particles. Areas that do not meet the NAAQS or the CAAQS for a HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
6 108 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
particular pollutant are "nonattainment areas" for that pollutant. Effective July 2, 2021, the SDAB was classified as a Severe 15 nonattainment area for the 2015 8 -hour NAAQS for ozone (USEPA 2021). The SDAB is an attainment area for the NAAQS for all other criteria pollutants including PM10 and PM2.5. The SDAB is currently classified as a nonattainment area under the CAAQS for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 (SDAPCD 2024a). Table 3, San Diego Air Basin Attainment Status, lists the federal and state attainment status of the SDAPCD for criteria pollutants.
Table 3
SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutant
Federal
Attainment Status
State of California
Attainment Status
Ozone (1 -hour)
(No federal standard)
Nonattainment
Ozone (8 -hour)
Nonattainment
Nonattainment
Coarse Particulate Matter (PM1o)
Nonattainment
Nonattainment
Fine Particulate Matter (PM25)
Attainment
Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Attainment
Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Attainment
Attainment
Lead
Attainment
Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Attainment
Attainment
Sulfates
Attainment
No Federal Standard
Hydrogen Sulfide
Unclassified1
No Federal Standard
Visibility Reducing Particles
Unclassified)
No Federal Standard
Source: SDAPCD 2024a
1 At the time of designation, if the available data does not support a designation of attainment or nonattainment, the area is designated as unclassifiable.
2.1.3 State Regulations
2.1.3.1 California Clean Air Act
CARB has established the more stringent CAAQS for the seven criteria air pollutants listed above through the CCAA and has also established CAAQS for additional pollutants, including sulfates, H2S, vinyl chloride, and visibility -reducing particles (see Table 2). Areas that do not meet the CAAQS for a particular pollutant are considered to be "nonattainment areas" for that pollutant. The SDAB is currently classified as a nonattainment area under the CAAQS for ozone (1 -hour and 8 -hour), PM10, and PM2.5 (SDAPCD 2024a). The current state attainment status for the SDAB is provided in Table 3, above.
CARB is the state regulatory agency with the authority to enforce regulations to both achieve and maintain the NAAQS and CAAQS. The SDAPCD is responsible for developing and implementing the rules and regulations designed to attain the NAAQS and CAAQS, as well as the permitting of new or modified sources, developing air quality management plans, and adopting and enforcing air pollution regulations for San Diego County.
2.1.3.2 State Implementation Plan
The CAA requires areas with unhealthy levels of ozone, inhalable particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide to develop plans, known as State Implementation Plans (SIPs). SIPs HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
7 109 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
are comprehensive plans that describe how an area will attain the NAAQS. The 1990 amendments to the CAA set deadlines for attainment based on the severity of an area's air pollution problem.
SIPs are not single documents —they are a compilation of new and previously submitted plans, programs (e.g., monitoring, modeling, permitting), district rules, state regulations, and federal controls. Many of California's SIPs rely on a core set of control strategies, including emission standards for cars and heavy trucks, fuel regulations, and limits on emissions from consumer products. State law makes CARB the lead agency for all purposes related to the SIP. Local air districts and other agencies prepare SIP elements and submit them to CARB for review and approval. CARB forwards the SIP revisions to the USEPA for approval and publication in the Federal Register. The Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Chapter I, Part 52, Subpart F, Section 52.220 lists the items that are included in the California SIP (CARB 2024c). At any one time, several California submittals are pending USEPA approval.
2.1.3.3 California Energy Code
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 6, California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, were first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. Energy -efficient buildings require less electricity, natural gas, and other fuels. Electricity production from fossil fuels and on -site fuel combustion (typically for space and water heating) results primarily in GHG emissions. The California Energy Code is discussed in further detail in Section 3, below.
2.1.4 Local Regulations
2.1.5 San Diego County Air Pollution Control District Attainment Plan The SDAPCD and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) are responsible for developing and implementing the clean air plan for the attainment and maintenance of the AAQS in the SDAB. The regional air quality plan for San Diego County is SDAPCD's 2020 Plan for Attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego County (Attainment Plan; SDAPCD 2020). The Attainment Plan, which would be a revision to the SIP, outlines SDAPCD's plans and control measures designed to attain the NAAQS for ozone. For the attainment of the CAAQS, the SDAPCD must prepare an updated State Ozone Attainment Plan to identify possible new actions to further reduce emissions. Initially adopted in 1992, the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) identifies measures to reduce emissions from sources regulated by the SDAPCD, primarily stationary sources such as industrial operations and manufacturing facilities. The RAQS is periodically updated to reflect updated information on air quality, emission trends, and new feasible control measures, and was last updated in 2023 (SDAPCD 2024b).
These plans accommodate emissions from all sources, including natural sources, through the implementation of control measures, where feasible, on stationary sources to attain the standards.
Mobile sources are regulated by the USEPA and CARB, and the emissions and reduction strategies related to mobile sources are considered in the Attainment Plan and RAQS. The Attainment Plan and RAQS, in combination with local plans from all other California nonattainment areas with serious (or worse) air quality problems, are submitted to the CARB, which develops the SIP.
The Attainment Plan and RAQS rely on information from CARB and SANDAG, including mobile and area source emissions, as well as information regarding projected growth in San Diego County, to estimate future emissions and then determine from that the strategies necessary for the reduction of emissions through regulatory controls. The CARB mobile source emission projections and SANDAG growth HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
8 110 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
projections are based on population and vehicle trends and land use plans developed by the cities and the County of San Diego. While SANDAG collaborates with the SDAPCD on the development of the portion of the SIP applicable to the SDAB, the SDAPCD is the lead agency. As such, the SDAPCD is responsible for projecting all future mobile source emissions (using CARB's mobile source emissions inventory EMFAC [CARB 2020]).
2.1.6 San Diego Air Pollution Control District Rules and Regulations Future development pursuant to the project would be required to comply with SDAPCD Rules and Regulations which require the incorporation of BMPs during construction to reduce emissions of fugitive dust.
2.1.6.1 Rule 50 (Visible Emissions)
Particulate matter pollution impacts the environment by decreasing visibility (haze). These particles vary greatly in shape, size, and chemical composition, and come from a variety of natural and manmade sources. Some haze -causing particles are directly emitted to the air such as windblown dust and soot.
Others are formed in the air from the chemical transformation of gaseous pollutants (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon particles) which are the major constituents of PM2.5. These fine particles, caused largely by the combustion of fuel, can travel hundreds of miles causing visibility impairment.
Visibility reduction is probably the most apparent symptom of air pollution. Visibility degradation is caused by the absorption and scattering of light by particles and gases in the atmosphere before it reaches the observer. As the number of fine particles increases, more light is absorbed and scattered, resulting in less clarity, color, and visual range. Light absorption by gases and particles is sometimes the cause of discolorations in the atmosphere but usually does not contribute very significantly to visibility degradation. Scattering by particulates impairs visibility much more readily. SDAPCD Rule 50 (Visible Emissions) sets emission limits based on the apparent density or opacity of the emissions using the Ringelmann scale (SDAPCD 1997).
2.1.6.2 Rule 51 (Nuisance)
SDAPCD Rule 51 (Nuisance) states that a person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public or which cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of the rule do not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations in the growing of crops or raising of fowls or animals (SDAPCD 1976).
2.1.6.3 Rule 55 (Fugitive Dust Control)
SDAPCD Rule 55 (Fugitive Dust Control) requires action to be taken to limit dust from construction and demolition activities from leaving the property line. Similar to Rule 50 (Visible Emissions), Rule 55 (Fugitive Dust Control) places limits on the amount of visible dust emissions in the atmosphere beyond the property line. It further stipulates that visible dust on roadways as a result of track-out/carry-out shall be minimized through the implementation of control measures and removed at the conclusion of each workday using street sweepers (SDAPCD 2009).
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
9 111 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
2.1.6.4 Rule 67.0.1 (Architectural Coatings)
Construction of development within the County is required to comply with SDAPCD Rule 67.0.1 (Architectural Coatings) which requires residential interior/exterior flat coatings to be less than or equal to 50 grams per liter VOC content and interior/exterior non -flat coatings to be less than or equal to 100 grams per liter VOC content (SDAPCD 2021).
2.2 AIR QUALITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.2.1 Climate and Meteorology
The climate in southern California, including the SDAB, is controlled largely by the large-scale meteorological condition that dominates the west coast of the United States: a seasonally semi- permanent high-pressure cell centered over the northeastern Pacific Ocean, called the Pacific high, which keeps most storms from affecting the California coast. Areas within 30 miles of the coast in the San Diego region, including the project site, experience moderate temperatures and comfortable humidity.
Temperature inversion layers (inversions; layers of warmer air over colder air) affect air quality conditions significantly because they influence the mixing depth (i.e., the vertical depth in the atmosphere available for diluting air contaminants near the ground). The highest air pollutant concentrations in the SDAB generally occur during inversions. During the summer, air quality problems in the SDAB are created due to the interaction between the ocean surface and the lower layer of the atmosphere, creating a moist marine layer. An upper layer of warm air mass forms over the cool marine layer, preventing air pollutants from dispersing upward. Additionally, hydrocarbons (VOCs) and NOx react under the strong, abundant sunlight in the San Diego region, creating smog. Light, daytime winds, predominantly from the west, further aggravate the condition by driving the air pollutants inland, toward the foothills. During the fall and winter, air quality problems are created due to CO and NOx emissions. High NOx levels usually occur during autumn or winter, on days with summer-like conditions.
The predominant wind direction in the vicinity of the project site is from the southwest and the average wind speed is approximately six mph (Iowa Environmental Mesonet 2024). The annual average maximum temperature in the project area is approximately 74 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), and the annual average minimum temperature is approximately 52°F. Total precipitation in the project area averages approximately 13 inches annually. Precipitation occurs mostly during the winter and relatively infrequently during the summer (Western Regional Climate Center 2016).
2.2.2 Existing Air Quality
The SDAPCD operates a network of ambient air monitoring stations throughout the County. The purpose of the monitoring stations is to measure ambient concentrations of the pollutants and determine whether the ambient air quality meets the CAAQS and the NAAQS. The Camp Pendleton Monitoring Station, located approximately 8 miles west of the project site, is the closest to and most representative of the climatological and topographical conditions at the project site. The Camp Pendleton Monitoring Station has representative data for O3, PM2.5, and NO2. No monitoring station in San Diego County has PM10 monitoring data for the sampled period. Data reported by the Camp Pendleton Monitoring Station are shown in Table 4, Air Quality Monitoring Data.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
10 112 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
Table 4
AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA
Pollutant Standard
2021
2022
2023
Ozone (O3)
Maximum concentration 1 -hour period (ppm)
0.074
0.076
0.090
Maximum concentration 8 -hour period (ppm)
0.059
0.067
0.077
Days above 1 -hour state standard (>0.09 ppm)
0 0
0 Days above 8 -hour state/federal standard (>0.070 ppm) 0 0
1 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
Maximum 24 -hour concentration (µg/m3)
*
17.0 26.5
Measured Days above 24 -hour federal standard (>35
µg/m3)
*
0 0
Annual average (µg/m3)
*
*
7.8 Exceed federal annual standard (12 µg/m3)
No
No
No
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Maximum 1 -hour concentration (ppm)
0.059
0.050
0.063
Days above state 1 -hour standard (0.18 ppm)
0 0
0 Days above federal 1 -hour standard (0.100 ppm)
0 0
0 Annual average (ppm)
*
0.005
0.005
Exceed annual federal standard (0.053 ppm)
No
No
No
Exceed annual state standard (0.030 ppm)
No
No
No
Source: CARB 2024d
ppm = parts per million; µg/m3= micrograms per cubic meter, * = insufficient data available.
2.2.3 Sensitive Receptors
CARB and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) have identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, infants (including in utero in the third trimester of pregnancy), and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis (CARB 2005; OEHHA 2015). Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved and are referred to as sensitive receptors.
Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers.
The closest existing sensitive receptors to the project site are the single and multi -family residences located to the north, east, and south of the project site, and the future residents of the Modera Melrose Mixed -Use Development directly to the west of the project site. The closest existing school is Maryland Elementary School, located approximately 0.4 miles southwest of the project site.
2.3 AIR QUALITY METHODOLOGY
Criteria pollutant emissions for project construction and operation were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod), Version 2022.1. CaIEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The model was developed for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California air districts. CaIEEMod allows for the use of default data (e.g., emission factors, trip lengths, meteorology, HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
11 113 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
source inventory) provided by the various California air districts to account for local requirements and conditions, and/or user -defined inputs. The calculation methodology and default input data used in CalEEMod can be found in the CalEEMod User's Guide Appendices (CAPCOA 2022). The input data and subsequent construction and operation emission estimates for the proposed project are discussed below. CalEEMod output files for the project are included in Appendix A of this report.
2.3.1 Construction Emissions
2.3.1.1 Construction Activities
Construction emissions were estimated based on the timeline provided by the project applicant, which assumes construction would begin in April 2025 and would be completed in late December 2025, for a total construction period of approximately nine months. The quantity, duration, and intensity of construction activity influence the amount of construction emissions and related pollutant concentrations that occur at any one time. As such, the emission forecasts provided herein reflect a specific set of conservative assumptions based on the expected construction scenario wherein a relatively large amount of construction activity is occurring in a relatively intensive manner. Because of this conservative assumption, actual emissions could be less than those forecasted. If construction is delayed or occurs over a longer period, emissions could be reduced because of (1) a more modern and cleaner -burning construction equipment fleet mix than assumed in CalEEMod, and/or (2) a less intensive buildout schedule (i.e., fewer daily emissions occurring over a longer time interval).
Construction activities would include grading, site preparation, installation of underground utilities, physical building construction, paving, and architectural coatings. Construction is assumed to occur five days per week with equipment operating up to eight hours per day. The construction schedule assumed in the modeling is shown in Table 5, Anticipated Construction Schedule.
Table 5
ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Construction Activity
Construction Period
Start
Construction Period
End
Construction Period
Number of
Working Days
Grading
4/1/2025
5/1/2025
23 Site Preparation
7/1/2025
8/1/2025
24 Underground Utilities
7/1/2025
11/3/2025
90 Building Construction
7/1/2025
12/31/2025
132
Paving
12/15/2025
12/31/2025
13 Architectural Coatings
9/29/2025
12/31/2025
68 Source: CaIEEMod
The modeling assumes default values for architectural coatings to comply with SDAPCD Rule 67, as described in Section 2.1.4, which limits the VOC content of architectural coatings to 50 grams per liter (g/L) for flat coating and 100 g/L for non -flat coatings and pavement traffic marking. Interior paint was assumed to be flat coatings and exterior paint was assumed to be non -flat coatings. The modeling also assumes fugitive dust control in accordance with the SDAPCD Rule 55 and the BMPs, described in Section 1.4.1, specifically watering exposed areas twice per day, enforcing a 15 -mph speed limit on unpaved surfaces, and maintaining a minimum moisture content of 12 percent for unpaved roads.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
12 114 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
Due to the several large rock outcroppings that occur on the site, rock excavation is anticipated as part of grading activity during construction. The ease, or difficulty, of excavating the rock would depend on if the rock encountered is fractured or not. Rock that is not fractured and has a high compressive strength is considered non-rippable and may require mechanical means or controlled blasting to remove. It is anticipated that rock encountered which is non-rippable would be excavated utilizing mechanical means such as a rock breaker or a rock breaker in combination with a rotary cutting head. However, if the rock cannot be excavated utilizing mechanical means, controlled blasting would be required. At the current stage of planning, exact blasting requirements are unknown, including the associated quantities of blasts, blast fuel, holes per blast and area per blast.
2.3.1.2 Construction Off -Road Equipment
Construction would require the use of heavy off -road equipment. Construction equipment estimates are based on default values in CaIEEMod and information from the project developer. Table 6, Construction Equipment Assumptions, presents a summary of the assumed equipment that would be involved in each stage of construction.
Table 6
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
Equipment
Horsepower
Number
Hours/Day
Grading
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
84 2
7 Excavators
36 2
8 Site Preparation
Graders
148
1 8
Rubber Tired Dozer
367
1 7
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
84 1
8 Underground Utilities
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
84 2
8 Building Construction
Cranes
367
1 6
Forklifts
82 1
6 Generator Sets
14 1
8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
84 1
6 Welders
46 3
8 Paving
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
84 1
8 Pavers
81 1
6 Paving Equipment
89 1
8 Rollers
36 7
7 Cement and Mortar Mixers
10 6
1 Architectural Coatings
Air Compressors
37 1
6 Source: CaIEEMod (complete data is provided in Appendix A of this report).
2.3.1.3 Construction On -Road Trips
Worker commute trips and vendor delivery trips were modeled based on CaIEEMod defaults. Worker trips are anticipated to vary between 1 and 19 trips per day, depending on construction activity.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
13 115 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
Exporting vegetation from the site during site preparation would result in approximately 24 one-way haul trips (an average of approximately 1 one-way trip per workday). No haul truck trips would be required during grading as there would be no export of material. The CalEEMod default worker, vendor and haul trip distances were used in the model.
2.3.2 Operational Emissions
2.3.2.1 Area Source Emissions
Area sources include emissions from landscaping equipment, the use of consumer products, the reapplication of architectural coatings for maintenance, and hearths. Emissions associated with area sources were estimated using the CalEEMod default values with the exception of hearths, as the project would not include wood -burning stoves or fireplaces.
2.3.2.2 Energy Emissions
Development within the project would use electricity for lighting, heating, and cooling. Natural gas and electricity would be supplied by San Diego Gas and Electric. The gas -fired devices that may be utilized for the project include furnaces, hot water heaters, stoves, and ovens. As with all fossil fuel combustion, the substances emitted include GHGs, criteria pollutants, and toxic substances.
Electricity generation typically entails the combustion of fossil fuels, including natural gas and coal, which is then transmitted to end users. A building's electricity use is thus associated with the off -site or indirect emission of GHGs at the source of electricity generation (power plant) and is included in the GHG analysis in Section 3, below.
The 2022 Title 24 standards include the requirement for on -site solar electricity generation which would be applicable to the project. However, the total system capacity is currently not known and therefore no energy use reductions resulting from project solar panels were included in the modeling, resulting in a conservative analysis. CalEEMod default energy use assumptions were used in this analysis.
2.3.2.3 Vehicular (Mobile) Sources
Operational emissions from mobile sources are associated with project -generated vehicle trips. Based on SANDAG's trip generation guide (SANDAG 2002), the proposed project's 15 single-family homes would generate 150 average daily trips (ADT) with 12 morning peak trips and 15 afternoon peak trips.
CalEEMod default vehicle speeds, trip purposes, and trip lengths were applied to these vehicle trips.
2.4 AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Thresholds used to evaluate potential air quality and odor impacts are based on applicable criteria in the State's California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G. A significant air quality and/or odor impact could occur if the implementation of the proposed project would:
1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan;
2. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the SCAB is non -attainment under an applicable NAAQS or CAAQS;
3. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
14 116 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
4. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
To determine whether the project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of PMlo, PM2.5, or the ozone precursors NOx and VOCs, emissions were evaluated based on the quantitative emission thresholds established by the SDAPCD. As part of its air quality permitting process, the SDAPCD has established thresholds in Rule 20.2 for the preparation of Air Quality Impact Assessments (SDAPCD 2019).
For CEQA purposes, these screening criteria were used as numeric methods to determine if the project would result in a significant impact on air quality or an adverse effect on human health. The screening thresholds are shown in Table 7, Screening -level Thresholds for Air Quality Impact Analysis.
Table 7
SCREENING -LEVEL THRESHOLDS FOR AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS Pollutant
Total Emissions
Construction Emissions (Pounds/Day)
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM1o)
100
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
67 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)
250
Oxides of Sulfur (SOx)
250
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
550
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
137
Operational Emissions
Pounds per
Hour
Pounds per
Day
Tons per
Year
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10)
---
100
15 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
-
67 10
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)
25 250
40 Oxides of Sulfur (SOx)
25 250
40 Carbon Monoxide (CO)
100
550
100
Lead and Lead Compounds
---
3.2 0.6
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
--
137
15 Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions
Excess Cancer Risk
1 in 1 million
10 in 1 million with T-BACT
Non -Cancer Hazard
1.0 Source: SDAPCD 2019
T-BACT = Toxics-Best Available Control Technology
SDAPCD Rule 51 (Nuisance) prohibits emissions from any source whatsoever in such quantities of air contaminants or other material, which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to the public health or damage to property. It is generally accepted that the considerable number of persons requirement in Rule 51 is normally satisfied when 10 different individuals/households have made separate complaints within 90 days. Odor complaints from a "considerable" number of persons or businesses in the area would be a significant, adverse odor impact.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
15 117 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
2.5 AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS
2.5.1 Issue 1: Consistency with the Regional Air Quality Plan The RAQS outlines SDAPCD's plans and control measures designed to attain the CAAQS for ozone. The Attainment Plan outlines SDAPCD's plans and control measures designed to attain the NAAQS for ozone.
These plans accommodate emissions from all sources, including natural sources, through implementation of control measures, where feasible, on stationary sources to attain the standards.
Mobile sources are regulated by the CalEPA and CARB, and the emissions and reduction strategies related to mobile sources are considered in the Attainment Plan and RAQS.
The RAQS and Attainment Plan rely on information from CARB and SANDAG, including projected growth in the San Diego County, and mobile, area, and all other source emissions to project future emissions and determine from that the strategies necessary for the reduction of stationary source emissions through regulatory controls. CARB's mobile source emission projections and SANDAG's growth projections are based on population, employment and transportation trends, and land use plans developed by the local governments. Accordingly, projects that propose development that is consistent with the population and employment growth anticipated by these land use plans would be consistent with the RAQS and Attainment Plan. If a project proposes development that results in growth greater than that anticipated in the adopted land use plans and SANDAG's growth projections upon which the plans are based, the project may conflict with the RAQS and Attainment Plan and could have a potentially significant impact on air quality. This situation would warrant further analysis to determine if the project and the surrounding projects would exceed the growth projections used in the RAQS and Attainment Plan for the specific subregional area.
The project site is designated as Medium Density Residential (MD) in the City's General Plan and is zoned as R -1-B, which allows for a residential density of 10 dwelling units per acre. The project proposes a single-family residential development with a density of approximately 9 dwelling units per acre, which is below the 10 dwelling units per acre density allowed by the project site's land use designation and zoning. The project would be consistent with the land use plans and growth projections upon which the RAQS and Attainment Plan are based. As such, residential growth resulting from the project and associated changes in regional emissions are accounted for in the SIP, which is crafted to bring the basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants. Additionally, as detailed in Section 2.5.2 below, the project would not result in any construction or operational period emissions above established thresholds.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the RAQS or Attainment Plan and impacts would be less than significant.
2.5.2 Issue 2: Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Nonattainment Criteria Pollutants
The project would generate criteria pollutants in the short-term during construction and the long-term during operation. To determine whether a project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutant emissions that would violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, a project's emissions are evaluated based on the quantitative emission thresholds established by the SDAPCD (as shown in Table 7).
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
16 118 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
2.5.2.1 Construction Criteria Pollutant and Precursor Emissions The project's temporary construction emissions were estimated using CaIEEMod as described in Section 2.3. The results of the modeling of the project's construction emissions of criteria pollutants and ozone precursors are shown in Table 8, Maximum Daily Construction Emissions. The data are presented as the maximum anticipated daily emissions for comparison with the SDAPCD thresholds. The tables do not present emissions from blasting, as the specifics of blasting are unknown at the current level of project design. The complete CaIEEMod output is provided in Appendix A to this report.
Table 8
MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Year/Season
Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day)
VOC
NOx
CO
SOx
PM10
PM2.5
2025/Summer
4.5 23.5
26.9 <0.1
3.6 2.1
2025/Winter
4.8 14.6
18.5 <0.1
0.7 0.6
Maximum Daily Emissions
4.8 23.5
26.9 <0.1
3.6 2.1
SDAPCD Thresholds
137
250
550
250
100
67 Exceed Thresholds?
No
No
No
No
No
No
Source: CaIEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix 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 As shown in Table 8, the project's temporary construction -related criteria pollutant and precursor emissions would be below the SDAPCD's significance thresholds.
As discussed in Section 2.3, blasting may occur due to the several large rock outcroppings that occur on the site. Blasting involves drilling small holes into the rock and placing explosives. Flyrock protection is installed prior to blasting, and seismographs are placed to measure and record peak particle velocity and air blast levels at various distances from the blast site. However, the type and quantity of explosive material used, and the potential timing and need for blasts cannot be determined at this time because this information depends on the site -specific conditions and requirements of each location. As such, details regarding blasting for project components are unavailable at the current level of project design, and analysis of impacts associated with blasting would be speculative and likely inaccurate. Where blasting may be used, dust control measures are also implemented and include a combination of steel plate covers, geo-textile fabric with chain link fence covering, and wetting of the blasting surface. In the event that blasting is utilized, the blasting contractor would be required to obtain a blasting permit and explosive permit. However, a site -specific analysis would be necessary to ensure that emissions from blasting activities would be within the daily SDAPCD emission limits. Therefore, impacts associated with blasting for the project are assessed as potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure is required if the project will require blasting during construction.
MM Air -1
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
Site -specific Analysis Related to Blasting. Prior to the commencement of blasting activities, the Applicant shall require the preparation of a project -specific air quality impact analysis by a qualified air quality consultant for any project activities that requires blasting to verify that blasting emissions are less than the daily SDAPCD PH2
17 119 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
significance thresholds listed in Table 7. If blasting results in exceedances of emissions thresholds, the Applicant shall implement additional measures to reduce emissions to within SDAPCD daily screening level thresholds. These measures may include reducing the size, extent, or number of blasting events on a given day. The specific additional measures, if required, shall be determined by the qualified air quality consultant based on the results of the final air quality analysis. If the measures are unable to reduce emissions to within SDAPCD daily screening level thresholds, no blasting shall occur. In this scenario, any substitute method for blasting shall also have an air quality analysis performed as described above that demonstrates the emissions would be within SDAPCD screening level thresholds.
Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of mitigation measure MM Air -1 would reduce potentially significant impacts from blasting activities to a less than significant level, because emissions would be required to implement measures (if needed) to ensure that air pollutant emissions would not exceed the daily SDAPCD significance thresholds.
2.5.2.2 Operation Criteria Pollutant and Precursor Emissions The project's long-term maximum daily and annual operational emissions were estimated using CalEEMod as described in Section 2.3. The results of the modeling of the project's operational emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors are shown in Table 9, Operational Emissions. The data are presented as the maximum anticipated daily emissions and annual emissions for comparison with the SDAPCD thresholds. The complete CalEEMod output is provided in Appendix A to this report.
Table 9
OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source
Pollutant Emissions
VOC
NOx
CO
Sox
PM10
PM2.5
Daily Emissions (pounds per day)
Mobile
0.6 0.4
3.7 <0.1
0.8 0.2
Area
0.8 -
0.9 <0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Energy
<0.1
0.1 <0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Total Project Emissions'' 2
1.4 0.5
4.6 <0.1
0.8 0.2
SDAPCD Daily Thresholds
137
250
550
250
100
67 Exceed Daily Threshold?
No
No
No
No
No
No
Annual Emissions (tons per year)
Mobile
<0.1
<0.1
0.6 <0.1
0.1 <0.1
Area
0.1 <0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Energy
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Total Project Emissions'
0.2 <0.1
0.7 <0.1
0.1 <0.1
SDAPCD Annual Thresholds
15 40
100
40 15
10 Exceed Annual Threshold?
No
No
No
No
No
No
Source: CaIEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix A) Totals may not sum due to rounding.
2 Maximum daily emissions of VOC and CO occur during summer, maximum daily emission of NOx occur during winter, emissions of SOx, PM10 and PM2.5 are not seasonally dependent.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
18 120 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
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 As shown in Table 9, the project's long-term emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors would not exceed the SDAPCD daily or annual screening thresholds. Therefore, the project's operational activities would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants that would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, and the impact would be less than significant.
2.5.3 Issue 3: Impacts to Sensitive Receptors
Impacts to sensitive receptors are typically analyzed for operational period CO hotspots and exposure to TACs. An analysis of the project's potential to expose sensitive receptors to these pollutants is provided below.
2.5.3.1 Construction Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Implementation of the project would result in the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, haul trucks, on -site generators, and construction worker vehicles. These vehicles and equipment could generate the TAC DPM. Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a localized area (e.g., at the project site) for a short period of time. Because construction activities and subsequent emissions vary depending on the phase of construction (e.g., grading, building construction), the construction -related emissions to which nearby receptors are exposed would also vary throughout the construction period. During some equipment -intensive phases such as grading, construction -related emissions would be higher than other less equipment -intensive phases such as building construction.
Concentrations of mobile -source DPM emissions are typically reduced by 70 percent at approximately 500 feet (CARB 2005).
The dose (of TAC) to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk.
Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance in the environment and the extent of exposure a person has to the substance; a longer exposure period to a fixed amount of emissions would result in higher health risks. Current models and methodologies for conducting cancer health risk assessments are associated with longer -term exposure periods (typically 30 years for individual residents based on guidance from OEHHA) and are best suited for the evaluation of long -duration TAC emissions with predictable schedules and locations. These assessment models and methodologies do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. Cancer potency factors are based on animal lifetime studies or worker studies where there is long-term exposure to the carcinogenic agent. There is considerable uncertainty in trying to evaluate the cancer risk from projects that will only last a small fraction of a lifetime (OEHHA 2015). Considering this information, the highly dispersive nature of DPM, and the fact that construction activities would occur at various locations throughout the project site, it is not anticipated that construction of the project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial DPM concentrations. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
2.5.3.2 Localized Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
A CO hotspot is an area of localized CO pollution caused by severe vehicle congestion on major roadways, typically near intersections. Vehicle exhaust is the primary source of CO. In an urban setting, the highest CO concentrations are generally found within close proximity to congested intersections.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
19 121 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
Under typical meteorological conditions, CO concentrations tend to decrease as the distance from the emissions source (i.e., congested intersection) increases. Project -generated traffic has the potential of contributing to localized "hot spots" of CO off -site. Because CO is a byproduct of incomplete combustion, exhaust emissions are worse when fossil -fueled vehicles are operated inefficiently, such as in stop -and -go traffic or through heavily congested intersections, where the level of service (LOS) is severely degraded.
As discussed in Section 2.3.2, the project would generate approximately 12 morning peak trips and 15 afternoon peak trips. No LOS analysis was available for the intersection in the project vicinity. However, the peak hour trips generated by the project would not be enough to substantially affect the roadway network. The project would not contribute to a CO hotspot and impacts would be less than significant.
2.5.4 Issue 4: Odors
As discussed above, the State of California Health and Safety Code Sections 41700 and 41705, and SDAPCD Rule 51, prohibit emissions from any source whatsoever in such quantities of air contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to the public health or damage to property. Any unreasonable odor discernible at the property line of the project site will be considered a significant odor impact.
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting activities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding operations (SCAQMD 1993).
The project, involving a residential development, would not include any of these uses nor are there any of these land uses in the project vicinity.
Emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust, and VOCs from architectural coatings and paving activities may generate odors; however, these odors would be temporary, intermittent, and not expected to affect a substantial number of people. Additionally, noxious odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of construction equipment. By the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites, they would be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. Furthermore, short- term construction -related odors are expected to cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor - producing materials. Long-term operation of the project would not be a substantial source of objectionable odors. Therefore, the project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, and the impact would be less than significant.
3.0 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
3.1 GREENHOUSE GAS SETTING
3.1.1 Climate Change Overview
Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth including temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Global temperatures are moderated by atmospheric gases.
These gases are commonly referred to as GHGs because they function like a greenhouse by letting sunlight in but preventing heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth's atmosphere.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
20 122 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
GHGs are emitted by natural processes and human (anthropogenic) activities. Anthropogenic GHG emissions are primarily associated with: (1) the burning of fossil fuels during motorized transport, electricity generation, natural gas consumption, industrial activity, manufacturing, and other activities; (2) deforestation; (3) agricultural activity; and (4) solid waste decomposition.
The temperature record shows a decades -long trend of warming, with the most recent ten-year period marking the warmest years on record since 1880 (National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA] 2024). The newest release in long-term warming trends announced 2023 ranked as the warmest year on record with an increase of 2.11 °F compared to the late 19th -century (1850-1900) average (NASA 2024). GHG emissions from human activities are the most significant driver of observed climate change since the mid -20`h century (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2021). The IPCC constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. The statistical models show a "high confidence" that temperature increase caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions could be kept to less than two degrees Celsius relative to preindustrial levels if atmospheric concentrations are stabilized at about 450 parts per million (ppm) carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) by the year 2100 (IPCC 2021).
3.1.2 Greenhouse Gases
The GHGs defined under California's Assembly Bill (AB) 32 include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
Carbon Dioxide. CO2 is the most important and common anthropogenic GHG. CO2 is an odorless, colorless GHG. Natural sources include the decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungi; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Anthropogenic sources of CO2 include burning fuels, such as coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. Data from ice cores indicate that CO2 concentrations remained steady prior to the current period for approximately 10,000 years. The atmospheric CO2 concentration in 2010 was 390 ppm, 39 percent above the concentration at the start of the Industrial Revolution (about 280 ppm in 1750). As of September 2024, the CO2 concentration exceeded 422 ppm (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 2024).
Methane. CH4 is the main component of natural gas used in homes. A natural source of methane is from the decay of organic matter. Geological deposits known as natural gas fields contain methane, which is extracted for fuel. Other sources are from decay of organic material in landfills, fermentation of manure, and cattle digestion.
Nitrous Oxide. N2O is produced by both natural and human -related sources. N2O is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during the combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.
Primary human -related sources of N2O are agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuel, adipic (fatty) acid production, and nitric acid production.
Hydrofluorocarbons. Fluorocarbons are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. Chlorofluorocarbons are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically nonreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at Earth's surface). Chlorofluorocarbons were first synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
21 123 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
and cleaning solvents. Because hydrofluorocarbons destroy stratospheric ozone, their production was stopped as required by the 1989 Montreal Protocol.
Sulfur Hexafluoride. SF6 is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. SF6 is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semi -conductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection.
GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes that range from one year to several thousand years. Long atmospheric lifetimes allow for GHG emissions to disperse around the globe. Because GHG emissions vary widely in the power of their climatic effects, climate scientists have established a unit called global warming potential (GWP). The GWP of a gas is a measure of both potency and lifespan in the atmosphere as compared to CO2. For example, because methane and N2O are approximately 29 and 273 times more powerful than CO2, respectively, in their ability to trap heat in the atmosphere, they have GWPs of 29 and 771, respectively (CO2 has a GWP of 1). CO2e is a quantity that enables all GHG emissions to be considered as a group despite their varying GWP. The GWP of each GHG is multiplied by the prevalence of that gas to produce CO2e.
Historically, GHG emission inventories have been calculated using the GWPs from the IPCC's Second Assessment Report. In 2007, IPCC updated the GWP values based on the latest science at the time in its Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007). In 2013 and again in 2021, the IPCC updated the GWP values based on the latest science in its Fifth and Sixth Assessment Reports, respectively (IPCC 2013 and 2021).
However, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) reporting guidelines for national inventories require the use of GWP values from the Fourth Assessment Report. To comply with international reporting standards under the UNFCCC, official emission estimates for California and the U.S. are reported using Fourth Assessment Report GWP values. Therefore, statewide and national GHG inventories have not yet updated their GWP values to the Sixth Assessment Report values.
By applying the GWP ratios, project -related CO2e emissions can be tabulated in metric tons (MT) per year. Typically, the GWP ratio corresponding to the warming potential of CO2 over 100 years is used as a baseline. The atmospheric lifetime and GWP of selected GHGs are summarized in Table 10, Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetimes.
Table 10
GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIALS AND ATMOSPHERIC LIFETIMES
Greenhouse Gas
Atmospheric Lifetime
(years)
Global Warming Potential
(100 -year time horizon)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
50-200
1 Methane (CH4)
12 25
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
114
298
HFC-134a
14 1,430
PFC: Tetrafluoromethane (CF4)
50,000
7,390
PFC: Hexafluoroethane (C2F6)
10,000
12,200
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)
3,200
22,800
Source: IPCC 2007
HFC: hydrofluorocarbon; PFC: perfluorocarbon
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
22 124 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
3.2 GREENHOUSE GAS REGULATORY SETTING
All levels of government have some responsibility for the protection of air quality, and each level (federal, State, and regional/local) has specific responsibilities relating to air quality regulation. GHG emissions and the regulation of GHGs is a relatively new component of air quality management.
3.2.1 Federal Greenhouse Gas Regulations
3.2.1.1 Federal Clean Air Act
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that CO2 is an air pollutant, as defined under the CAA, and that the USEPA has the authority to regulate emissions of GHGs. The USEPA announced that GHGs (including CO2, CH4, N2O, HFC, PFC, and SF6) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people. This action was a prerequisite to finalizing the USEPA's GHG emissions standards for light -duty vehicles, which were jointly proposed by the USEPA and the United States Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
On June 30, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decision published in West Virginia v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency overturned the USEPA's Clean Power Plan rule which cited Section 111(d) of the CAA for authority to set limits on CO2 emissions from existing coal- and natural -gas -fired power plants. The June 30, 2022 decision does not overturn the April 2, 2007 decision; however, it may limit the USEPA's authority to develop rules limiting GHG emissions without clear congressional authorization.
3.2.1.2 Light -Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
The USEPA and the NHTSA worked together on developing a national program of regulations to reduce GHG emissions and to improve the fuel economy of light -duty vehicles. The USEPA established the first - ever national GHG emissions standards under the CAA, and the NHTSA established Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. On April 1, 2010, the USEPA and NHTSA announced a joint Final Rulemaking that established standards for 2012 through 2016 model year vehicles. This was followed up on October 15, 2012, when the agencies issued a Final Rulemaking with standards for model years 2017 through 2025.
In December 2021, USEPA issued a new rule formally adopting standards previously proposed in August 2021 for model years 2023 and 2024 and finalizing more stringent standards than previously proposed for model years 2025 and 2026. The rule assumes a 17 percent electric vehicle market penetration by 2026. Although this is a departure from the NHTSA CAFE standards, USEPA did coordinate with NHTSA during development of the new standards. On April 12, 2023, USEPA announced new, more ambitious proposed standards to further reduce harmful air pollutant emissions from light -duty and medium -duty vehicles starting with model year 2027. The proposal builds upon USEPA's final standards for federal GHG emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks for model years 2023 through 2026 and leverages advances in clean car technology to result in benefits to Americans ranging from reducing climate pollution, to improving public health, to saving drivers money through reduced fuel and maintenance costs. The proposed standards would phase in over model years 2027 through 2032.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
23 125 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
3.2.2 California Greenhouse Gas Regulations
There are numerous State plans, policies, regulations, and laws related to GHG emissions and global climate change. Following is a discussion of some of these plans, policies, and regulations that (1) establish overall State policies and GHG emission reduction targets; (2) require State or local actions that result in direct or indirect GHG emission reductions for the proposed project; and (3) require CEQA analysis of GHG emissions.
3.2.2.1 California Energy Code
CCR Title 24 Part 6: California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings were first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. Energy -efficient buildings require less electricity, natural gas, and other fuels. Electricity production from fossil fuels and on -site fuel combustion (typically for space and water heating) results in GHG emissions.
The Title 24 standards are updated approximately every three years to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2022 Title 24 standards went into effect on January 1, 2023. The 2022 update to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards focuses on several key areas to improve the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings. The update particularly emphasizes heat pumps for space heating and water heating and extends the benefits of photovoltaic and battery storage systems and other demand flexible technology to work in combinations with heat pumps to enable California buildings to be responsive to climate change. This Energy code also strengthens ventilation standards to improve indoor air quality. (California Energy Commission [CEC] 2022).
The standards are divided into three basic sets. First, there is a basic set of mandatory requirements that apply to all buildings. Second, there is a set of performance standards —the energy budgets —that vary by climate zone (of which there are 16 in California) and building type; thus, the standards are tailored to local conditions. Finally, the third set constitutes an alternative to the performance standards, which is a set of prescriptive packages that are basically a recipe or a checklist compliance approach.
3.2.2.2 California Green Building Standards Code
The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; CCR Title 24, Part 11) is a code with mandatory requirements for all nonresidential buildings (including industrial buildings) and residential buildings for which no other state agency has authority to adopt green building standards. The current 2022 Standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings went into effect on January 1, 2023 (California Building Standards Commission [CBSC] 2022).
The development of CALGreen is intended to (1) cause a reduction in GHG emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the directives by the Governor. In short, the code is established to reduce construction waste; make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy; and reduce environmental impact during and after construction.
CALGreen contains requirements for storm water control during construction; construction waste reduction; indoor water use reduction; material selection; natural resource conservation; site irrigation conservation; and more. The code provides for design options allowing the designer to determine how HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
24 126 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project l March 2025
best to achieve compliance for a given site or building condition. The code also requires building commissioning, which is a process for the verification that all building systems, like heating and cooling equipment and lighting systems, are functioning at their maximum efficiency.
3.2.2.3 Executive Order S-3-05
On June 1, 2005, Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 proclaimed that California is vulnerable to climate change impacts. It declared that increased temperatures could reduce snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, further exacerbate California's air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea levels. To avoid or reduce climate change impacts, EO S-3-05 calls for a reduction in GHG emissions to the year 2000 level by 2010, to year 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
3.2.2.4 Assembly Bill 32 - Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, widely known as AB 32, requires that the CARB develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. CARB is directed to set a GHG emission limit, based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. The bill requires CARB to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions.
3.2.2.5 Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill (SB) 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, supports the State's climate action goals to reduce GHG emissions through coordinated transportation and land use planning with the goal of more sustainable communities.
Under the Sustainable Communities Act, CARB sets regional targets for GHG emissions reductions from passenger vehicle use. In 2010, CARB established these targets for 2020 and 2035 for each region covered by one of the State's metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). CARB periodically reviews and updates the targets, as needed.
Each of California's MPOs must prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as an integral part of its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The SCS contains land use, housing, and transportation strategies that, if implemented, would allow the region to meet its GHG emission reduction targets. Once adopted by the MPO, the RTP/SCS guides the transportation policies and investments for the region. CARB must review the adopted SCS to confirm and accept the MPO's determination that the SCS, if implemented, would meet the regional GHG targets. If the combination of measures in the SCS would not meet the regional targets, the MPO must prepare a separate Alternative Planning Strategy to meet the targets.
The Alternative Planning Strategy is not a part of the RTP. Qualified projects consistent with an approved SCS or Alternative Planning Strategy categorized as "transit priority projects" would receive incentives to streamline CEQA processing.
The SANDAG is San Diego's local MPO and has responded to the requirements of SB 375 with the preparation of an RTP/SCS. The 2021 Regional Plan (SANDAG 2021) is discussed in greater detail in Section 3.2.3, below.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
25 127 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
3.2.2.6 Senate BiII 743
On September 27, 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743 into law and started a process that changes transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. These changes include the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts for land use projects and plans in California. Further, parking impacts will not be considered significant impacts on the environment for select development projects within infill areas with nearby frequent transit service. According to the legislative intent contained in SB 743, these changes to current practice were necessary to balance the needs of congestion management more appropriately with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of GHG emissions.
3.2.2.7 Senate BiII 97
SB 97 required the Governor's Office of Planning and Research to develop recommended amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for addressing GHG emissions, including the effects associated with transportation and energy consumption. The amendments became effective on March 18, 2010.
3.2.2.8 Executive Order B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, EO B-30-15 established a California GHG emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The EO aligns California's GHG emission reduction targets with those of leading international governments, including the 28 -nation European Union. The emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 will make it possible to reach the goal established by EO S-3-05 of reducing emissions 80 percent under 1990 levels by 2050.
3.2.2.9 Senate Bill 32 and Assembly BiII 197
As a follow-up to AB 32 and in response to EO-B-30-15, SB 32 was passed by the California legislature in August 2016 to codify the EO's California GHG emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and requires the State to invest in the communities most affected by climate change. AB 197 establishes a legislative committee on climate change policies to help continue the State's activities to reduce GHG emissions.
3.2.2.10 Assembly Bill 1279
Approved by Governor Newsom on September 16, 2022, AB 1279, The California Climate Crisis Act, declares the policy of the state to achieve net zero GHG emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter, and to ensure that by 2045, statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced to at least 85 percent below the 1990 levels. AB 1279 anticipates achieving these policies through direct GHG emissions reductions, removal of CO2from the atmosphere (carbon capture), and almost complete transition away from fossil fuels.
3.2.2.11 Assembly BiII 1493 — Vehicular Emissions of Greenhouse Gases AB 1493 (Pavley) requires that CARB develop and adopt regulations that achieve "the maximum feasible reduction of GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light -duty truck and other vehicles determined by CARB to be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the State." On September 24, 2009, CARB adopted amendments to the Pavley regulations that intend to reduce GHG HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
26 128 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
emissions in new passenger vehicles from 2009 through 2016. The amendments bind California's enforcement of AB 1493 (starting in 2009), while providing vehicle manufacturers with new compliance flexibility. The amendments also prepare California to merge its rules with the federal CAFE rules for passenger vehicles (CARB 2024e). In January 2012, CARB approved a new emissions -control program for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and global warming gases and requirements for greater numbers of zero -emission vehicles into a single packet of standards called Advanced Clean Cars (CARB 2024e).
3.2.2.12 Assembly Bill 341
The State legislature enacted AB 341 (California Public Resource Code Section 42649.2), increasing the solid waste diversion target to 75 percent statewide. AB 341 requires all businesses and public entities that generate 4 cubic yards or more of waste per week to have a recycling program in place. The final regulation was approved by the Office of Administrative Law on May 7, 2012, and went into effect on July 1, 2012.
3.2.2.13 Executive Order S-01-07 - Low Carbon Fuel Standard This EO, signed by Governor Schwarzenegger on January 18, 2007, directs that a statewide goal be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by the year 2020. It orders that a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels be established for California and directs CARB to determine whether a LCFS can be adopted as a discrete early action measure pursuant to AB 32. CARB approved the LCFS as a discrete early action item with a regulation adopted and implemented in April 2010. Although challenged in 2011, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's opinion and rejected arguments that implementing LCFS violates the interstate commerce clause in September 2013. As a result, CARB continues to implement the LCFS statewide.
3.2.2.14 California Air Resources Board: Climate Change Scoping Plan The Scoping Plan is a strategy CARB develops and updates at least one every five years, as required by AB 32. It lays out the transformations needed across our society and economy to reduce emissions and reach our climate targets. The current 2022 Scoping Plan is the third update to the original plan that was adopted in 2008. The initial 2008 Scoping Plan laid out a path to achieve the AB 32 mandate of returning to 1990 levels of GHG emissions by 2020, a reduction of approximately 15 percent below business as usual. The 2008 Scoping Plan included a mix of incentives, regulations, and carbon pricing, laying out the portfolio approach to addressing climate change and clearly making the case for using multiple tools to meet California's GHG emissions targets (CARB 2008).
The 2013 Scoping Plan assessed progress toward achieving the 2020 mandate and made the case for addressing short-lived climate pollutants. The 2017 Scoping Plan also assessed the progress toward achieving the 2020 limit and provided a technologically feasible and cost-effective path to achieving the SB 32 mandate of reducing GHGs by at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. On December 15, 2022, CARB approved the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan). The 2022 Scoping Plan lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by AB 1279. The actions and outcomes in the plan will achieve significant reductions in fossil fuel combustion by deploying clean technologies and fuels; further reductions in short-lived climate pollutants; support for sustainable HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
27 129 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
development; increased action on natural and working lands to reduce emissions and sequester carbon; and the capture and storage of carbon (CARB 2022).
3.2.3 Regional Greenhouse Gas Policies and Plans
3.2.3.1 San Diego Association of Government's Regional Plan SANDAG's 2021 Regional Plan (Regional Plan; SANDAG 2021) is the long-range planning document developed to address the region's housing, economic, transportation, environmental, and overall quality -of -life needs. The purpose is to provide direction and guidance on future regional growth (i.e., the location of new residential and non-residential land uses) and transportation patterns throughout the region. The Regional Plan is a 30 -year plan that considers how the community will grow, where residents will live, and how residents and visitors will move around the region. It combines the RTP, SCS, and Regional Comprehensive Plan. As such, the Regional Plan must comply with specific state and federal mandates. These include an SCS, per SB 375, that achieves GHG emissions reduction targets set by the CARB; compliance with federal civil rights requirements (Title VI); environmental justice considerations; air quality conformity; and public participation.
3.2.4 Local Greenhouse Gas Plans
3.2.4.1 City of Vista Climate Action Plan
The City has developed the Climate Action Plan (CAP) to address the issues of climate change as it relates to growth in the City, and to protect the environment for visitors and residents alike (City 2012).
The CAP was adopted in December of 2013 and was last updated in October of 2021 (City 2021). The intent of the plan is to reduce traffic congestion and solid waste generation, improve air quality, increase safety for pedestrians and cyclists, and encourage more efficient use of energy and water.
Additionally, this CAP requires meaningful GHG reductions by 2030, in accordance with the guidelines of SB 32, the Governor's EO S-3-05, and CEQA guidelines, which will help improve the quality of life in the City. The implementation of the CAP will also help lead agencies to assess cumulative impacts of a project and provide a means for future projects to address GHG impacts under CEQA. A lead agency may conclude that a project's GHG impact is not cumulatively significant if the project demonstrates consistency with the City's CAP (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5[h][3]), thereby reducing overall project costs.
Through the CAP, the City has established goals and policies that incorporate environmental responsibility into its daily management of residential, commercial and industrial growth, education, energy and water use, air quality, transportation, waste reduction, economic development and open space and natural habitats to further their commitment. The development of the 2013 CAP coincided with City's General Plan Update and included a community -wide emissions inventory calculated using the socioeconomic growth rates from the General Plan Update. The 2021 CAP provides the city with an updated GHG inventory and new and updated measures aimed at reducing GHG emissions citywide.
3.2.4.2 City of Vista Municipal Code
Chapter 13.17 of the City Municipal Code, Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling, requires all construction, demolition, and remolded projects within the City which have a total project value equal HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
28 130 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
to or greater than $75,000 to divert at least 50 percent of the total construction and demolition debris generated by the project via reuse or recycling.
3.3 GREENHOUSE GAS EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.3.1 Worldwide and National Greenhouse Gas Inventory
In 2020, total anthropogenic GHG emissions worldwide were estimated at 49,800 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e emissions (PBL 2022). The five largest emitting countries and the European Union, together account for about 60 percent of total global GHG emissions: China (27 percent), the United States (12 percent), the European Union (about 7 percent), India (7 percent), the Russian Federation (4.5 percent) and Japan (2.4 percent). These countries also have the highest CO2 emission levels (PBL 2022).
Per the USEPA Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2020, total United States GHG emissions were approximately 5,981 MMT CO2e in 2020 (USEPA 2022). The primary GHG emitted by human activities in the United States was CO2, which represented approximately 76.4 percent of total GHG emissions (4,760 MMT CO2e). The largest source of CO2, and of overall GHG emissions, was fossil - fuel combustion, which accounted for approximately 92.8 percent of CO2 emissions in 2018 (5,031.8 MMT CO2e). Relative to 1990, gross United States GHG emissions in 2020 are lower by 7.3 percent, down from a high of 15.2 percent above 1990 levels in 2007. GHG emissions decreased from 2019 to 2020 by 10.6 percent and overall, net emissions in 2020 were 21.4 percent below 2005 levels (USEPA 2022).
3.3.2 State Greenhouse Gas Inventories
CARB performed statewide inventories for the years 1990 to 2021, as shown in Table 11, California State Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector. The inventory is divided into six broad sectors of economic activity:
agriculture, commercial, electricity generation, industrial, residential, and transportation. Emissions are quantified in MMT CO2e.
As shown in Table 11, statewide GHG source emissions totaled 431 MMT CO2e in 1990, 471 MMT CO2e in 2000, 449 MMT CO2e in 2010, and 381 MMT CO2e in 2021. Transportation -related emissions consistently contribute the most GHG emissions, followed by electricity generation and industrial emissions.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
29 131 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
Table 11
CALIFORNIA GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY SECTOR
Sector
1990
Emissions
(MMT CO2e)
2000
Emissions
(MMT CO2e)
2010
Emissions
(MMT CO2e)
2021
Emissions
(MMT CO2e)
Agriculture and Forestry
18.9 (4%)
31.0 (7%)
33.7 (8%)
30.5 (8%)
Commercial
14.4 (3%)
14.1 (3%)
20.1 (4%)
22.88 (6%)
Electricity Generation
110.5 (26%)
105.4 (22%)
90.6 (20%)
61.01 (16%)
Industrial
105.3 (24%)
105.8 (22%)
101.8 (23%)
83.89 (22%)
Residential
29.7 (7%)
31.7 (7%)
32.1 (7%)
30.5 (8%)
Transportation
150.6 (35%)
183.2 (39%)
170.2 (38%)
148.71 (39%)
Unspecified Remaining
1.3 (<1%)
0.0 (0%)
0.0 (0%)
3.81 (1%)
TOTAL
430.7
471.1
448.5
381.3
Source: CARB 2007 and CARB 2024f
MMT = million metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
3.3.3 Regional Greenhouse Gas Inventory
A San Diego regional emissions inventory that was prepared by the University of San Diego (USD) Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC) accounted for the unique characteristics of the region (USD EPIC 2023).
The 2019 emissions inventory for Unincorporated San Diego County is presented in Table 12, San Diego County Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector in 2019. The sectors included in this inventory are somewhat different from those in the statewide inventory. Similar to the statewide emissions, transportation -related GHG emissions contributed the most countywide, followed by emissions associated with energy use.
Table 12
SAN DIEGO COUNTY GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY SECTOR IN 2019 Sector
2019 Emissions
MMT CO2e (% total)1
On -Road Transportation
1.33 (45%)
Electricity
0.60 (20%)
Natural Gas Consumption
0.48 (16%)
Solid Waste
0.19 (6%)
Agriculture
0.13 (4%)
Propane
0.12 (4%)
Off -Road Transportation
0.07 (2%)
Water
0.04 (1%)
Wastewater
0.02 (1%)
TOTAL
2.98 Source: USD EPIC 2023. Unincorporated County of San Diego 2019 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Projections. Prepared by the University of San Diego School Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC) and Ascent.
1 Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.
MMT = million metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent A CAP was prepared for the City in 2012 and updated in 2021. The CAP includes the GHG emissions by sector for 2012 and the percent change from 2012 to 2014, as shown in Table 13, City of Vista Emissions by Sector.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
30 132 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
Table 13
CITY OF VISTA GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY SECTOR
Sector
2012 Emissions
MMT CO2e (% total)1
2013 Emissions
MMT CO2e (% total)
2014 Emissions
MMT CO2e (% total)
On -Road Transportation
0.297 (49%)
.297 (49%)
.296 (46%)
Electricity
0.185 (31%)
.177 (29%)
.155 (27%)
Natural Gas
0.082 (14%)
.086 (14%)
.075 (13%)
Off -road Transportation
0.017 (3%)
.017 (3%)
.016 (3%)
Solid Waste
0.014 (2%)
.015 (2%)
.015 (3%)
Waste
0.006 (1%)
.007 (1%)
.007 (1%)
Wastewater
0.003 (0.5%)
.003 (0.5%)
.003 (0.5%)
TOTAL
0.603
0.602
0.567
Percent Change from 2012
-
-0.17%
-5.97%
Source: City of Vista 2021 Climate Action Plan Appendix A Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.
MMT = million metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
3.4 GREENHOUSE GAS METHODOLOGY
The project's GHG emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, as described in Section 2.3.
3.4.1 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction of the project would result in emissions of GHGs from the use of diesel -powered equipment, from worker vehicles traveling to and from the project site, and from trucks hauling material to and from the project site. The anticipated construction equipment and vehicle trips required for project construction are described in Section 2.3.
3.4.2 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.4.2.1 Area Sources
This CalEEMod module estimates the GHG emissions that would occur from the use of hearths (e.g., wood or gas fireplaces and wood stoves), and landscaping equipment. This module also estimates emissions due to the use of consumer products and architectural coatings that have VOCs; however, these sources do not emit GHGs. The project would not include wood burning or natural gas fireplaces or woodstoves.
The use of landscape equipment emits GHGs associated with the equipment's fuel combustion.
CalEEMod estimates the number and type of equipment needed based on the number of summer days given the project's location as entered in the project characteristics module. The model defaults for landscaping equipment were assumed.
3.4.2.2 Vehicular (Mobile) Sources
Operational emissions from mobile sources are associated with project -generated vehicle trips. Based on SANDAG's trip generation guide (SANDAG 2002), the daily trip generation for single-family residential land uses is 10 trips per dwelling unit. Therefore, for the proposed project's 15 single-family homes, the HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
31 133 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
anticipated trip generation is 150 ADT. CalEEMod default vehicle speeds, trip purposes, and trip lengths were applied to these vehicle trips.
3.4.2.3 Energy Sources
GHGs are emitted as a result of activities in buildings for which electricity and natural gas are used as energy sources. GHGs are generated during the generation of electricity from fossil fuels off -site in power plants. These emissions are considered indirect and are calculated in CalEEMod as associated with a building's operation.
Energy source emissions were calculated using CalEEMod default values, which are based on the CEC- sponsored California Commercial End Use Survey and Residential Appliance Saturation Survey studies, which identify energy use by building type and climate zone. Each land use type input to the land use module is mapped in the energy module to the appropriate California Commercial End Use Survey and Residential Appliance Saturation Survey building type.
The 2022 Title 24 standards include the requirement for on -site solar electricity generation which would be applicable to the project. However, the total system capacity is currently not known and therefore no energy use reductions resulting from project solar panels were included in the modeling, resulting in a conservative analysis. The project's energy use was modeled using CalEEMod defaults.
3.4.2.4 Solid Waste Sources
The disposal of solid waste produces GHG emissions from anaerobic decomposition in landfills, incineration, and transportation of waste. CalEEMod determines the GHG emissions associated with disposal of solid waste into landfills. Portions of these emissions are biogenic. CalEEMod methods for quantifying GHG emissions from solid waste are based on the IPCC method using the degradable organic content of waste. Solid waste source emissions were calculated using CalEEMod default values.
3.4.2.5 Water and Wastewater Sources
The amount of water used, and wastewater generated, by a project has indirect GHG emissions associated with it. These emissions are a result of the energy used to supply, distribute, and treat the water and wastewater. In addition to the indirect GHG emissions associated with energy use, wastewater treatment can directly emit methane and nitrous oxide.
CalEEMod uses default electricity intensity values for various phases of supplying and treating water from CEC's Refining Estimates of Water -Related Energy Use in California. The model estimates water/wastewater emissions by multiplying the total projected water/wastewater demand by the applicable water electricity intensities and by the utility intensity GHG factors. The default CalEEMod water use assumptions were used for the GHG emissions estimates.
3.4.2.6 Refrigerants
CalEEMod calculates GHG emissions associated with refrigerants (typically HFCs or blends of gases containing HFCs) which are emitted through leakage or maintenance from project refrigeration systems, freezers, and air conditioning systems. Refrigerant emissions were calculated using CalEEMod defaults.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
32 134 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
3.5 GREENHOUSE GAS SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Given the relatively small levels of emissions generated by a typical project in relationship to the total amount of GHG emissions generated on a national or global basis, individual development projects are not expected to result in significant, direct impacts with respect to climate change. However, considering the magnitude of the impact of GHG emissions on the global climate, GHG emissions from new development could result in significant, cumulative impacts with respect to climate change. Thus, the potential for a significant GHG impact is limited to cumulative impacts.
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant environmental impact if it would:
1. Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
The determination of significance is governed by CEQA Guidelines 15064.4, entitled "Determining the Significance of Impacts from Greenhouse Gas Emissions." CEQA Guidelines 15064.4(a) states, "[t]he determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions calls for a careful judgment by the lead agency consistent with the provisions in section 15064. A lead agency should make a good -faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. A lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to ... [use a quantitative model or qualitative model]" (emphasis added). In turn, CEQA Guidelines 15064.4(b) clarifies that a lead agency should consider "Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project." Therefore, consistent with CEQA Guidelines 15064.4, the GHG analysis for the project appropriately relies upon a threshold based on the exercise of careful judgement and believed to be appropriate in the context of this particular project.
Following the methods described by the CAPCOA in their report entitled "CEQA & Climate Change," dated January 2008, the City conducted a review of projects within the City to determine a 90 percent capture rate. As identified in the City's Interim Guidance Memorandum on Assessing GHG Emissions from Projects Subject to CEQA, it was determined that a level of 1,185 MT CO2e would capture 90 percent of the City's emissions that are attributable to development projects (City 2016).
The interim threshold was developed to meet the statewide GHG emissions reduction target of achieving 1990 emissions levels by 2020 and be on track to meet the 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 target in accordance with SB 32 and EO S-3-05. The City has not adopted guidance or revised thresholds to account for GHG reduction target beyond 2020. Therefore, this analysis compares the project's emissions to a reduced threshold corresponding to the SB 32 reduction target of emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Accordingly, a threshold reduced by 4.98 percent for each year between 2020 and 2030 would meet the mandates of SB 32. The first full year of operation for the project is anticipated to be 2026. Therefore, a threshold 26 percent below the City threshold of 1,185 MT CO2e per service population per year, or 872 MT, is used in this analysis.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
33 135 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
Neither the SDAPCD nor the City have adopted thresholds for determining the significance of a project's temporary construction GHG emissions. To be conservative in accounting for all the project's GHG emissions, the construction period emissions were amortized (i.e., averaged) over the anticipated 30 -year lifespan of the project buildings and added to the project's operational emissions.
3.6 GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ANALYSIS
3.6.1 Issue 1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.6.1.1 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The project's temporary construction emissions were estimated using CalEEMod as described in Section 2.3. The results of the modeling of the project's GHG emissions show that construction of the project would generate a total of 183.7 MT of CO2e. For construction emissions, SCAQMD guidance recommends that the emissions be amortized (i.e., averaged) over 30 years and added to operational emissions. Averaged over 30 years, the proposed construction activities would contribute approximately
6.1 MT CO2e emissions per year. The CalEEMod output is included as Appendix A to this report.
3.6.1.2 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The GHG emissions associated with the long-term operation of the project were estimated using CalEEMod as described in Section 2.3 and Section 3.4. The results of the modeling of the project's operational GHG emissions are shown in Table 14, Operational GHG Emissions. The data are presented as the maximum anticipated operational GHG emissions for the first full year of operation (2026) and compared to the City threshold (adjusted for the year 2026).
Table 14
OPERATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Source
Emissions
(MT CO2e/year)
Vehicular (Mobile)
145.0
Area
0.2 Energy
24.7 Water and Wastewater
0.8 Solid Waste
3.1 Refrigerants
<0.1
Total Annual Emissions'
173.9
Amortized Construction Emissions
6.1 Total Amortized Construction + Operational Emissions 180.0
2026 Adjusted Threshold
872.0
Exceed Threshold?
No
Source: CaIEEMod, output data is provided in Appendix A Totals may not sum due to rounding.
MT = metric ton; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
As shown in Table 14, the project's GHG emissions would be approximately 180 MT CO2e per year, which is below the 2026 adjusted City threshold of 872 MT CO2e per year. Therefore, the project would not generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment, and the impact would be less than significant.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
34 136 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
3.6.2 Issue 2: Conflict with Applicable Plans Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The project, by achieving the City's threshold, would not conflict with the goals of the City's CAP and may be seen to exceed its fair share in achieving the state's reduction target. Through compliance with AB 341 and Chapter 13.17 of the City's Municipal Code, the project would be consistent with CAP measure W-1, Reduce Solid Waste Disposal, and Increase Recycling. The project would be constructed in accordance with the energy -efficiency standards, water reduction goals, and other "green" standards contained in the CALGreen Building Standards, including the requirement for onsite solar electricity generation. As such, the project would be consistent with local plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, the project would not conflict with applicable plans, policies, and regulations related to GHG emission reductions, and the impact would be less than significant.
4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Sydney Wells
Victor Ortiz
Jason Runyan
Mandy Mathews
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
Air Quality Specialist
Principal Air Quality Specialist
Project Manager
Project Manager
PH2
35 137 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
5.0 REFERENCES
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2022. User's Guide for CaIEEMod Version 2022.1. Available at: https://www.caleemod.com/documents/user- guide/CaIEEMod User Guide v2022.1. 3df
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2024a. California Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/california-ambient-air-quality-standards . Accessed October 2024.
2024b. Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health. Available at:
htt35://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health. Accessed October 2024. 2024c. State Implementation Plan Background. Available at: htt3s://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/california-state-implementation-plans. Accessed October 2024. 2024d. iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics, Top 4 Summary. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfourl.php . Accessed October 2024. 2024e. Clean Car Standards — Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493. Available at:
htt3:// www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccros/ccros.htm . Accessed April 2024. 2024f. Current California GHG Emission Inventory Data. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data . Accessed October 2024. 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan Update - Achieving Carbon Neutrality by 2045. December. Available at:
htt
Ds: //ww2. a rb. ca . gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/2022-s p. pdf. 2020. EMFAC2017 Web Database Version 1.0.2. Available at: https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/2017/ .
Accessed October 2024.
2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available at:
htt
Ds://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/aags2 0.pdf. 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan — A Framework for Change. December. Available at:
htt
Ds://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//cc/sco Sin
g
3lan/document/adopted sco
Ding
3lan.pdf.
2007. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory — By Sector and Activity. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/nubs/reports/2000 2008/ghg inventory sector 00- 08 all 2010-05-12.pdf.
2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April. Available at:
htt
3s://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-05/Land%20Use%20Handbook 0.
Ddf.
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). 2022. CALGreen (CCR Title 24, Part 11). Available at:
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/CALGreen . Accessed October 2024.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
36 138 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2022. 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Available at:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency- standards/2022-building-energy-efficiency. Accessed October 2024.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2021. Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. August. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Table 7.15. Emission metrics for selected species: Global Warming Potential (GWP), Global Temperature -change Potential (GTP) p. 7-125.
Available at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC AR6 WG I Full Re3ort.pdf. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at:
htt Ds:// www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/WG1AR5 SummaryVolume FINAL.pdf. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. February. Available at: httos:// www.iocc.ch/reoort/ar4/wg1/ . Accessed October 2024.
Iowa Environmental Mesonet. 2024. Carlsbad/Palomar Windrose Plot. Available at:
https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/sites/windrose.Dhtml?station=CRQ&network=CA ASOS.
Accessed October 2024.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA). 2024.
Global Temperature. Available at: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global- temperature/#:^':text=Earth's%20global%20average%20surface%20tem 3erature,average%20fro m%201951%20to%201980. Accessed October 2024.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2024. Global Monitoring Laboratory, Trend in CO2. Available at: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ .
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February. Available at:
htt os://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.
PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. 2022. Trends in Global CO2 and Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2021 Summary Report. https://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/downloads/pbl- 2022-trends-in-global-cot-and total-greenhouse-gas-emissions-2021-summary- reDort 4758.pdf.
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2024a. Attainment Status. Available at:
https://www.sdapcd.org/content/sdaocd/planning/attainment-status.html . Accessed October 2024.
2024b. 2022 Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS). Available at:
https://www.sda3cd.org/content/sdapcd/planning.html . Accessed October 2024.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
37 139 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
2021. Rule 67.0.1 Architectural Coatings. Adopted February 10. Available at:
https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/rules/current-rules/Rule-67.0.1- eff010122. pdf.
2020. 2020 Plan for Attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego County. October 14. Available at: httos://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/california-state- imJlementation-plans/nonattainment-area-Mans/san-diego-county-0. Accessed October 2024. 2019. Rule 20.2 New Source Review Non -Major Stationary Sources. Revised June 26. Available at: https://www.sda Dcd.org/content/dam/sda Dcd/documents/rules/current-rules/Rule-
20.2. adf.
2009. Rule 55 Fugitive Dust Control. Adopted June 24. Available at:
htt Ds:// www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sda 3cd/documents/rules/current-rules/Rule-55. odf. 1997. Rule 50 Visible Emissions. August 13. Available at:
htt s:// www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/rules/current-rules/Rule-50.pdf . 1976. Rule 51 Nuisance. November 8. Available at:
https://www.sda 3cd.org/content/dam/sda Jed/documents/rules/current-rules/Rule-51. pelf.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2021. 2021 Regional Plan. December 10. Available at:
https://www.sandag.org/regional-plan/2021-regional-plan/final-2021-regional-plan . Accessed October 2024.
2002. SANDAG's (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region. April. Available at:
https://www.sandiegocou nty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/ceqa/Leh manTPM/38%20Append ix%2 0T9 SAN DAG%20Tri 3%20Generation%20Rates. odf.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2024a. Criteria Air Pollutants. Last updated July 30, 2024. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants . Accessed October 2024. 2024b. NAAQS Table. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table .
Accessed October 2024.
2022. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2019. EPA 430-R-21-005. April 2021. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/documents/us-ghg- inventory-2021-main-text. pelf.
2021. Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; San Diego County Ozone Nonattainment Area; Reclassification to Severe. June 2021. Available at:
https://www.fede ra l register.gov/docu me nts/2021/06/02/2021-11524/des ignatio n-of-areas-for- air-quality-planning-purposes-california-san-diego-county-ozone. Accessed October 2024.
University of San Diego, Energy Policy Initiatives Center (USD EPIC). 2023. Unincorporated County of San Diego County 2019 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Projections. October.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
38 140 of 876
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I March 2025
Vista, City of. 2021. City of Vista Climate Action Plan. October. Available at:
https://www.cityofvista.com/home/show 3ublisheddocument/24574/637699911232170000. 2016. Interim Guidance Memorandum on Assessing GHG Emissions from Projects Subject to CEQA. April 6.
2012. Climate Action Plan. November. Available at:
http://www.cityofvista.com/home/showdocument?id=84 .
Western Regional Climate Center. 2016. Western U.S. Climate Summaries, California, Vista 2 NNE (049378). Available at: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cIiMAIN.ol?ca9378 . Accessed October 2024.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
39 141 of 876
Appendix A
CalEEMod Output
08/11/2026
PH2 142 of 876
O
OD
Table of Contents
1,913asic Project Information
Bobier Property Detailed Report
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User -Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
4.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 2 ".2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
0'3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
co.7. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
3.9. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
3.11. Underground Infrastructure/Utilities (2025) - Unmitigated 0 co
4Dperations Emissions Details
c4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
rn
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
= 4.3.1. Unmitigated
N
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
co
rn 4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
2/45
4.8.1. Unmitigated
0 co
1. .9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
Kii
io 4.9. 1. Unmitigated
rn
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
1.1. Construction Schedule
N
5.2. Off -Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.4. Vehicles
V. 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
on
%.5. Architectural Coatings
co
°.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
0 co
.7. Construction Paving
..8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors cm
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
= 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
N
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
.13. Operational Waste Generation
rn
5.13.1. Unmitigated
co
°.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
4/45
5.15. Operational Off -Road Equipment
0 co
5.15.1. Unmitigated
a.16. Stationary Sources
rn
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
= 5.18.1. 1. Unmitigated
N
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
%.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
co
°.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
5/45
7. Health and Equity Details
0 co
�.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
rn
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7. 4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custo m M easures
8. User Changes to Default Data
2 N
9L84081 7L
6/45
10 Basic Project Information
co
11. Basic Project Information
N
Nta Field
V alue
Project Name
Bobier Property
Construction Start Date
4/1/2025
Operational Year
2026
Lead Agency
—
Land Use Scale
Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults
County
Windspeed (m/s)
1 .90
Precipitation (days)
20.2 l ation
33 .22076297350365, -117.25550846167357
County
San Diego
City
Vista
Air District
San Diego County APCD
Air Basin
San Diego
TAZ
6259
EDFZ
12 Electric Utility
San Diego Gas & Electric
Gas Utility
San Diego Gas & Electric
App Version
2022.1.1. 28
1. Land Use Types
O0
Laid Use Subtype
Single Family
Housing
Size
15.0 Unit
Dwelling Unit
Lot Acreage
1.67 Building Area (sq ft)
33,000
Landscape Area (sq
ft)
3,300
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population
42.0 Description
7/45
1.3. User -Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector O
co
Nneasures selected
Emissions Summary
1 2. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/M it.
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2 .5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Unmit.
4.78 4.49
23.5 26.9
0. 04
0.98 2.62
3.60 0.90
1 .22
2 .11
-
4,731
4,731
0.19 0 .06
0.90 4,755
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
I
Ilmit.
5. 19
4.85 14.6
18. 5
0.03 0.56
0.17 0 .73
0 .51
0 .04
0.55 -
3,137
3,137
0 .13
0.04 0 .02
3,151
Average
Daily
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Unmit.
Annual
(M ax)
1.30 —
1. 18
5. 17
6.37 0.01
0.20 —
0.21 —
0. 40
—
0.18 —
0.09 —
0.27 -
1,105
1,105
—
0.05 —
0.01 —
0.10 —
1,110
—
Unmit.
0. 24
0.21 0. 94
1. 16
< 0.005
0. 04
0.04 0. 07
0. 03
0.02 0 .05
-
183
183
0 .01
< 0.005
0 .02
184
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
c eria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y.-4ar
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM 10E
PM 10D
PM 10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM 2. 5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
C ly - —
.nmer
(M ax)
2025 4. 78 4.49 23.5 26.9 0.04 0.98 2. 62 3.60 0.90 1.22 2.11 - 4,731 4,731 0.19 0.06 0.90 4,755 8/45
Daily -
\iter
Rax)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
5 5.19
4.85 14.6
18 .5
0.03 0.56
0.17 0.73
0.51 0 .04
0.55 -
3,137
3,137
0.13 0 .04
0.02 3,151
Ni
Alierage
'N ly
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2025
1.30 1.18
5.17 6 .37
0.01 0 .20
0.21 0.40
0 .18
0.09 0.27
-
1,105
1,105
0.05 0.01
0 .10
1,110
Annual
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2025
0.24 0.21
0.94 1.16
< 0.005
0.04 0.04 0.07
0.03 0.02
0 .05
-
183
183
0.01 < 0.005
0 .02
184
2. 4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit.
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2 .5E
P M2 .5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
°ly,
rmmer
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Unmit.
1. 48
1.43 0. 49
4. 77
0.01 0. 02
0.78 0.80
0.02 0.20
0.21 6 .38
1,072
1,079
0 .71
0.04 3 .31
1,112
Daily,
Winter
(M ax)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Unmit.
1.39 1.34
0. 52
3. 74
0.01 0. 02
0.78 0. 80
0.02 0 .20
0.21 6.38
1,029
1,036
0 .71
0.04 0.32
1,066
Average
Daily
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Unmit.
1. 41
1.35 0.51
4. 04
0.01 0.02
0. 75
0.77 0. 02
0. 19
0.21 6 .38
1,012
1,019
0 .71
0 .04
1.53 1,050
Annual
(Qx)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
lemit.
0.26 0.25
0.09 0.74
< 0.005
< 0.005
0.14 0.14
< 0.005
0. 03
0.04 1.06
168
169
0.12 0 .01
0.25 174
co
295. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 9/45
Secto r
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM 10T
P M2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
family,
Su nmer
(It ax)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
IV
I2bile
tea
0.63 0. 58
0 .38
3.87 0 .01
0 .01
0.78 0 .79
0 .01
0 .20
0.21 -
921
921
0 .05
0.04 3 .08
936
0.84 0.84
0.01 0.85
< 0.005
< 0.005
- < 0 .005
< 0 .005
-
< 0.005
-
2.28 2.28
< 0.005
< 0.005
—
2.28 Energy
0.01 0. 01
0.11 0.05
< 0 .005
0.01 - 0.01
0.01 -
0.01 -
148
148
0.02 < 0 .005
—
149
Water
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
1 .01
0.48 1 .49
0 .10
< 0 .005
—
4 .84
Waste
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
5 .37
0.00 5 .37
0 .54
0 .00
—
18 .8
Refrig.
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0 .24
0.24 Total
1.48 1. 43
—
0. 49
—
4.77 —
0. 01
—
0.02 —
0.78 0 .80
0.02 0.20
0 .21
6 .38
—
1,072
—
1,079
—
0 .71
—
0.04 —
3.31 —
1,112
Daily,
Winter
(M ax)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
IGIObile
0.62 0.57
0. 41
3. 70
0.01 0. 01
0.78 0 .79
0 .01
0 .20
0.21 -
880
880
0 .05
0.04 0 .08
893
I
Ataa
0.76 0.76
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Energy
0. 01
0.01 0.11
0. 05
< 0.005
0.01 - 0.01
0 .01
-
0.01 -
148
148
0 .02
< 0 .005
—
149
Water
—
—
—
1 .01
0.48 1 .49
0 .10
< 0 .005
—
4 .84
Waste
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
5.37 0.00
5.37 0.54
0.00 —
18.8 Refrig.
—
—
0 .24
0.24 Total
1.39 1.34
0.52 3. 74
0.01 0.02
0.78 0.80
0.02 0.20
0 .21
6.38 1,029
1,036
0.71 0 .04
0.32 1,066
Average
Daily
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Mobile
0.59 0.55
0.40 3.58
0. 01
0. 01
0.75 0.76
0.01 0.19
0.20 -
862
862
0.05 0 .04
1.29 876
Area
O1
0.80 0. 80
< 0.005
0.42 < 0. 005
< 0. 005
- < 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
-
1 .12
1.12 < 0.005
< 0.005
-
1.13 I rgy
0. 01
0.01 0.11
0. 05
< 0. 005
0.01 - 0.01
0. 01
-
0.01 -
148
148
0 .02
< 0 .005
-
149
O
AVFter
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
1.01 0 .48
1 .49
0 .10
< 0.005
—
4.84 ste
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
5.37 0.00
5.37 0.54
0 .00
—
18.8 Refrig.
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.24 0.24
Total
1.41 1.35
0. 51
4. 04
0.01 0. 02
0.75 0. 77
0. 02
0. 19
0.21 6. 38
1,012
1,019
0 .71
0.04 1 .53
1,050
10/45
Annual
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
— —
—
—
—
&le
0.11 0 .10
0 .07
0.65 < 0.005
< 0 .005
0.14 0 .14
< 0.005
0.03 0 .04
-
143
143
0 .01
0.01 0 .21
145
a
0.15 0.15
< 0 .005
0.08 < 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0 .005
< 0 .005
-
< 0.005
-
0.19 0.19
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
0.19 rgy
< 0. 005
< 0.005
0 .02
0 .01
< 0.005
< 0 .005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
-
24.6 24.6
< 0.005
< 0 .005
—
24 .7
IV
\ter
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0 .17
0.08 0 .25
0 .02
< 0.005
-
0 .80
Waste
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0 .89
0.00 0.89
0 .09
0 .00
—
3 .11
Refrig.
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.04 0 .04
Total
0.26 0. 25
0.09 0.74
< 0.005
< 0 .005
0.14 0 .14
< 0 .005
0.03 0 .04
1 .06
168
169
0 .12
0.01 0 .25
174
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
Citeria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
—
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2 .5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
Onsite
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily,
Summer
(M ax)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.56 1.31
12. 1
12. 1
0.02 0. 56
-
0. 56
0.52 -
0.52 -
2,065
2,065
0 .08
0.02 -
2,072
Dust
From
M aterial
IAvemer
—
t
—
—
—
—
—
2. 44
2. 44
—
1. 17
1.17 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
co
bisite
trdtk
Co
0. 00
0.00 0.00
0. 00
0.00 0.00
0. 00
0.00 0. 00
0. 00
0.00 -
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00 Winter
(Max)
11 / 45
Average
ftily
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
CO
ar-Roa
ipm
0.10 0.09
0 .80
0.80 < 0.005
0.04 -
0 .04
0 .03
-
0 .03
-
136
136
0 .01
< 0.005
—
136
CD
Dust
Fro m
Material
Movemer
—
t
—
—
—
—
—
0.16 0 .16
-
0 .08
0.08 —
—
—
—
—
—
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0 .00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0 .00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 0.00
Annual
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
13ttst
INDm
Material
Movemer
0.02 0.02
0.15 0.15
< 0.005
0.01 -
0.01 0 .01
-
0.01 -
22.5 22 .5
< 0.005
< 0 .005
—
22.6 —
t
—
—
—
—
—
0.03 0.03
-
0 .01
0.01 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
Onsite
truck
0.00 0. 00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0. 00
0. 00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 0.00
-
0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0.00
0 .00
0 .00
Offsite
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily,
Summer
(M ax)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
0. 03
0. 03
0.02 0.35
0.00 0.00
0. 06
0.06 0.00
0.01 0.01
-
71 .2
71.2 < 0.005
< 0 .005
0.27 72.2
Vendor
0. 00
0.00 0. 00
0. 00
0.00 0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00 -
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
78 .6
IQ ling
®ily,
Waiter
(� x)
Average
Daily
0. 01
< 0. 005
0. 10
0. 04
< 0.005
< 0.005
0. 02
0.02 < 0.005
0. 01
0.01 -
74.8 74 .8
< 0.005
0 .01
0.16 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
< 0. 005
< 0.005
< 0.005
0. 02
0.00 0. 00
< 0. 005 < 0.005
0. 00
< 0.005
< 0. 005
-
4.46 4.46
< 0 .005
< 0.005 0 .01
4.52 12/45
Vendor
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
-
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 ailing
< 0.005
< 0.005
0 .01
< 0 .005
< 0.005
< 0 .005
< 0 .005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0 .005
-
4.92 4 .92
< 0 .005
< 0.005
< 0 .005
5.16 Alnual
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1rker
< 0. 005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0 .005
0.00 0 .00
< 0 .005
< 0.005
0 .00
< 0 .005
< 0.005
-
0.74 0 .74
< 0.005
< 0 .005
< 0 .005
0 .75
IV
'idor
0. 00
0.00 0.00
0 .00
0.00 0.00
0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00 -
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0.00
0 .00
Hauling
< 0.005
< 0. 005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0 .005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0 .005
< 0.005
-
0.81 0 .81
< 0.005
< 0 .005
< 0.005
0 .86
3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location
TO G
ROG
—
—
NOx
—
—
CO
SO2
P M10E
—
—
P M10D
—
PM10T
—
PM2 .5E
—
PM2 .5D
P M2.5T
—
BCO2
—
—
NBCO2
—
—
CO2T
—
—
CH4
—
—
N2 O
—
—
R
—
—
CO2e
Onsite
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily,
Summer
(Tx)
Roa
d
Equipm
ent
Onsite
truck
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.45 0.00
0. 38
3. 59
5.37 0. 01
0. 00
0. 13
0.00 -
0.00 0 .13
0.00 0 .12
0.00 -
0.00 0.12
0 .00
-
-
792
0.00 792
0.00 0 .03
0.00 0.01
—
794
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Average
Daily
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Qf# Roa
§uipm
ee t
0. 03
0.02 0. 23
0.34 < 0.005
0.01 -
0.01 0.01
-
0.01 -
49.9 49 .9
< 0.005
< 0 .005
-
50 .1
CO
eAsite
tick
0. 00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0 .00
Annual
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
13/45
Off-Roa
40 0.01
< 0.005
0 .04
0 .06
< 0.005
< 0 .005
-
< 0.005
< 0 .005
-
< 0 .005
-
8 .26
8.26 < 0 .005
< 0.005
—
8.29 CO
Qiisite
tk
0. 00
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
-
0.00 0.00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 N)
CDs ite
IV
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
ily,
Summer
(M ax)
—
—
0.04 —
0. 03
—
0.46 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-
—
94.9 —
94 .9
—
< 0.005
—
< 0.005
—
0 .36
—
Worker
0. 04
0.00 0.00
0 .08 0 .08
0 .00
0 .02
0.02 96 .3
Vendor
0. 00
0.00 0. 00
0. 00
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 -
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
Hauling
0. 00
0.00 0. 00
0. 00
0.00 0.00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 -
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Average
13ily
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
\rker
< 0. 005
< 0. 005
< 0.005
0. 03
0.00 0. 00
0.01 0 .01
0 .00
< 0 .005
< 0.005
-
5.70 5 .70
< 0 .005
< 0.005
0 .01
5.78 Vendor
0.00 0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00 0. 00
0.00 0.00
0 .00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
Hauling
0. 00
0.00 0. 00
0. 00
0.00 0.00
0. 00 0.00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00 -
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
Annual—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
< 0. 005
< 0. 005
< 0. 005
< 0.005
0. 00
0.00 < 0. 005 < 0. 005
0.00 < 0 .005
< 0.005
-
0.94 0 .94
< 0.005
< 0 .005
< 0.005
0 .96
Vendor
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00 0. 00
0.00 0. 00
0. 00
0 .00
0 .00
-
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 Hauling
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00 0.00
0. 00
0.00 0 .00
-
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 3. 5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
*Li
I •cation
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM 2. 5E
PM 2. 5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
e q. ite
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
CD
Daily,
Summer
(M ax)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
eria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 14/45
Off-Roa
Jipme
1.28 it
1 .07
8 .95
10.0 0.02
0.33 -
0 .33
0 .30
-
0 .30
-
1,801
1,801
0 .07
0.01 -
1,807
CO
arisite
tk
0. 00
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
-
0.00 0.00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 Ni
oily,
I ter
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1. 28
1.07 8.95
10.0 0.02
0 .33
-
0.33 0 .30
-
0.30 -
1,801
1,801
0.07 0.01
-
1,807
Onsite
truck
0. 00
0.00 0. 00
0. 00
0.00 0.00
0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00 -
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
Average
Daily
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Off-Roa
iipm
.a)
0. 46
0.39 3. 23
3. 63
0. 01
0.12 -
0.12 0 .11
-
0.11 - 651
651
0 .03
0 .01
—
654
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
- 0.00
0.00 0.00
0 .00
0.00 0.00
Annual
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.08 0.07
0.59 0.66
< 0.005
0.02 -
0.02 0.02
-
0.02 -
108
108
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
108
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00 0. 00
0.00 0. 00
0. 00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0 .00
0.00 0.00
0 .00
Offsite
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Wily,
S1uinmer
(ox)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
co
W0rker
CD
0.02 0.02
0. 02
0. 25
0.00 0.00
0.05 0.05
0. 00
0.01 0.01
-
51.2 51.2
< 0.005
< 0 .005
0.19 52.0
Vendor
< 0. 005
< 0.005
0. 05
0. 02
< 0.005
< 0. 005 0.01 0. 01
< 0. 005
< 0.005
< 0. 005
-
40.1 40 .1
< 0 .005
0.01 0 .10
42.0 Hauling
0.00 0.00
0.00 0. 00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0. 00
0.00 -
0.00 0.00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 0.00
15/45
Daily,
\iter
%x)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
\rker
0.02 0.02
0.02 0 .22
0.00 0.00
0.05 0.05
0.00 0 .01
0.01 -
48.4 48.4
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
49.0 N)
`dor
< 0. 005
< 0.005
0 .06
0.03 < 0.005
< 0 .005
0.01 0 .01
< 0.005
< 0 .005
< 0.005
-
40.2 40 .2
< 0 .005
0.01 < 0 .005
41.9 Ruling
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0 .00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0 .00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.08
0 .00
0.00 0.02 0.02
0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005
-
17.7 17.7
< 0 .005
< 0.005
0 .03
17.9 Vendor
< 0.005
< 0.005
0.02 0.01
< 0 .005
< 0 .005
< 0.005 < 0 .005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0 .005
-
14 .5
14.5 < 0.005
< 0.005
0.02 15.2
Hauling
0.00 0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
-
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 Annual
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
< 0. 005
< 0. 005
< 0.005
0. 01
0.00 0.00
< 0 .005 < 0.005
0 .00
< 0 .005
< 0.005
-
2.92 2 .92
< 0 .005
< 0.005
< 0 .005
2.97 Vendor
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0. 005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 < 0 .005
< 0 .005
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
2.40 2.40
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
2.51 baling
0. 00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00 -
0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 IV
3.7. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location
TOG
RO G
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM 10D
PM 10T
PM2.5E
PM2 .5D
P M2.5T
BCO2
NBC O2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
C02e
Onsite
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily,
1A4nter
Did; x)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Qt-Roa
ato
lipm
ent
0.59 0.49
4.63 6. 50
0.01 0.20
-
0.20 0.19
-
0. 19
-
992
992
0.04 0 .01
—
995
Paving
0.04 0.04
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
16/45
Onsite
ta lk
CO
,9 rage
ly
N
@I-Roa
Equipm
ent
0.00 0.02
0 .00 0 .00 0 .00
0. 02
0 .16
Paving < 0. 005 < 0. 005 —
Onsite
truck
Annual
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
2 ing
csite
truck
Offsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
0.00 < 0.005
0.00 < 0.005
0.00 0.03
< 0. 005 < 0.005 -
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0.23 0.00
0.04 0. 00
0.00 < 0.005
0 .00
< 0.005
0.00 0.00
0 .01
0 .00
< 0.005
0. 00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0 .00
0 .01
0.00 < 0.005
0 .00
0 .00 0.00 0 .00
0 .01
0.00 < 0 .005
0 .00
0.00 0.00
0.01 0 .00
< 0.005
0 .00
Worker 0. 05 0.05 0. 04 0. 51 0.00 0. 00 0. 11 0.11 0. 00 0. 02 0.02
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor
cling
&,erage
family
Mrker
< 0. 005 < 0. 005 < 0.005 0. 02
0.00 0. 00 < 0. 005 < 0.005 0. 00
< 0. 005 < 0.005 -
0 .00 0.00
35.3 35 .3
0.00 0.00
5.85 5.85
0.00 0 .00
112 112
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
4.02 4 .02
0.00 < 0 .005
0.00 < 0 .005
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
< 0.005
0 .00
< 0.005
0.00 0.00
0 .00
0.00 35.4
0.00 5.87
0.00 0 .01 <0 .005 0.01 113
0 .00 0.00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
< 0 .005 < 0.005 0 .01
4.08 Vendor
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0. 00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 0.00
Hauling
0. 00
0.00 0. 00
0. 00
0.00 0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00 -
0.00 0.00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
17/45
An
nual
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
irker
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0 .005
0.00 0 .00
< 0 .005
< 0.005
0 .00
< 0.005
< 0 .005
-
0.67 0 .67
< 0 .005
< 0.005
< 0 .005
0.68 ndor
0.00 0.00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0 .00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 0.00
"piing
0.00 0.00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
O)
3.9. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
Onsite
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Off-Roa
141)
D.
64.1 0.15
0.13 0.88
1.14 < 0.005
0.03 -
0.03 0.03
-
0.03 -
134
134
0.01 < 0.005
—
134
Architect
ural
Coating
s
3.04 3. 04
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Onsite
truck
0. 00
0.00 0. 00
0. 00
0.00 0. 00
0.00 0. 00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 -
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Off-Roa
d�
Im paipm
Rir
0.15 0.13
0.88 1.14
< 0.005
0.03 -
0.03 0. 03
-
0.03 -
134
134
0.01 < 0.005
—
134
O
ihitect
eql
mating
s
3.04 3.04
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0. 00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0. 00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0 .00
0.00 18/45
Average
ftily
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
CO
ar-Roa
N.Iipm
0.03 0.02
0.16 0.21
< 0.005
0.01 -
0 .01
< 0.005
-
< 0 .005
-
24.9 24.9
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
25.0 CD
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.57 0.57
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0 .00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0 .00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 0.00
Annual
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
,2i hte ct
VaI
Coating
s
0.01 < 0.005
0. 03
—
0. 04
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
-
4.12 4.12
< 0.005
< 0 .005
—
4.13 0. 10
0.10 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
Onsite
truck
0.00 0. 00
0.00 0. 00
0.00 0. 00
0. 00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0 .00
0.00 0.00
0 .00
0 .00
Offsite
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily,
Summer
(M ax)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
0.05 0.00
0.00 0. 01 0.01
0.00 < 0.005
< 0 .005
-
10 .2
10.2 < 0.005
< 0 .005
0.04 10.4
Vendor
0. 00
0.00 0. 00
0. 00
0.00 0.00
0. 00 0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00 -
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
l uling
0. 00
0.00 0. 00
0. 00
0.00 0. 00
0. 00 0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00 -
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
Icily,
Waiter
(� x)
Worker
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
< 0. 005
< 0.005
< 0.005
0. 04
0.00 0. 00
0.01 0. 01
0. 00
< 0.005
< 0. 005
-
9.68 9 .68
< 0 .005
< 0.005
< 0 .005
9.80 Vendor
0.00 0.00
0.00 0. 00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0. 00
0.00 -
0.00 0.00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 0.00
19/45
Hauling
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
-
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 u: rage
=ly
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
'rker
O
`P iidor
O)
< 0. 005
< 0.005
< 0.005
0 .01
0.00 0 .00
< 0 .005 < 0.005
0 .00
< 0 .005
< 0.005
-
1.82 1 .82
< 0 .005
< 0.005
< 0 .005
1.85 0.00
0.00 0.00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00 -
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
Hauling
0. 00
0.00 0.00
0 .00
0.00 0.00
0 .00 0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00 -
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0.00
0 .00
Annual
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
< 0. 005
< 0. 005
< 0. 005
< 0.005
0 .00
0.00 < 0 .005 < 0 .005
0 .00
< 0 .005
< 0.005
-
0.30 0 .30
< 0.005
< 0 .005
< 0.005
0 .31
Vendor
0.00 0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 0.00
0 .00
-
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 Hauling
0.00 0. 00
0. 00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
-
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 3.11. Underground Infrastructure/Utilities (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM 10T
PM2 .5E
P M2 .5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
IV
Onsite
—
—
—
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.26 0.21
2. 20
3. 82
0.01 0. 08
-
0. 08
0.08 -
0.08 -
581
581
0 .02
< 0.005
—
583
Onsite
truck
0.00 0. 00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 -
0 .00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 Daily,
\iter
(114x)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
O
O -Roa
Jipm
ent
0.26 0.21
2.20 3. 82
0.01 0.08
-
0.08 0.08
-
0.08 -
581
581
0.02 < 0.005
—
583
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0. 00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0. 00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 0.00
20 / 45
Average
ftily
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
CO
ar-Roa
N.lipm
0.06 0.05
0 .54
0 .94
< 0.005
0.02 -
0 .02
0 .02
-
0 .02
-
143
143
0 .01
< 0.005
-
144
O)
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 -
0.00 0.00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 0.00
Annual
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01
0.10 0.17
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
-
23.7 23.7
< 0.005
< 0.005
—
23.8 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0 .00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0 .00
Offsite
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
D50ly,
mer
&riax)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
0. 02
0.02 0.02
0. 23
0.00 0.00
0. 04
0.04 0.00
0 .01
0.01 -
47 .4
47 .4
< 0.005
< 0 .005
0.18 48 .2
Vendor
0. 00
0.00 0. 00
0. 00
0.00 0.00
0. 00
0.00 0.00
0 .00
0.00 -
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
Hauling
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 -
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
0.02 0. 02
0.02 0. 20
0. 00
0. 00
0.04 0.04
0.00 0.01
0.01 -
44 .8
44.8 < 0 .005
< 0 .005
< 0.005
45.4 Vendor
0.00 0. 00
0.00 0.00
0. 00
0.00 0.00 0. 00
0.00 0. 00
0.00 -
0 .00
0.00 0.00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00 I:ta uling
O)
Arage
Rily
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0. 00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0. 00
0.00 - 0 .00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
di rker
0.01 < 0.005
< 0.005
0.05 0.00
0.00 0.01
0.01 0.00
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
11.1 11.1
< 0.005
< 0.005
0.02 11.3
O)
Vendor
0.00 0. 00
0. 00
0.00 0. 00
0. 00
0.00 0. 00
0. 00
0.00 0. 00
-
0.00 0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 Hauling
0. 00
0. 00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00 0.00
0.00 -
0. 00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Annual
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
21 /45
Worker
'
l
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
0 .01
0.00 0.00
< 0 .005
< 0.005
0 .00
< 0.005
< 0 .005
-
1 .85
1.85 < 0 .005
< 0.005
< 0 .005
1.87 idor
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
-
0.00 0 .00
0 .00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 uling
0.00 0.00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0 .00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 0.00
L Operations Emissions Details
4.1. M obile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
Daily,
mer
( x)
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
N)
Single
Family
Housing
0. 63
0.58 0. 38
3.87 0.01
0. 01
0. 78 0 .79
0.01 0.20
0.21 -
921
921
0 .05
0.04 3.08
936
Total
0.63 0.58
0. 38
3. 87
0.01 0. 01
0.78 0. 79
0 .01
0 .20
0.21 -
921
921
0 .05
0.04 3 .08
936
Daily,
Winter
(M ax)
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Single
Family
Housing
0.62 0.57
0.41 3. 70
0.01 0. 01
0.78 0. 79
0. 01
0.20 0 .21
-
880
880
0 .05
0 .04
0 .08
893
Total
Uival—
0.62 0. 57
0. 41
3. 70
0. 01
0. 01
0.78 0. 79
0. 01
0. 20
0.21 -
880
880
0 .05
0.04 0 .08
893
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
igle
Fctinily
H sing
Total
0. 11
0.10 0. 07
0. 65
< 0.005
< 0.005
0. 14 0. 14
< 0.005
0. 03
0.04 -
143
143
0 .01
0.01 0 .21
145
0. 11
0.10 0. 07
0. 65
< 0.005
< 0.005
0. 14 0.14
< 0.005
0. 03
0.04 -
143
143
0 .01
0 .01
0.21 145
22 / 45
4.2. Energy
O
co
4.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Cteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM 10T
P M2 .5E
P M2 .5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Single
Family
Housing
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
11.4 11 .4
0 .01
< 0.005
—
11.9 Total
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
11.4 11.4
0.01 < 0.005
—
11.9 Daily,
Winter
(Ix)
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
dgle
Family
Housing
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
11.4 11 .4
0 .01
< 0 .005
—
11 .9
Total
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
11 .4
11.4 0.01
< 0 .005
—
11 .9
Annual
Single
Family
Housing
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
— —
—
—
—
—
—
1.88 1 .88
< 0 .005
< 0.005
—
1.97 Total
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
1.88 1.88
< 0.005
< 0.005
—
1.97 4.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated a)
O1
Q5iteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) L eod
U5a
Daily,
Summer
(M ax)
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM 10T
PM2. 5E
PM2.5D
PM2. 5T
BCO2
N BCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
23 / 45
Single
ga nily
lsing
0.01 0 .01
0 .11
0 .05
< 0.005
0.01 -
0 .01
0 .01
-
0 .01
-
137
137
0 .01
< 0.005
—
137
-al
0.01 0.01
0.11 0 .05
< 0.005
0.01 -
0.01 0.01
-
0.01 -
137
137
0.01 < 0.005
—
137
N
ally,
IMter
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Single
Family
Housing
0. 01
0.01 0.11
0 .05
< 0.005
0 .01
-
0.01 0 .01
-
0.01 -
137
137
0.01 < 0 .005
—
137
Total
0. 01
0.01 0.11
0.05 < 0 .005
0.01 -
0 .01
0.01 -
0.01 -
137
137
0 .01
< 0.005
—
137
Annual
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Single
Family
Housing
< 0. 005
< 0. 005
0.02 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
- < 0 .005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
-
22.7 22 .7
< 0.005
< 0 .005
—
22 .8
Total
< 0.005
< 0. 005
0.02 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
- < 0 .005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
-
22.7 22.7
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
22.8 4. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source
TOG
Daily,
Summer
(M ax )
Consum 0.71
e�
Itp duct
so ,
O
shite ct 0.06
I
mating
s
RO G
NOx
CO
0. 71
0. 06
SO2
PM 10E
PM10D
PM 10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
P M2 .5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
24/45
Landsca
Jipm
0.08 0 .08
0 .01
0 .85
< 0.005
<
0 .005
-
< 0.005
< 0 .005
-
< 0 .005
-
2 .28
2.28 < 0 .005
< 0.005
-
2.28 -al
0.84 0.84
0.01 0 .85
< 0.005
<
0.005
-
< 0 .005
< 0 .005
-
< 0.005
-
2.28 2.28
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
2.28 N
ally,
I ter
(Max)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Consum
er
Product
s
0. 71
0. 71
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.06 0. 06
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total
0. 76
0.76 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,9 ival
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
cnsum
er
Product
s
0.13 0. 13
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.01 0. 01
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01
<
0.005 0. 08
< 0.005
<
0. 005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
-
0.19 0 .19
< 0 .005
< 0.005
-
0.19 Total
0.15 0.15
<
0.005 0. 08
< 0.005
<
0. 005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
-
0.19 0 .19
< 0 .005
< 0.005
-
0 .19
a)
4. Water Emissions by Land Use
co
44.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 25 / 45
Land
lis9
TOG
ROG
N Ox
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM 10T
PM2 .5E
PM2 .5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
CO2e
f aily,
�tnmer
x)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
1.01 —
0.48 —
1.49 —
0.10 —
< 0.005
—
—
Ngle
Family
Housing
—
— —
—
—
—
4.84 Total
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
1 .01
0.48 1 .49
0 .10
< 0.005
—
4 .84
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Single
Family
Housing
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
1.01 0.48
1 .49
0 .10
< 0 .005
—
4 .84
Total
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
1.01 0.48
1.49 0.10
< 0.005
—
4.84 Aival
Ngle
Family
Housing
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
0.17 0.08
0.25 0.02
< 0.005
-
0.80 Total
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0 .17
0.08 0 .25
0 .02
< 0.005
-
0.80 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM 10T
PM2.5E
PM2. 5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
q�ily,
mer
(ix)
O7
Single
Family
Housing
5. 37 0.00 5 .37 0 .54 0.00
18.8 26 / 45
Total
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
— —
5 .37
0.00 5.37 0.54
0.00 —
18.8 SlY,
\iter
( ax)
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
IV
get gle
INnily
Housing
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
5 .37
0.00 5 .37
0 .54
0.00 —
18.8 Total
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
5.37 —
0 .00
—
5.37 —
0.54 —
0.00 —
—
—
18.8 Annual
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
Single
Family
Housing
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
0 .89
0.00 0.89
0 .09
0 .00
—
3 .11
Total
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
0 .89
0.00 0 .89
0 .09
0 .00
—
3 .11
4. 6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
-o
4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Single
Family
Housing
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0 .24
0.24 Total
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0 .24
0 .24
I@ly,
\anter
p! .x)
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
ggle
Family
Housing
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0 .24
0.24 Total
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0 .24
0.24 27 / 45
A
inual
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
— —
—
—
— —
—
—
—
ogle
knily
using
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.04 0.04
J
Aal
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0 .04
0.04 O)
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2 .5E
P M2 .5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Ta x)
Nal—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Total
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Annual
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Total
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.1. Unmitigated
Citteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Er;uipm
ent
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM 10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
C O2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
Type
28 / 45
Daily,
tlrnmer
(Pax)
�dtal
N
6ia�ily,
IMter
(Max)
Total
Annual
Total
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
C►teria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) FaJipm
ent
Type
TO G
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
P M10T
PM2 .5E
PM2 .5D
P M2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
C O2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Total
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily,
Winter
(M ax )
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Total
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1ival
i�otal
0 —
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Co
4A 0. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated 29/45
Bobier Property Detailed Report, 10/24/2024
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) v-l etati
on
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2 .5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total
Annual
Total
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Citeria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM 10E
PM10D
PM10T
P M2.5E
PM2.5D
P M2 .5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
Daily, —
Summer
(M ax)
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total
dual
N
Btal
CO
40.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, M T/yr for annual) Species
TOG
ROG
NOx
Co
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM 2. 5E
PM2. 5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
30 / 45
Daily,
nmer
*x)
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Adoided
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
N
gibtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Rquest
ered
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Remove
d
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-
-
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Aided
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
bto tal
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Sequest
ered
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Remove
d
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Annual
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
AAvoided
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Lbtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
* oquest
qd
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
Subtotal
Remove
d
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
31 /45
Subtotal —
O
-CO
Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name
Phase Type
Start Date
End Date
Days Per Week
Work Days per Phase
Phase Description
Site Preparation Site Preparation 7/1/2025
Grading Grading 4/1/2025
Building Construction Building Construction 7/1/2025
Paving Paving 12/15/2025
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 9/29/2025
Oilerground Trenching 7/1/2025
lastructure/Utilities
8/1/2025
5/1/2025
12/31/2025
12/31/2025
12/31/2025
11/3/2025
5 .00
5 .00
5.00 5 .00
5.00 5.00
24.0 23.0
132
13.0 68.0
90 .0
5.2. Off -Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name
Equipment Type
Fuel Type
Engine Tier
Number per Day
Hours Per Day
Horsepower
Load Factor
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
Graders Diesel
Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel
Tractors/Loaders/Back Diese l
hoes
(hiding Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel
p hoes
ding Excavators Diesel
Building Construction Cranes Diesel
Building Construction Forklifts Diesel
Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel
Average
Average
Average
1.00 1.00
1.00 8 .00
148
7 .00
367
8.00 84.0
Average
2.00 7.00
0.41 0.40
0.37 84.0 0.37
Average
Average
Average
Average
2.00 8. 00
1.00 6. 00
1.00 6. 00
1.00 8. 00
32 / 45
36.0 0.38
367 0.29
82.0 0.20
14.0 0.74
Building Construction
aiding Construction
tying
liNat
ing
Paving
Paving
Paving
Architectural Coating
Underground
Infrastructure/Utilities
Tractors/Loaders/Back
Welders
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Pavers
Paving Equipment
Rollers
Cement and M ortar
M ixers
Air Compressors
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average
Diesel
Average
Diesel
Average
Diesel
Average
Diesel
Average
Diesel
Average
Diesel
Diesel
Average
Average
Diesel
Average
1.00 6 .00 84 .0
3.00 8 .00
46 .0
1.00 1.00
8.00 6 .00
84.0 81.0
1.00 1.00
1.00 8 .00
89.0 7.00
36 .0
1 .00
6 .00
6 .00
10.0 37.0
2.00 8.00
84.0 0.37
0.45 0.37
0.42 0.36
0.38 0.56
0.48 0 .37
5.3. Construction Vehicles
-o
5ti.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
Grading
Grading
(tiding
O
O0 Gtaiding
(ding
Building Construction
Building Construction
Trip Type
One -Way Trips per Day
Mil es p er Trip
Worker
7.50 12.0
Vendor
7.63 Hauling
1. 04
20 .0
Onsite truck
Worker
10. 0
12.0 Vendor
7.63 Hauling
0.00 20.0
Onsite truck
Worker
5. 40 12. 0
Vehicle Mix
LDA, LDT 1, LDT2
HHDT,MHDT
HHDT
HHDT
LDA, LDT 1, LDT2
HHDT,MHDT
HHDT
HHDT
LDA, LDT 1, LDT2
33 / 45
Building Construction
aiding Construction
lding Construction
Fi ing
Itst✓ing
Paving
Paving
Paving
Vendor
Hauling
Onsite truck
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Onsite truck
1 .60 7 .63
0 .00 20 .0
HHDT,MHDT
HHDT
HHDT
12 .5
0 .00
12.0 7 .63
20 .0
Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating Worker
Architectural Coating Vendor
Architectural Coating Hauling
Architectural Coating Onsite truck
-o
Mderground Infrastructure/Utilities
Underground Infrastructure/Utilities Worker
Underground Infrastructure/Utilities Vendor
Underground Infrastructure/Utilities Hauling
Underground Infrastructure/Utilities Onsite truck
1 .08
LDA, LDT 1, LDT2
HHDT,MHDT
HHDT
HHDT
12 .0
7 .63
0 .00
20 .0
LDA, LDT 1, LDT2
HHDT, MHDT
HHDT
HHDT
5.00 0. 00
12.0 7.63
20 .0
5. 4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Noah -applicable. No control strategies activated by user. . Architectural Coatings
o
LDA, LDT 1, LDT2
HHDT,MHDT
HHDT
HHDT
[',lase Name
Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non -Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non -Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating
66,825
22,275
0.00 0.00
34 / 45
5.6. Dust Mitigation
O
co
5.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Fi:ase Name
Material Imported (Cubic
Yards)
Material Exported (Cubic
Yards)
Acres Graded (acres)
Material Demolished (sq. ft.)
Acres Paved (acr es)
Site Preparation
Paving
200
22.5 0.00
0.00 0.00
0 .00
0 .00
0 .22
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Co ntrol Strategies Applied
Frequency (per day)
PM10 Reducti on
PM2.5 Reduction
Water Exposed Area
2 61%
61%
5. . Construction Paving
Land Use
Area Paved (acres)
% Asphalt
Single Family Housing
0.22 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year
kWh per Year
CO2
CH4
N2O
2025
0.00 5. Operational Mobile Sources
5a1.1. Unmitigated
Co
540
0.03 < 0.005
Land Use Type
Trips/Weekday
Trips/Saturday
Trips/Sunday
Trips/Year
VMT/Weekday
VMT/Saturday
VMT/Sunday
VMT/Year
Single Family
Housing
150
143
128
53,256
1,109
1,058
948
393,754
35 / 45
5.10. Operational Area Sources
O
0o
540. 1. Hearths
520.1.1. Unmitigated
rn
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
66825
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non -Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non -Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
22,275
0.00 0.00
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season
2 w Days
tg-nmer Days
IME
day/yr
day/yr
Value
0.00 180
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use
Electricity (kWh/yr)
Single Family Housing
92,119
CO2
45.1 512. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
co
52.1. Unmitigate d
OD
Land Use
Single Family Housing
CH4
0. 0330
Indoor Water (gal/ye ar)
526,996
N2O
Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
0 .0040
427,754
Outdoor Water (gal/year)
60,275
36 / 45
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
O
co
543. 1. Unmitigated
Lund Use
O)
Single Family Housing
Waste (ton/year)
9.96 Cogeneration (kWh/year)
5. 14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type
Equipment Type
Refrigerant
GWP
Quantity (kg)
Operations Leak Rate
Service Leak Rate
Times Serviced
Single Family Housing Ave rage room NC & R -410A
Other residential NC
and heat pumps
ggle Family Housing Household R -134a
fV refrigerators and/or
freezers
2,088
< 0 .005
2.50 2.50
10.0 1,430
0.12 0.60
0.00 1.00
5.15. Operational Off -Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type
Fuel Type
Engine Tier
Number per Day
Hours Per Day
Horsepower
Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
56.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
0 E:,uipment Type
Fuel Type
Number per Day
Hours per Day
Hours per Year
Horsepower
Load Factor
d7
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type
37 / 45
5.17. User Defined
co
E4uipment Type
Fuel Type
5\18 Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18. 1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type
Vegetation Soil Type
Initial Acres
Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
-o
b rJmass Cover Type
Initial Acres
Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type
Number
Electricity Sa ved (kWh/year)
Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
eEj . Climate Risk Summary
CaAdapt midcentury 2040-2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Repr esentation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8 .5 which ames GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
C:i,nate Hazard
Temperature and Extreme Heat
Result for Project Location
8.38 Unit
annual days of extreme heat
Extreme Precipitation
3.30 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm
38 / 45
Sea Level Rise
Lus
fire
11.8 meters of inundation depth
annual hectares burned
Tiperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located . The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from o rved historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal -Adapt, 2040-2059 average under RCP 8 .5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3 .7 mi.
E eme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located . The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about % an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours . Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3 .7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your pr oject are located . The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as r eported in Cal -Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento -San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level ris e coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to vi ew the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1 .41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located . The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal -Adapt (2040-2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGE M2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanES M2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard
Exposure Score
Sensitivity Score
Adaptive Capacity Score
Vulnerability Score
Tunperature and Extreme Heat
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I
Iareme Precipitation
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sea Level Rise
1 0
0 N/A
Wildfire
1 0
0 N/A
Flooding
0 0
0 N/A
Drought
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Snowpack Re duction
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Air Quality Degradation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
TEt adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
TO overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction assures.
. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard
Exposure Score
Sensitivity Score
Adaptive Capacity Score
Vulnerability Score
Temperature and Extreme Heat
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
39 / 45
Extreme Precipitation
a Level Rise
1tdfire
Noding
IV
Ought
Snowpack Reduction
Air Quality Degradation
N/A
1 N/A
1 N/A
1 1
1 1
1 1 1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2 2
2 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard . Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards . Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6. 4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4. 0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator
Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators
—
AQ-Ozone
40.0 AQ-PM
35. 1
AQ-DPM
° king Water
61.7 52. 8
LQQad Risk Housing
54.7 ticides
0. 00
Toxic Releases
13. 1
Traffic
38. 9
Effect Indicators
—
40 / 45
CleanUp Sites
22 .6
aundwater
43.8 Iiz Waste Facilities/Generators
47 .4
I8aired Water Bodies
43 .8
IV
Mid Waste
52.9 Sensitive Population
—
Asthma
33.7 Cardio-vascular
40 .8
Low Birth Weights
79.2 Socioeconomic Factor Indicators
—
Education
90 .4
Housing
0 .24
Linguistic
-o
47.1 Poverty
N
Unemployment
48 .0
15.8 7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Inde x score is 100. A high score (i.e., greate r than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state .
Indicator
Economic
Above Poverty
Employed
Median HI
co
Ieucation
O
I - chelor's or higher
I▪ h school enrollment
Preschool enrollment
Transportation
Result for Project Census Tract
27. 87116643
89. 43924034
44. 16784294
9.547029385
100
4. 439881945
41 /45
Auto Access
88 .68215065
ive commuting
18 .58077762
Sgcial
—
Narent households
55 .56268446
IV
`e tting
33 .46593096
Neighborhood
—
Alcohol availability
37 .13589118
Park access
27.66585397
Retail density
45.96432696
Supermarket access
70 .97395098
Tree canopy
11 .00988066
Housing
Homeownership
39.81778519
(Musing habitability
IV
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden
31 .36147825
32.144232
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden
90.79943539
Uncrowded housing
22 .40472219
Health Outcomes
—
Insured adults
21.19851148
Arthritis
84.5 Asthma ER Admissions
46.7 High Blood Pressure
91.1 Cancer (excluding skin)
85. 3
CO
411Dth ma
46.1 gronary Heart Disease
72. 1
CO
(ironic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
59.8 Diagnosed Diabetes
48.6 Life Expectancy at Birth
46.1 42 / 45
Cognitively Disabled
87 .2
MI
sically Disabled
84.3 F art Attack ER Admissions
70.7 ISntal Health Not Good
29.3 IV
C nronic Kidney Disease
35.4 Obesity
33.0 Pedestrian Injuries
76.1 Physical Health Not Good
39.2 Stroke
75.8 Health Risk Behaviors
—
Binge Drinking
8.3 Current Smoker
34 .8
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity
31 .5
Climate Change Exposures
IV
Wildfire Risk
—
0.0 SLR Inundation Area
0.0 Children
43.1 Elderly
79.3 English Speaking
5.7 Foreign-bom
66.5 Outdoor Workers
12.0 Climate Change Adaptive Capacity
Impervious Surface Cover
28.5 OD
T. Daffic Density
48. 2
ffic Access
69.4 CO
Stier Indices
—
Hardship
64.5 Other Decision Support
—
43 / 45
2016 Voting
57.5 co
7. Overall Health & Equity Scores
ME-tric
Result for Pr oject Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4. 0 Score for Project Location (a)
43 .0
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b)
Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Project Located in a Low -Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No
39.0 No
Yes
a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state . b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity M easures
-o
NTHealth & Equity Measures selected.
Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7. 6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen
Justification
Land Use
Project information was updated per information provided by th e project developer. 04 •
struction: Construction Phases
O
i- n▪ struction: Off -Road Equipment
O
The phases and schedule were changed from defaults per information provided by the project developer.
Equipment type/amount added for grading and underground infrastructure phases per information provided by the project developer .
Construction: Dust From Material Movement
The amount of material expected to be exported during site preparation was provided by the project developer.
Operations: Hearths
Fireplaces and wood stoves were removed to reflect the absence of them in the project . 44 / 45
Operations: Energy Use
—
astruction: Paving
The amount of paved area was provided by the project developer. c erations: Vehicle Data
N)
Weekday trips were changed to reflect the SANDAG trip generation rates for single-family residential land uses (10 ADT).
IV
a)
2 fV
CO
0 CO
a)
45 / 45
Appendix B
Biological Technical Report
08/11/2026
PH2 188 of 876
HELIX
Environmental Planning
Bobier Property Project
Biological Technical Report
July 2025 I 02190.00002.001
Prepared for:
SWS Engineering
1635 Lake San Marcos Drive, Suite 200
San Marcos, CA 92078
Prepared by:
08/11/2026
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
PH2 189 of 876
This page intentionally left blank
08/11/2026
PH2 190 of 876
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES -1
LO INTRODUCTION 1
L1 Purpose of Report 1
1.2 Project Location 1
L3 Project Description 1
2.0 METHODS 2
2.1 Literature Review 2
2.2 General Biological Survey 2
2.3 Rare Plant Survey 3
2.4 Jurisdictional Delineation 3
2.5 Survey Limitations 3
2.6 Nomenclature 3
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 3
3.1 Regional Context 3
3.2 General Land Uses 4
3.3 Topography and Soils 4
3.4 Vegetation Communities/Land Use Types 4
3.5 Flora 5
3.6 Fauna 5
4.0 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5
4.1 Sensitive Vegetation Communities/Habitat Types 5
4.2 Special -Status Plant Species 5
4.2.1 Special -Status Plant Species Observed 6
4.2.2 Special -Status Plant Species with Potential to Occur 6
4.3 Special -Status Animal Species 6
4.3.1 Special -Status Animal Species Observed or Otherwise Detected 6
4.3.2 Special -Status Animal Species with Potential to Occur 6
4.4 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands 7
4.5 Habitat Connectivity and Wildlife Corridors 7
5.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 8
5.1 Federal Government 8
5.L1 Federal Endangered Species Act 8
5.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act 8
5.1.3 Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act 9
i
08/11/2026
PH2 191 of 876
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Section Page
5.2 State of California 9
5.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act 9
5.2.2 California Endangered Species Act 9
5.2.3 Native Plant Protection Act 9
5.2.4 California Fish and Game Code 9
5.2.5 Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act 10
6.0 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 10
6.1 Special -Status Species 11
6.1.1 Impact Analysis 11
6.1.2 Mitigation Measures 12
6.1.3 Conclusions 12
6.2 Sensitive Natural Communities 12
6.2.1 Impact Analysis 12
6.2.2 Mitigation Measures 13
6.2.3 Conclusions 13
6.3 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waterways 13
6.3.1 Impact Analysis 13
6.3.2 Mitigation Measures 13
6.3.3 Conclusions 13
6.4 Wildlife Movement and Nursery Sites 14
6.4.1 Impact Analysis 14
6.4.2 Mitigation Measures 14
6.4.3 Conclusions 14
6.5 Local Policies and Ordinances 14
6.5.1 Impact Analysis 14
6.5.2 Mitigation Measures 14
6.5.3 Conclusions 14
6.6 Adopted Conservation Plans 15
6.6.1 Impact Analysis 15
6.6.2 Mitigation Measures 15
6.6.3 Conclusions 15
6.7 Cumulative Impacts 15
7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 17
8.0 REFERENCES 18
ii
08/11/2026
PH2 192 of 876
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
LIST OF APPENDICES
A Plant Species Observed
B Animal Species Observed or Detected
C Special -Status Plant Species Observed or Evaluated for Potential to Occur D Special -Status Animal Species Observed or Evaluated for Potential to Occur E Explanation of Status Codes for Plant and Animal Species
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Title Follows Page No.
1 Regional Location 2
2 USGS Topography 2
3 Aerial Vicinity 2
4 Site Plan 2
5 Soils 4
6 Vegetation and Land Use Types 4
7 Critical Habitat 8
8 Vegetation and Land Use Types/Impacts 14
LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page No.
1 Biological Surveys 2
2 Existing Vegetation Communities/Land Use Types 4
3 Vegetation Communities/Land Use Impacts and Mitigation 13 iii
08/11/2026
PH2 193 of 876
This page intentionally left blank
iv
08/11/2026
PH2 194 of 876
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AMEC AMEC Earth & Environmental
CDFW
CEQA
CESA
CFG Code
City
CNDDB
CNPS
County
CRPR
CWA
FESA
FPA
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Environmental Quality Act
California Endangered Species Act
California Fish and Game Code
City of Vista
California Natural Diversity Database
California Native Plant Society
County of San Diego
California Rare Plant Rank
Clean Water Act
Federal Endangered Species Act
Focused Planning Area
HELIX HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
MBTA
MHCP
MSCP
NCCP
NPPA
NRCS
NWI
project
project proponent
Porter -Cologne
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan
Multiple Species Conservation Program
Natural Communities Conservation Planning
Native Plant Protection Act
Natural Resource Conservation Service
National Wetland Inventory
Bobier Property Project
SWS Engineering, Inc.
Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SR State Route
USACE
USFWS
USGS
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
08/11/2026
v
PH2 195 of 876
This page intentionally left blank
vi
08/11/2026
PH2 196 of 876
Biological Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I July 2025
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the request of SWS Engineering, Inc. (project proponent), HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) completed this biological resources technical report for the Bobier Property Project (project), in the City of Vista, San Diego County, California. The proposed project consists of residential development within Assessor Parcel Number 161-030-0700. The project would occur within an approximately 1.81 -acre area, including L67 acres on -site and 0.14 acre off -site, referred to herein as the project site.
The purpose of this report is to document the existing biological conditions within the project site and provide an analysis of potential impacts on sensitive biological resources with respect to local, state, and federal policy. This report provides the biological resources technical documentation necessary for review under the California Environmental Quality Act by the City of Vista.
The project site is generally characterized by flat, disturbed habitat. The area surrounding the site consists of residential development.
HELIX conducted biological resources surveys in February 2021 and May 2025. The surveys confirmed the presence of two vegetation community/land use type: disturbed habitat and urban/developed land.
Disturbed habitat and urban/developed land are not considered a sensitive natural communities. No special -status plant species were observed on the project site during HELIX's surveys. One special -status plant species was determined to have a high potential to occur: thread -leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia); however, a focused survey for this species was negative. No special -status animal species were observed on the project site during HELIX's surveys. One special -status animal species was determined to have a moderate potential to occur: San Diego (coastal) whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri).
The project site does not supports jurisdictional waters or wetlands subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA); wetland and non -wetland waters of the state subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to CWA Section 401 and State Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act; or jurisdictional streambed and riparian habitat subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 et seq.
Potential significant impacts have been identified for raptor foraging and nesting birds. Mitigation measures are proposed that would reduce the potential significant impacts of the project to below a level of significance. Potential impacts on special -status species, sensitive natural communities, federally or state protected wetlands, wildlife corridors and nursery sites, and regional conservation plans were found to be less than significant.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
ES -1
197 of 876
Biological Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I July 2025 This page intentionally left blank
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
ES -2
198 of 876
Biological Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I July 2025
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF REPORT
At the request of SWS Engineering, Inc. (project proponent), HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) completed this biological resources technical report for the Bobier Property Project (project), in the City of Vista (City), San Diego County (County), California. The proposed project consists of residential development. The purpose of this report is to document the existing biological conditions within the approximately 1.81 -acre project site, including 1.67 acres on -site and 0.14 acre off -site, and provide an analysis of potential impacts on sensitive biological resources with respect to local, state, and federal policy. This report provides the biological resources technical documentation necessary for review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by the lead agency, the City of Vista.
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is generally located north of State Route (SR) 78, south of SR 76, and east of Interstate 5 in the City of Vista, San Diego County, California (Figure 1, Regional Location). The site is located in Section 13 of Township 11 South, Range 4 West of the San Luis Rey U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 - minute topographic map (Figure 2, USGS Topography). More specifically, the site is situated south of West Bobier Drive and east of Sports Park Way (Figure 3, Aerial Vicinity). The project site occurs within Assessor Parcel Number 161-030-0700. The site is bound by residential developments on all sides.
The property is located within the boundaries of the North County San Diego Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP; AMEC Earth & Environmental et al. [AMEC] 2003). Specifically, the site is located within the Vista Subarea of the MHCP. The property is not included within a Focused Planning Area (FPA) of the MHCP.
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposes the construction of 15 single-family attached residential units. The homes would each be approximately 2,200 square feet. Access would be provided by one driveway north of the project site on West Bobier Drive. Resident parking would be provided via garages along the proposed development's private drive. Off -site impacts include sewer replacement and improvements to the sidewalk and curb. The site plan can be found on Figure 4, Site Plan. The project proposes a residential density of 9 dwelling units per acre, which is within the Medium Density Residential allowable density of 10 dwelling units per acre.
Development of the proposed project would also include the construction of utility connections and drainage improvements. On -site improvements would include biofiltration best management practices, including biofiltration basins.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
1 199 of 876
Biological Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I July 2025
2.0 METHODS
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
Before conducting biological field surveys, a thorough review of relevant maps, databases, and literature pertaining to biological resources known to occur within the project vicinity was conducted. Recent and historical aerial imagery (Google 2025), topographic maps (USGS 2025, soils maps (Natural Resource Conservation Service [NRCS] 2025), and other maps of the project site and vicinity were acquired and reviewed to obtain updated information on the natural environmental setting.
In addition, a query of sensitive species and habitats databases was conducted, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) species records (USFWS 2025a), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2025a), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Inventory (CNPS 2025). The USFWS' National Wetland Inventory (NWI) was also reviewed (USFWS 2025b). Any recorded locations of species, habitat types, wetlands, and other resources were mapped and overlaid onto aerial imagery using Geographic Information Systems.
2.2 GENERAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
HELIX biologists Karl Osmundson and Mandy Mathews conducted an initial general biological survey of the project site on February 1, 2021. Ms. Mathews conducted an updated general biological survey on May 28, 2025. Vegetation was mapped on a 1"=200' scale aerial of the site at a minimum mapping unit size of 0.10 acre for the upland habitat. The site reconnaissance included a general inventory of existing conditions and focused primarily on verifying existing vegetation communities or land use types from the 2021 biological survey, assessing suitability for sensitive plant and animal species, assessing potential jurisdictional waters and wetlands, and identifying any other potential sensitive resources.
Physical parameters assessed included vegetation and soil conditions, presence of wetland and vernal pool indicator plant and animal species, slope, aspect, and hydrology.
The project site was surveyed on foot and with the aid of binoculars. Plant and animal species observed or otherwise detected were recorded in field notebooks. Animal identifications were made in the field by direct, visual observation or indirectly by detection of calls, burrows, tracks, or scat. The project site was examined for evidence of potential jurisdictional waters and wetlands, including vernal pools.
Table 1, Biological Surveys, provides a summary of the biological surveys conducted for the project.
Table 1
BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS
Date Personnel' Survey Type
2021
February 1, 2021
May 28, 2025
All HELIX biologists.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
Karl Osmundson,
Mandy Mathews
Mandy Mathews
General biological survey, vegetation mapping, habitat
assessment, plant and wildlife inventory, assessment of jurisdictional resources
2025
General biological survey, vegetation mapping, habitat
assessment, plant and wildlife inventory, rare plant survey PH2
2 200 of 876
Bobier Property Project
0 NEILL LAKE
OCEANSIDE
VISTA
Project Location
SAN MARCOS
CARLSBAD r'LAKE SAN
D MARCOS
SOLANA BEACH I
DEL MAR
Pacific
Ocean
f't..
•
ESCONDIDO
VAIL LAKE
LAKE WOHLEORD
I LAKE RAMONA
it LAKE POWAY
POWAY
- MIRA!MAR
RESERVOIR
SAN DIEGO
CORONADO
r
MORRAY
}i4ESERV0JR
14 SANTEE LAKES
1SANTEEr
4... SAN VICENTE
RESERVOIR
LAKE HE NSHA W'
SUTHERLAND
RESERVOIR
EL CAPITAN
RESERVOIR
L'aKE JENNINGS r .^
'11'4
e3 EL CAJON s~ pr i
RESERVOIR •
<0"4r RESERVOIR
LA MESA
LEMON j- ✓•
GROVE J
SWEETWATER
RESERVOIR
•
NATIONAL CITY •
CHULAVISfA
UPPEROTAY �' �•
- RESERVOIR l''
.LOWER OTAY
RESERVOIR
IMVERIAL'
•
BEACH
MEX4tO �..
BA.RRETT
RESERVOIR
•
8 Miles
HELIX
Environmental Planning
Source: Base Map Layers )SanGES, 2016)
Regional Location
08/11/2026
PH2
Figure 1
201 of 876
t
Lake
3b+
Bobier Property Project
C5 Project Site
C Off -site Area
Environrnenta, Planning
HELIX
Source: Aerial (NearMap, 2025)
Aerial Vicinity
08/11/2026
PH2
Figure 3
203 of 876
Bobier Property Project
a
Project Site
C.17:.: Off -site Area
Plan Lines
Oceanside,B
•
HELIX
0 80 Feet
Source: Aerial (NearMaps, 2425)
Site Plan
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
Figure 4
204 of 876
Biological Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I July 2025
2.3 RARE PLANT SURVEY
HELIX biologist Mandy Mathews conducted a survey for special -status plant species on May 28, 2025 (Table 1). Special -status plant species include species that are: listed as threatened or endangered, proposed for listing, or are candidate species by the USFWS or the CDFW; and those with a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1 through 4 as designated by the CNPS. The survey was conducted on foot and included 100 percent visual coverage of the project site.
2.4 JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION
An assessment of potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources was conducted in 2021 and verified in 2025 by HELIX. The assessment was conducted to identify and map potential wetlands and other waters of the U.S. subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 USC 1344), waters of the State subject to Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) jurisdiction pursuant to CWA Section 401 and State Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter -Cologne), and streambed and riparian habitat subject to CDFW jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (CFG Code). Areas generally characterized by depressions were evaluated.
2.5 SURVEY LIMITATIONS
Noted animal species were identified by direct observation, vocalizations, or the observance of scat, tracks, or other signs. However, the lists of species identified are not necessarily comprehensive accounts of all species that use the project site, as species that are nocturnal, secretive, or seasonally restricted may not have been observed. Those species that are of special status and have the potential to occur in the project site, however, are still addressed in this report. Last, 2025 was a drought year, which may have affected the vegetation composition of the site.
2.6 NOMENCLATURE
Nomenclature used in this report generally comes from Holland (1986) and Oberbauer (2008) for vegetation; Jepson eFlora (2025) and Baldwin et al. (2012) for plants; Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (2025) for reptiles and amphibians; American Ornithological Society (2025) for birds; North American Butterfly Association (2025) for butterflies; and Bradley et al. (2014) for mammals. Plant species status is from the CNPS's Rare Plant Inventory (CNPS 2025) and CDFW (2025b).
Animal species status is from the CDFW (2025c).
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
3.1 REGIONAL CONTEXT
The project site is located within the boundaries of the North County MHCP, specifically, the Vista Subarea Plan (AMEC 2003). The North County MHCP is a comprehensive, multiple jurisdictional planning program designed to develop an ecosystem preserve in northwestern San Diego County. The North County MHCP is divided into sub -regional plans, with the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan being the only approved and adopted sub -regional plan for the MHCP.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
3 205 of 876
Biological Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I July 2025 The City does not currently have an approved or draft MHCP Subarea Plan, and because the City is mostly developed, it is not actively pursuing approval of a Subarea Plan, nor is there an implementing agreement for the MHCP. The City's General Plan (City 2011) includes goals and policies to implement the provisions of the MHCP, and it is used as a basis for assessing projects within a regional context. This assessment report acknowledges the MHCP; however, as stated previously, the MHCP is not fully adopted.
3.2 GENERAL LAND USES
A single-family residence was on the project site until it was demolished sometime between 2008 and 2009. Currently, the project site is subject to illegal dumping. Land uses in the surrounding area include residential development in all directions. The property is bordered to the north and south by roads and development, and by residential development to the west and east.
3.3 TOPOGRAPHY AND SOILS
The property is generally characterized by previously graded and disturbed flat land. The flat portions of the property appear to have been disturbed since before 1994, with more recent disturbances occurring in 2019 in association with improvements to the adjacent Sprinter rail track (Google 2025). Elevations range from approximately 440 to 470 feet above mean sea level, sloping generally from east to west on the eastern portion of the property. The topography suggests that the property generally drains to the south. Several large boulders occur in the northern portion of the project site.
One soil type has been mapped in the project site, Diablo clay, 2 to 9 percent slopes (NRCS 2025; Figure 5, Soils). Diablo clay is characterized by neutral to mildly alkaline silty clay that is well -draining with slow permeability. Diablo clay is associated with several sensitive and rare plants known to the region. Diablo clay is not listed as hydric.
3.4 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES/LAND USE TYPES
Two vegetation communities/land use types occur in the project site (Table 2, Existing Vegetation Communities/Land Use Types; Figure 6, Vegetation and Land Use Type): disturbed habitat and urban/developed land. The numeric codes in parentheses following each community/land use type name are from the Holland classification system (Holland 1986) as added to by Oberbauer (2008).
Table 2
EXISTING VEGETATION COMMUNITIES/LAND USE TYPES
Vegetation Communities/Land Use Types'
Project Site Acres'
On -Site
Off -Site
Total
Uplands
Disturbed Habitat (11300)
1.67 0.05
1.72 Urban/Developed Land (12000)
--
0.09 0.09
Uplands Subtotal
1.67 0.14
1.81 TOTAL
1.67 0.14
1.81 I Vegetation categories and numerical codes are from Holland (1986) and Oberbauer (2008). 2 Acreages rounded to the nearest 0.01 acre for uplands; total reflects rounding.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
4 206 of 876
Project Site
r_ Off -site Area
Mapped Soils
CD BID2 - Bonsai' sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, eroded DaC - Diablo clay, 2 to 9 percent slopes
TuB - Tujunga sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes
Oceanside Blvd
HELIX
Mynah PI
Source: Aerial (NearMap, 2025)
Soils
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
Figure 5
207 of 876
Bobier Property Project
D
Project Site
C_ Off -site Area
Vegetation
Disturbed Habitat
- Urban/Developed
Environmental, Planning
HELIX
Source: Aerial (NearMap, 2025)
Vegetation and Land Use Types
08/11/2026
PH2
Figure 6
208 of 876
Biological Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I July 2025 Disturbed Habitat (11300)
Disturbed habitat includes land cleared of vegetation (e.g., dirt roads), land containing a preponderance of non-native plant species such as ornamentals or ruderal exotic species that take advantage of disturbance (previously cleared or abandoned landscaping), or land showing signs of past or present animal usage that removes any capability of providing viable habitat. Within the project site, disturbed habitat consists of dirt trails, bare ground, shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), prickly sow thistle (Sonchus asper), and non-native grasses. It is found throughout the entirety of the site, totaling 1.72 acres.
Urban/Developed (12000)
Developed land is where permanent structures and/or pavement have been placed, which prevents the growth of vegetation, or where landscaping is clearly tended and maintained. Within the project's off - site area, urban/developed land consists of pavement and covers approximately 0.09 acre.
3.5 FLORA
A total of 45 plant species were identified by HELIX within the project site during surveys conducted to date, of which 39 (87 percent) are non-native species (Appendix A, Plant Species Observed).
3.6 FAUNA
A total of 18 animal species were observed or detected within the project site during biological surveys conducted to date, including one invertebrate, two reptiles, 13 birds, and two mammal species (Appendix B, Animal Species Observed or Detected).
4.0 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.1 SENSITIVE VEGETATION COMMUNITIES/HABITAT TYPES
Sensitive vegetation communities/habitat types are defined as land that supports unique vegetation communities or the habitats of rare or endangered species or subspecies of animals or plants as defined by Section 15380 of the state CEQA Guidelines.
Disturbed habitat and urban/developed land do not meet the definition of sensitive habitat under CEQA• Impacts to these vegetation communities/land use types do not require mitigation.
4.2 SPECIAL -STATUS PLANT SPECIES
Special -status plant species have been afforded special status and/or recognition by the USFWS and/or CDFW and may also be included in the CNPS' Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. Their status is often based on one or more of three distributional attributes: geographic range, habitat specificity, and/or population size. A species that exhibits a small or restricted geographic range (such as those endemic to the region) is geographically rare. A species may be more or less abundant but occur only in very specific habitats. Lastly, a species may be widespread but exists naturally in small populations.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
5 209 of 876
Biological Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I July 2025
4.2.1 Special -Status Plant Species Observed
No special -status plant species were observed on the project site during the 2021 biological survey, the 2025 biological survey, or the rare plant survey.
4.2.2 Special -Status Plant Species with Potential to Occur Special -status plant species that were not observed but may have the potential to occur in the project site are listed in Appendix C, Special -Status Plant Species Observed or Evaluated for Potential to Occur.
One special -status plant species was determined to have a high potential to occur on -site based on proximity to USFWS designated critical habitat: thread -leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia). No other special -status plant species were determined to have a moderate or high potential to occur on -site primarily due to the lack of suitable conditions. The site does not support the vegetation associations, soils, or hydrology required by many of the special -status plants known to the region.
Thread -leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia)
Status: FT/SE; CNPS List 1B.1; CA Endemic; County List A; County Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) Narrow Endemic
Distribution: Interior valley regions of San Diego, Riverside, Orange, and Los Angeles counties Habitat: Clay soils in vernally moist grasslands and vernal pool periphery are typical locales Status on -site: A focused survey was conducted during the peak blooming period for this species. The survey was negative, and this species is presumed absent from the project site.
4.3 SPECIAL -STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES
Special -status animal species include those that have been afforded special status and/or recognition by the USFWS and/or CDFW. In general, the principal reason an individual taxon (species or subspecies) is given such recognition is the documented or perceived decline or limitations of its population size or geographical extent and/or distribution, resulting in most cases from habitat loss.
4.3.1 Special -Status Animal Species Observed or Otherwise Detected No special -status animal species were observed on the project site during the 2021 biological survey or the 2025 biological survey.
4.3.2 Special -Status Animal Species with Potential to Occur Special -status animal species that were not observed but may have the potential to occur in the project site are listed in Appendix D, Special -Status Animal Species Observed or Evaluated for Potential to Occur.
One special -status species was determined to have a moderate potential to occur on -site: San Diego tiger (coastal) whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri). No other special -status animal species were determined to have a high potential to occur on -site primarily due to the lack of suitable conditions.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
6 210 of 876
Biological Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I July 2025 San Diego tiger (coastal) whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri) Status: --/--; Species of Special Concern; County Group 2 Distribution: Ventura County south, in cismontane California, to south-central Baja California Habitat: Open coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and woodlands. Frequently found along the edges of dirt roads traversing its habitats. Important habitat components include open, sunny areas, shrub cover with accumulated leaf litter, and an abundance of insects, spiders, or scorpions.
Status on -site: Although this species was not observed during surveys, the project site comprises marginally suitable dry open areas and rocky areas with sandy soils. This species can also be found in disturbed areas.
4.4 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS AND WETLANDS
In the context of this assessment, jurisdictional waters and wetlands include waters of the U.S., including wetlands, regulated by the USACE pursuant to CWA Section 404; waters of the state regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and State Porter - Cologne; and streambed and riparian habitat regulated by the CDFW pursuant to Sections 1600 et seq. of California Fish and Game (CFG) Code.
No drainage features, potential wetlands, riparian habitat, or other potential aquatic resources were apparent within the property during the February 2021 site visit. No jurisdictional waters or wetlands are present within the project site.
4.5 HABITAT CONNECTIVITY AND WILDLIFE CORRIDORS
Wildlife corridors connect otherwise isolated pieces of habitat and allow the movement or dispersal of plants and animals. Local wildlife corridors allow access to resources such as food, water, and shelter within the framework of their daily routine. Regional corridors provide these functions over a larger scale and link two or more large habitat areas, allowing the dispersal of organisms and the consequent mixing of genes between populations. A corridor is a specific route that is used for the movement and migration of species and may be different from a linkage in that it represents a smaller or narrower avenue for movement. A linkage is an area of land that supports or contributes to the long-term movement of animals and genetic exchange by providing live-in habitat that connects to other habitat areas. Many linkages occur as stepping -stone linkages that are comprised of a fragmented archipelago arrangement of habitat over a linear distance.
Important corridors and linkages have been identified on a local and regional scale throughout the MHCP (AMEC 2003). The planning objectives of most corridors and linkages in western San Diego County include establishing a connection between the northern and southern regional populations of the coastal California gnatcatcher, in addition to facilitating movement and connectivity of habitat for large mammals and riparian bird species.
The project site is not located within an identified corridor, habitat linkage, and does not occur within or adjacent to any lands identified as a Pre -Approved Mitigation Area under the MHCP. Furthermore, the project site is located outside of the coastal zone and any USFWS-designated critical habitat (Figure 7, Critical Habitat). The disturbed habitat on the project provides very limited value to local wildlife, and the project site is surrounded by development. Given the roadblocks posed by surrounding development, the site is not expected to serve as a regional wildlife corridor or substantial habitat linkage that would be used by large mammals, riparian birds, or migratory birds.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
7 211 of 876
Biological Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I July 2025
5.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Biological resources in the project site are subject to regulatory review by federal, state, and local agencies. Under CEQA, impacts associated with a proposed project or program are assessed with regard to significance criteria determined by the CEQA Lead Agency (in this case, the City of Vista) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. Biological resources -related laws and regulations that apply include the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), CEQA, CFG Code, and Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act.
With respect to the proposed project, the USFWS will be responsible for reviewing issues related to migratory birds pursuant to the MBTA and regional conservation planning in light of the MHCP. The CDFW will be responsible for reviewing issues related to nesting birds and raptors pursuant to CFG Code and regional conservation planning in light of the MHCP.
The City is the lead agency for the CEQA environmental review process in accordance with state law and local ordinances. During CEQA review, the City will be responsible for reviewing project issues pursuant to CEQA Appendix G. The City will also be responsible for reviewing the proposed project with respect to conservation planning, considering the MHCP and consistency with biological elements of the City Municipal Code and General Plan.
5.1 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
5.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act
Administered by the USFWS, the FESA provides the legal framework for the listing and protection of species (and their habitats) identified as being endangered or threatened with extinction. Actions that jeopardize endangered or threatened species and the habitats upon which they rely are considered a 'take' under the FESA. Section 9(a) of the FESA defines take as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct." 'Harm' and 'harass' are further defined in federal regulations and case law to include actions that adversely impair or disrupt a listed species' behavioral patterns.
The USFWS designates critical habitat for endangered and threatened species. Critical habitat is defined as areas of land that are considered necessary for endangered or threatened species to recover. The goal is to restore healthy populations of listed species within their native habitats, so they can be removed from the list of threatened or endangered species. Once an area is designated as critical habitat pursuant to the FESA, all federal agencies must consult with the USFWS to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat. No critical habitat for any species occurs within the project site. The nearest critical habitats are for the least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), approximately 1.8 miles to the northwest, and thread -leaved brodiaea immediately to the north of the project site and approximately
0.9 mile to the northwest (Figure 7).
5.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act
All migratory bird species that are native to the United States or its territories are protected under the federal MBTA, as amended under the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004 (FR Doc. 05-5127). The HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
8 212 of 876
2,000 Feet ip
Source: Aerial (SanGlS 2023)
portlier y'
HIU.,I,y.;,
0 H -H
HELIX
0c anside'lil
r '
iElnv.e Trie+OK
CrelrtaLin
annet O'
'North.Ave
N Santo
+ Ad' a Est
Tatum :Z
n rnr�r.,f; St
AStpt_Dr
9 W inetlan
Caiifornrn Ave
Bobier Property Project
Project Site
Off -site Area
Least Bell's Vireo Critical Habitat
Thread -leaved Brodiaea Critical Habitat
Critical Habitat
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
Figure 7
213 of 876
Biological Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I July 2025 MBTA is generally protective of migratory birds but does not actually stipulate the type of protection required. In common practice, the MBTA is used to place restrictions on disturbance of active bird nests during the nesting season (generally January 15 to September 15). In addition, the USFWS commonly places restrictions on disturbances allowed near active raptor nests.
5.1.3 Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act
Federal wetland regulation (non -marine issues) is guided by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the CWA. The Rivers and Harbors Act deals primarily with discharges into navigable waters, while the purpose of the CWA is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of all waters of the U.S. Permitting for projects filling waters of the U.S. is overseen by the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA. Most development projects are permitted using an Individual Permit or Nationwide Permit. CWA Section 404 permits require Water Quality Certification by the RWQCB pursuant to CWA Section 401.
5.2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
5.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act
Primary environmental legislation in California is found in CEQA and its implementing guidelines (state CEQA Guidelines), which require that projects with potential adverse effects (or impacts) on the environment undergo environmental review. Adverse environmental impacts are typically mitigated as a result of the environmental review process in accordance with existing laws and regulations.
5.2.2 California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) established that it is State policy to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance State endangered species and their habitats. Under State law, plant and animal species may be formally designated rare, threatened, or endangered by official listing by the California Fish and Game Commission. The CESA authorizes that private entities may "take" plant or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened under the FESA and CESA, pursuant to a federal Incidental Take Permit if the CDFW certifies that the incidental take is consistent with CESA (CFG Code Section 2080.1[a]). For State -only listed species, Section 2081 of the CFG Code authorizes the CDFW to issue an Incidental Take Permit for State listed threatened and endangered species if specific criteria are met.
5.2.3 Native Plant Protection Act
The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) enacted a process by which plants are listed as rare or endangered. The NPPA regulates the collection, transport, and commerce of plants that are listed. The CESA follows the NPPA and covers both plants and animals determined to be endangered or threatened with extinction. Plants listed as rare under the NPPA are also designated as rare under the CESA.
5.2.4 California Fish and Game Code
The CFG Code provides specific protection and listing for several types of biological resources. Sections 1600 et seq. of the CFG Code require notification and, if required, a Streambed Alteration Agreement for any activity that would alter the flow, change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of any perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral river, stream, and/or lake. Typical activities that require HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
9 214 of 876
Biological Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I July 2025 notification include excavation or fill placed within a channel, vegetation clearing, structures for diversion of water, installation of culverts and bridge supports, cofferdams for construction dewatering, and bank reinforcement. Notification is required before any such activities.
The CFG Code provides specific protection and listing for several types of biological resources. Pursuant to CFG Code Section 3503, it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Raptors and owls and their active nests are protected by CFG Code Section 3503.5, which states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds of prey or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird unless authorized by the CDFW. Section 3513 states that it is unlawful to take or possess any migratory non -game bird as designated in the MBTA. These regulations could require that construction activities (particularly vegetation removal or construction near nests) be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle unless surveys by a qualified biologist demonstrate that nests, eggs, or nesting birds will not be disturbed, subject to approval by CDFW and/or USFWS.
5.2.5 Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act
The Natural Communities Conservation Planning program is a cooperative effort to protect habitats and species. It began under the state's NCCP Act of 1991, legislation broader in its orientation and objectives than the CESA or FESA. These laws are designed to identify and protect individual species that have already declined significantly in number. The NCCP Act of 1991 and the associated Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP Process Guidelines (1993), Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP Conservation Guidelines (1993), and NCCP General Process Guidelines (1998) have been superseded by the NCCP Act of 2003.
The primary objective of the NCCP program is to conserve natural communities at the ecosystem level while accommodating compatible land use. The program seeks to anticipate and prevent the controversies and gridlock caused by species' listings by focusing on the long-term stability of wildlife and plant communities and including key interests in the process.
This voluntary program allows the state to enter into planning agreements with landowners, local governments, and other stakeholders to prepare plans that identify the most important areas for a threatened or endangered species, and the areas that may be less important. These NCCP plans may become the basis for a state permit to take threatened and endangered species in exchange for conserving their habitat. The CDFW and USFWS worked to combine the NCCP program with the federal HCP process to provide take permits for state and federal listed species. Under the NCCP, local governments, such as the County, can take the lead in developing these NCCP plans and become the recipients of state and federal take permits. The North County MSCP Subarea Plan has not been adopted.
6.0 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND
MITIGATION
This section describes potential direct and indirect impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project, as well as outlining the criteria used for determining the significance of impacts.
Direct impacts immediately alter the affected biological resources such that those resources are HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
10 215 of 876
Biological Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I July 2025 eliminated temporarily or permanently. Indirect impacts consist of secondary effects of a project, including drainage and toxins (water quality), lighting, noise, and invasive plant species.
6.1 SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES
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 CDFW or USFWS?
6.1.1 Impact Analysis
No special -status plant species were identified during biological surveys. One special -status animal species was determined to have moderate potential to occur on the project site: San Diego tiger (coastal) whiptail. The proposed project would not result in direct or indirect impacts to special -status species. Additionally, the project site provides marginal habitat to support foraging raptors and general nesting birds. Direct impacts to these groups could potentially be significant and are discussed further below.
Special -Status Plant Species
Impacts to special -status plant species would be considered significant; however, the project would not result in impacts to special -status plants. A focused survey for thread -leaved brodiaea was conducted in 2025 and was negative, so the species is considered absent from the project site.
Special -Status Animal Species
Impacts to special -status animal species would be considered significant. San Diego tiger (coastal) whiptail is a CDFW special -status animal species that has the potential to occur on and in the immediate vicinity of the project site. However, potential impacts on this species would be limited to the temporary displacement of individuals during project construction. In addition, based on the quality and size of the habitat that could be impacted, the project site is not expected to support locally or regionally significant populations of this sensitive species. Therefore, impacts to the species would be considered less than significant.
Raptor Foraging
Surveys for raptors, potential nests, and other sign were conducted during the general biological survey.
In its current state, the project site provides marginal and relatively low -quality foraging opportunities for common raptors that are resident and migratory to the region. The ornamental trees provide suitable perching habitat, and the rest of the property is fairly open for hunting. There is likely the presence of prey items for certain raptor species. Taller, weedy species cover a good portion of the ground and would likely make foraging more difficult. Although the project site provides some function and value for raptor foraging, it has likely not functioned as a local or regional foraging resource of importance for raptors. The fragmented and urbanized nature of the site and surrounding area limits the potential for raptors to occur, given the proximity to existing developments and related disturbances, such as ongoing human activity, noise, and lighting. Other more expansive areas occur in the local area and region that provide foraging habitat. Impacts are expected to be less than significant.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
11 216 of 876
Biological Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I July 2025 Nesting Birds
The project site contains trees, shrubs, and other vegetation that provide suitable nesting habitat for common birds, including raptors, protected under the MBTA and CFG Code. Significant impacts could occur to nesting birds if suitable nesting habitat is removed during the general bird breeding season (January 15 to September 15).
Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 would ensure compliance with the MBTA and CFG Code, and that impacts on nesting birds are reduced to a less than significant level.
6.1.2 Mitigation Measures
Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1, which proposes avoiding the clearing of vegetation during the bird breeding season, would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to below a level of significance.
BIO-1 Nesting Bird and Raptor Avoidance. If initial grading and vegetation removal activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, and grubbing) must occur during the avian breeding season for migratory birds and raptors (January 15 through September 15), a pre -construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The survey shall consist of searching for nesting birds within the proposed work area and surrounding 100 feet, where feasible, and the final survey shall not be completed more than seven days before the beginning of initial grading and vegetation removal activities. If the surveys conclude there is no active nesting, the work shall resume as planned without further requirements. If the results of the survey identify nesting birds (including raptors), no -work disturbance buffers shall be implemented: 100 feet around non -listed active passerine (perching birds and songbirds) nests, 300 feet around listed passerine nests (e.g., coastal California gnatcatcher), and 300 feet around active raptor nests (e.g., Cooper's hawk). The buffers may be reduced, if appropriate, as directed by a qualified biologist. The reduction in no -work buffers shall be approved by the City before implementation. The buffers shall be respected and maintained until the end of the bird breeding season, or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. The results of the pre -construction nesting bird survey shall be reported to the City in a brief memo.
6.1.3 Conclusions
Project implementation could result in significant impacts to nesting birds and raptors with the potential to nest within the project site. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 would reduce impacts to less than significant.
6.2 SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS?
6.2.1 Impact Analysis
Impacts to sensitive natural communities would be considered significant; however, the proposed project would not result in impacts to sensitive natural communities.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
12 217 of 876
Biological Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project July 2025 Project impacts on vegetation communities are depicted on Figure 8, Vegetation and Land Use Type Impacts, and summarized below within Table 3, Vegetation Communities/Land Use Impacts and Mitigation.
Table 3
VEGETATION COMMUNITIES/LAND USE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Vegetation Community/Land Use Type'
Acres'
Existing
On -Site
Impacts
Off -Site
Impacts
Ratio
Mitigation
Required
(Acres)2
Uplands
Disturbed Habitat
1.72 1.67
0.05 0
N/A
Urban/Developed Land
0.09 --
0.09 0
N/A
Subtotal
1.81 1.67
0.14 0
N/A
TOTAL
1.81 1.67
0.14 0
N/A
1 Vegetation categories are from Holland (1986) and Oberbauer (2008). 2 Acreages rounded to the nearest 0.1 acre for uplands and 0.01 acre for wetlands; total reflects rounding.
Impacts would occur to disturbed habitat and urban/developed land. Impacts to these vegetation communities/land use types are not considered significant because they are not considered sensitive and do not require mitigation.
6.2.2 Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation measures are required.
6.2.3 Conclusions
Project impacts would be less than significant, and no additional mitigation measures are required.
6.3 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS AND WATERWAYS
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands cis defined by Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means?
6.3.1 Impact Analysis
No potential jurisdictional features occur on the project site; therefore, there would be no impacts to federally protected wetlands.
6.3.2 Mitigation Measures
As no potentially jurisdictional features occur on the project site, no mitigation would be required.
6.3.3 Conclusions
Project impacts would be less than significant, and no additional mitigation measures are required.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
13 218 of 876
Biological Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project i July 2025
6.4 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT AND NURSERY SITES
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 corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
6.4.1 Impact Analysis
The project site is surrounded by existing development, and as such, does not by itself function as, and does not contribute to, any wildlife corridors or linkages. As such, the project would not substantially interfere with the movement of any wildlife species or impede the use of nursery sites. Impacts would be less than significant.
6.4.2 Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation measures are required.
6.4.3 Conclusions
Project implementation would not result in significant impacts on wildlife movement and nursery sites.
No impact would occur, and mitigation is not required.
6.5 LOCAL POLICIES AND ORDINANCES
Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
6.5.1 Impact Analysis
The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
Proposed project impacts would be less than significant; no mitigation is required or proposed under this guideline.
6.5.2 Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation measures are required.
6.5.3 Conclusions
The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and impacts would be less than significant.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
14 219 of 876
Bobier Property Project
CD Project Site
Off -site Area
Impact Area
Vegetation
Disturbed Habitat
® Urban/Developed
0 HELIX
Environmental Planning
Source: Aerial (NearMap, 2025)
Vegetation and Sensitive Resources/Impacts
08/11/2026
PH2
Figure 8
220 of 876
Biological Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I July 2025
6.6 ADOPTED CONSERVATION PLANS
Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
6.6.1 Impact Analysis
The project site occurs within the boundaries of the North County MHCP, specifically within the boundaries of the Vista Subarea, which does not have an approved or adopted Subarea Plan. The only Subarea Plan that has been approved and adopted within the North County MHCP is the City of Carlsbad MHCP Subarea Plan, also known as the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan.
Within the North County MHCP, the site is situated in areas identified as Developed/Disturbed Land, outside of areas targeted for conservation, including FPA, Hardline Areas (90 percent to 100% percent Conservation), Softline Areas (Less than 90 percent Conservation), Hardline Preserves, Major Amendment Area, Natural Habitats (Outside of FPA), Core Gnatcatcher Conservation, Biological Core and Linkage Area, and Edge Habitat. No suitable habitat for covered species and other resources targeted for conservation under the North County MHCP occurs on the site. As such, the project is not proposed in any areas targeted for conservation and would not conflict with the provisions of the North County MHCP. No impact would occur.
Therefore, the project does not conflict with any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
6.6.2 Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation measures are required.
6.6.3 Conclusions
Project implementation does not conflict with any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and mitigation is not required.
6.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
A cumulative study area for biological resources was identified based on the local environmental setting and areas that share similar biological resources as those determined to occur on the project site. The cumulative study area generally includes the project site and the area within 1.0 mile of the project site.
This study area is considered adequate based on the disturbed and developed nature of the project site and immediate vicinity, and the overall lack of sensitive biological resources.
As addressed above, potential significant impacts were identified at the project level for issues related to raptor foraging and nesting birds. Therefore, the project would contribute to the cumulative impact on these resources, as analyzed further below. However, the project would not contribute to the cumulative impact on other biological resources that include, but are not limited, to special -status species, jurisdictional features, sensitive upland natural communities, wildlife movement and nursery sites, and adopted conservation plans.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
15 221 of 876
Biological Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I July 2025 If left unmitigated, the project could result in significant impacts to raptor foraging and nesting birds and contribute to the cumulative impact on these resources. Avoidance of nesting birds is a regulatory requirement for any project occurring within the cumulative study area. Nesting birds are protected under federal and state policy, including the MBTA and CFG Code, respectively. In complying with the MBTA and CFG Code, projects are required to restrict impacts on potential nesting habitat to periods when birds are not nesting (i.e., to periods that occur outside of regional breeding seasons). If impacts must occur, projects are required to retain a qualified biologist to complete nesting bird surveys of potential nesting habitat to determine the presence or absence of active bird nests. If active bird nests are determined present, no impacts are allowed, and the project is required to avoid the areas until the nests are determined no longer to be active. These requirements ensure that no project in the cumulative study area results in impacts to nesting birds protected under the MBTA and CFG Code.
Mitigation measure BIO-1 would ensure that the proposed project avoids impacts to these resources.
Therefore, with the implementation of BIO-1 and considering that projects are required to comply with the MBTA and CFG Code, the project's contribution to the cumulative impact would be reduced to less than significant.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
16 222 of 876
Biological Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I July 2025
7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
The following individuals contributed to the fieldwork and/or preparation of this report.
Sean Bohac
Linda Garcia
Amy Lee*
Graduate Certificate, GIS Certificate Program, San Diego Mesa College, 2003 B.S., Biology, The Evergreen State College, 1998
M.A., English, National University, San Diego, 2012
B.A., Literatures in English, University of California, San Diego, 2003 B.A., Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara, 2007 B.A., History of Art and Architecture, emphasis on environment, University of California, Santa Barbara, 2007
Mandy Mathews# B.S., Wildlife and Fisheries Management, minor in Biology, Frostburg State University, 2008
# Primary report author
* Contributing author
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
17 223 of 876
Biological Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I July 2025
8.0 REFERENCES
AMEC Earth & Environmental, Conservation Biology Institute, Onaka Planning & Economics, and The Rick Alexander Company. 2003. Final Multiple Habitat Conservation Program Plan, Volume I.
March.
American Ornithological Society (AOS). 2025. AOU Checklist of North and Middle American Birds (online checklist). Retrieved from: htto://checklist.aou.org/taxa/.
Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Bradley, R.D., Ammerman, L.K., Baker, R.J., Bradley, L.C., Cook, J.A., Dowler, R.D. Jones, C., Schmidly, D.J, Stangi, F.B., Van De Bussche, R.A., Wursig, B. (2014). Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers. 327:1-27.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2025a. California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB).
2025b. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. November. Retrieved from:
htt os://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109383&inline. 2025c. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Special Animal List. March. Retrieved from: httos://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=109406&inline.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2025. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Rare Plant Program. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.rareolants.cnos.org/ .
Google Earth Imagery (Google). 2025.
Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. State of California, The Resources Agency, 156 pp.
Jepson Flora Project (eds.) 2025. Jepson eFlora. Retrieved from: htt3://ucleps.berkeley.edu/eflora/.
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2025. Web soil survey. Retrieved from:
htt 3://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
North American Butterfly Association (NABA). 2025. Checklist of North American Butterflies Occurring North of Mexico, Edition 2.6. Retrieved from: httos://naba.org/butterfly-names-checklist/.
Oberbauer, T., M. Kelly, and J. Buegge. 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County. Based on "Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California," R. F. Holland, Ph.D., October 1986. March. Revised from 1996 and 2005. July.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
18 224 of 876
Biological Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I July 2025 Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (SSAR). 2025. North American Standard English and Scientific Names Database. Retrieved from
https://webapps.fhsu.edu/ksHer3/bibFiles/32018 . odf.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2025a. Occurrence Information for Multiple Species within Jurisdiction of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (CFWO). Retrieved from:
htt os://databasin.org/datasets/a2d9737257764e389c18c64fe7c156d6/. 2025b. National Wetland Inventory, Wetlands Mapper. Retrieved from:
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/map Der. html.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2025. Topographic maps. Earth Point Data. Retrieved from:
htt o:// www.earth ooint.us/To ooMa o.asox.
Vista, City of (City). 2011. Vista General Plan 2030. December. htt Ds:// www.cityofvista.com/depa rtments/co mm u n ity-development/perm its-forms/vista- general-plan-2030. Accessed May 2025.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
19 225 of 876
Biological Technical Report for the Bobier Property Project I July 2025 This page intentionally left blank
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
20 226 of 876
Appendix A
Plant Species Observed
08/11/2026
PH2 227 of 876
Appendix A: Plant Species Observed for the Bobier Property Project Family
Scientific Name*,t
Common Name
Habitat'
Dicots
Anacardiaceae
Malosma laurina
laurel sumac
DH
Schinus molle*
Peruvian pepper tree
DH
Schinus terebinthifolia*
Brazilian pepper tree
DH
Apiaceae
Foeniculum vulgare*
fennel
DH
Apocynaceae
Vinca major*
periwinkle
DH
Asteraceae
Ambrosia psilostachya
ragweed
DH
Centaurea melitensis*
tocalote
DH
Glebionis coronaria*
crown daisy
DH
Hedypnois cretica*
crete weed
DH
Heterotheca grandiflora
telegraph weed
DH
Isocoma menziesii
goldenbush
DH
Lactuca serriola*
prickly lettuce
DH
Pseudognaphalium caltfomicum
ladies' tobacco
DH
Sonchus asper*
spiny sowthistle
DH
Bignoniaceae
Jacaranda mimosifolia*
jacaranda
DH
Boraginaceae
Phacelia cicutaria
caterpillar phacelia
DH
Brassicaceae
Brassica nigra*
black mustard
DH
Hirschfeldia incana*
shortpod mustard
DH
Sisymbrium irio*
London rocket
DH
Chenopodiaceae
Chenopodium murale*
nettle leaf goosefoot
DH
Salsola tragus*
Russian thistle
DH
Convolvulaceae
Convolvulus arvensis*
field bindweed
DH
Geraniaceae
Erodium cicutarium*
coastal heron's bill
DH
Lythraceae
Punica granatum*
pomegranate
DH
Malvaceae
Malva pseudolavatera*
Cretan mallow
DH
Myrtaceae
Syzygium jambos*
rose apple
DH
Oleaceae
Fraxinus uhdei*
shamel ash
DH
Oxalidaceae
Oxalis pes-caprae*
Bermuda buttercup
DH
Rosaceae
Pyracantha koidzumii*
Formosa firethorn
DH
Pinaceae
Pinus canariensis*
Canary Island pine
DH
Rutaceae
Citrus sp.*
citrus
DH
Scrophulariaceae
Verbascum thapsus*
woolly mullein
DH
Solanaceae
Nicotiana glauca*
tree tobacco
DH
Solanum elaeagnifolium*
horse nettle
DH
Urticaceae
Urtica urens*
annual stinging nettle
DH
Monocots
Arecaceae
Phoenix canariensis*
Canary Island date palm
DH
Washingtonia robusta*
Mexican fan palm
DH
Asphodelaceae
Aloe striata*
coral aloe
DH
Poaceae
Avena fatua*
wild oats
DH
Bromus diandrus*
ripgut brome
DH
Bromus hordeaceus*
soft chess
DH
Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens*
red brome
DH
Cynodon dactylon*
Bermuda grass
DH
Hordeum murinum*
foxtail barley
DH
Lolium multiflorum*
Italian rye grass
DH
* Non-native
t Sensitive
' DH=Disturbed habitat
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
A-1
228 of 876
Appendix B
Animal Species Observed or
Detected
08/11/2026
PH2 229 of 876
Appendix B: Animal Species Observed or Detected for the Bobier Property Project Taxon
Order
Family
Scientific Namet
Common Name
INVERTEBRATES
Hymenoptera
Apidae
Apis sp.
honey bee
VERTEBRATES
Amphibians and Reptiles
Squamata
Phrynosomatidae
Sceloporus occidentalis
western fence lizard
Uta stansburiana
side -blotched lizard
Birds
Accipitriformes
Accipitridae
Buteo jamaicensis
red-tailed hawk
Columbiformes
Columbidae
Columba livia
rock pigeon
Zenaida macroura
mourning dove
Passeriformes
Aegithalidae
Psaltriparus minimus
bushtit
Corvidae
Corvus brachyrhynchos
American crow
Estrildidae
Lonchura punctulata
scaly -breasted munia
Fringillidae
Haemorhous mexicanus
house finch
Spinus psaltria
lesser goldfinch
Icteridae
Icterus cucullatus
hooded oriole
Mimidae
Mimus polyglottos
northern mockingbird
Passerellidae
Melospiza melodia
song sparrow
Troglodytidae
Thryomanes bewickii
Bewick's wren
Tyrannidae
Tyrannus vociferans
Cassin's kingbird
Mammals
Lagomorpha
Leporidae
Sylvilagus audubonii
desert cottontail
Rodentia
Geomyidae
Thomomys bottae
Botta's pocket gopher
t Sensitive
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
B-1
230 of 876
Appendix C
Special -Status Plant Species
Observed or Evaluated for Potential
to Occur
08/11/2026
PH2 231 of 876
Appendix C: Special -Status Plant Species Observed or Evaluated for Potential to Occur for the Bobier Property Project 9Z0Z/ L- L-/80
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status1
Habitat, Ec ology and Life Hist ory
P otential to Occur2
Acanthomintha
ilicifolia
San Diego thorn-
mint
FT/SE
CRPR 1B.1
County List A
MSCP Covered
NE
Annual herb. Typically grows on clay soils within
chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill
grassland, and vernal pools . Found in San Diego
County. Flowering period: April to June . Elevation:
below 30 to 3,150 feet (10 to 960 meters).
Low . Although this species has been
reported in the project vicinity and the
project site is partially comprised of clay
soils, the project site lacks suitable chaparral,
coastal scrub, native grasslands, or vernal
pools to support this species .
Adolphia
californica
California adolphia
/
CRPR 2B.1
County List B
Perennial shrub. Most often found in coastal scrub
but occasionally occurs in peripheral chaparral
habitats, particularly hillsides near creeks on clay
soils. Found in San Diego County. Flowering period:
December to May. Elevation: 30 to 2,430 feet (10
to 740 meters) .
None. Although this species has been
reported in the project vicinity, this
conspicuous shrub would have been
apparent at the time of the general
biological survey and rare plant survey.
Ambro sia pu mila
San Diego
ambrosia
FE/--
CRPR 1B.1
County List A
NE
Perennial herb . Occurs on sandy loam or clay,
sometimes alkaline, soils within grasslands, dry
drainages, stream floodplain terraces, and vernal
pool margins . Also occurs on slopes, disturbed
places, and in coastal sage scrub or chaparral.
Found in Riverside and San Diego counties.
Flowering period: April to October . Elevation: 65 to
1,360 feet (20 to 415 meters).
Non e. Alth ough this species has been
reported in the project vicinity, the project
site lacks suitable drainages, floodplain
terraces, or vernal pools to support this
species .
Arctostaphylos
glandulosa ssp.
crassifo lia
Del Mar manzanita
FE/--
CRPR 1B.1
County List A
MSCP Covered
Perennial shrub. Occurs within a relatively open,
coastal chaparral and maritime chaparral on sandy
soils. At occasional inland sites it occurs in denser
mixed chaparral vegetation . Found in San Diego
County. Flowering Period: December to June .
Elevation: below 1,200 feet (365 meters) .
N one. Although this species has been
reported in the project vicinity, this
conspicuous shrub would have been
apparent at the time of the general
biological survey and rare plant survey.
Artemisia palmeri
San Diego
sagewort
/
CRPR 4.2
County List D
Perennial herb. Typically found along stream
courses, often beneath riparian woodland, on
sandy and mesic soils. May occur in coast live oak
woodland, coastal sage scrub, and southern mixed
chaparral. Found in San Diego County. Flowering
period: June to October. Elevation: 50 to 3,000 feet
(15 to 915 meters).
N one. Although this species has been
reported in the project vicinity, the project
site lacks suitable stream courses or riparian
habitat to support this species .
HELIX
Environmental Planning
C-1
Appendix C: Special -Status Plant Species Observed or Evaluated for Potential to Occur for the Bobier Property Project 9Z0Z/ L- L-/80
W
O
CO
Cn
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status1
Habitat, Ec ology and Life Hist ory
P otential to Occur2
Atriplex pacifica
South coast
saltscale
/
CRPR 1B .2
County List A
Annual herb. Found coastally on dunes and within
playas in alkali sinks, sage scrub, and wetland and
riparian habitats . Found along the coastal regions
from Santa Barbara County south to San Diego
County, western portions of San Bernardino and
Riverside counties, and the Channel Islands.
Flowering period: March to October. Elevation:
below 460 feet (140 meters).
Low . Although this species has been
reported in the project vicinity, the project
site lacks suitable dunes and playas, sage
scrub, or riparian habitats to support this
species.
Brodiaea filifolia
thread -leaved
brodiaea
FT/SE
CRPR 1B.1
County List A
MSCP Covered
NE
Perennial herb. Often associated with vernal pools.
Also occurs within playas, grasslands, coastal
scrub, openings in chaparral, and cismontane
woodland; often on clay soils. Found in Los
Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, and
San Diego counties. Flowering period: March to
June . Elevation: 80 to 3,675 feet (25 to 1,120
meters).
Presumed Absent. A rare plant survey
targeting this species was conducted by
HELIX in 2025 and this species was absent
from the project site.
Ceanothus
verrucosus
Wart -stemmed
ceanothus
/
CRPR 2B.2
County List B
MSCP Covered
Perennial shrub . Found on rocky slopes within
chaparral, particularly southern maritime
chaparral . Found in Riverside and San Diego
counties. Flowering period: December to May.
Elevation: below 1,245 feet (380 meters) .
None. Although this species has been
reported in the project vicinity, this
conspicuous shrub would have been
apparent at the time of the general
biological survey and rare plant survey.
Co marostaphylis
diversifo lia ssp.
diversifo lia
Summer holly
/
CRPR 1B.2
County List A
Perennial shrub. Occurs in chaparral and
cismontane woodland. Found in Santa Barbara,
Orange, Riverside, and San Diego counties.
Flowering period: April to June . Elevation: 95 to
2,590 feet (30 to 790 meters).
N one. Although this species has been
reported in the project vicinity, this
conspicuous shrub would have been
apparent at the time of the general
biological survey and rare plant survey.
Co rethro gyne
filaginifolia var.
linifolia
Del Mar Mesa sand
aster
/
CRPR 1B.1
MSCP Covered
Perennial herb. Found on sandy soils and disturbed
areas within southern maritime chaparral, coastal
sage scrub, and coastal bluffs. Found in San Diego
County. Flowering Period: May to September.
Elevation: 45 to 490 feet (15 to 150 meters).
L ow. Although this species has been
reported in the project vicinity, the project
site lacks suitable southern maritime
chaparral, coastal sage scrub, or coastal bluff
habitat to support this species.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
C-2
Appendix C: Special -Status Plant Species Observed or Evaluated for Potential to Occur for the Bobier Property Project 9Z0Z/ L- L-/80
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status1
Habitat, Ec ology and Life Hist ory
P otential to Occur2
Dichondra
occidentalis
Western dichondra
/
CRPR 4 .2
County List D
Perennial herb. Found among rocks and shrubs
within grasslands, coastal sage scrub, chaparral,
and oak woodlands. Often proliferates on recently
burned slopes. Found along the coastal regions
from San Luis Obispo County south to San Diego
County. Flowering period: March to July. Elevation:
165 to 1,640 feet (50 to 500 meters) .
Low . Although this species has been
reported in the project vicinity, the project
site lacks suitable grassland, coastal sage
scrub, chaparral, or oak woodlands to
support this species .
Eryngium
aristulatum var.
parishii
San Diego button
celery
FE/SE
CRPR 1B .1
County List A
MSCP Covered
Annual or perennial herb . Grows in vernal pools
and other mesic areas, such as marshes. Found in
Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego
counties. Flowering period: April to June.
Elevation: 65 to 2,035 feet (20 to 620 meters).
None . Although this species has been
reported in the project vicinity, the project
site lacks suitable vernal pools or other
mesic areas to support this species.
Eu phorbia misera
Cliff spurge
/
CRPR 2B.2
County List B
Perennial shrub. F ound in rocky areas of coastal
bluffs, coastal sage scrub, and Mojave desert
scrub. Found in Riverside, Orange, and San Diego
counties and the Channel Islands. Flowering
period: December to August. Elevation: 30 to 1,640
feet (10 to 500 meters).
L ow . Although this species has been
reported in the project vicinity, the project
site lacks suitable rocky areas to support this
species.
Ferocactus
viridescens
San Diego barrel
cactus
/
CRPR 2B.1
County List B
MSCP Covered
Perennial (stem succulent) shrub. Grows in sandy
to rocky areas within chaparral, valley grassland
and coastal sage scrub communities . Found in San
Diego County. Flowering period: May to June.
Elevation: 5 to 492 feet (3 to 450 meters).
Low. Although this species has been
reported in the project vicinity, the project
site lacks suitable chaparral, valley grassland,
or coastal sage scrub habitats to support this
species.
Harpagonella
palmeri
Palmer's
grapplinghook
/
CRPR 4.2
County List D
Annual herb. Grows on clay soils within openings
of grasslands, coastal sage scrub, and chaparral.
Found in Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, and
Riverside counties. Flowering Period: March to
May. Elevation: 65 to 3,135 feet (20 to 955
meters).
Low . Although this species has been
reported in the project vicinity, the project
site lacks suitable native grasslands, coastal
sage scrub, or chaparral habitats to support
this species.
Hazardia orcuttii
Orcutt's hazardia
--/ST
CRPR 1B.1
County List A
Perennial shrub. Often grows on clay soils within
coastal sage scrub and southern maritime
chaparral. Found in San Diego County. Flowering
period: August to October. Elevation: 260 to 280
feet (80 to 85 meters).
L ow. Although this species has been
reported in the project vicinity, this
conspicuous shrub would have been
apparent at the time of the general
biological survey and rare plant survey.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
C-3
Appendix C: Special -Status Plant Species Observed or Evaluated for Potential to Occur for the Bobier Property Project 9Z0Z/ L- L-/80
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status1
Habitat, Ec ology and Life Hist ory
P otential to Occur2
Isocoma menziesii
var. decumbens
Decumbent
goldenbush
/
CRPR 1B .2
County List A
Perennial shrub. Occurs in sandy soil and disturbed
areas on the inland side of dunes, hillsides, and
arroyos within coastal sage scrub and chaparral.
Found along the coast of southern California,
Peninsular Ranges, and Channel Islands . Flowering
period: July to November. Elevation: below 656
feet (200 meters) .
None . Although this species has been
reported in the project vicinity, this
conspicuous shrub would have been
apparent at the time of the general
biological survey and rare plant survey.
Iva hayesiana
San Diego marsh-
elder
/
CRPR 2B .2
County List B
Perennial herb . Found in alkaline flats,
depressions, and streambanks within wetland
habitats in San Diego County. Flowering period:
April to October. Elevation: 30 to 1,640 feet (10 to
500 meters) .
None . Although this species has been
reported in the project vicinity, the project
site lacks suitable alkaline flats, depressions,
or streambanks to support this species.
Juncus a cutus ssp.
Ieopoldii
Southwestern
spiny rush
/
CRPR 4.2
County List D
Perennial herb . F ound along the c oastal regi ons
from San Luis Obispo County south to San Diego
County. Flowering period: May to June . Elevation:
below 984 feet (300 meters).
Non e. Alth ough this species has been
reported in the project vicinity, this
conspicuous species would have been
apparent at the time of the 2025 rare plant
survey.
Lepidium
virginicum var.
robinsonii
Robinson's pepper-
grass
/
CRPR 4.3
County List A
Annual herb . Grows in openings of sage scrub and
chaparral at the coastal and foothill elevations
throughout California . Typically observed in
relatively dry, exposed locales rather than beneath
a shrub canopy. Also, found in disturbed areas.
Flowering period: March to June . Elevation: below
9,186 feet (2,800 meters) .
Low . Although this species has been
reported in the project vicinity and the
project site comprises disturbed habitat, the
project site only supports marginally suitable
dry, exposed land to support this species .
Navarretia fossalis
Spreading
navarretia
FT/--
CRPR 1B.1
County List A
Annual herb. Occurs in vernal pools, vernal swales,
roadside depressions, playas, marshes and
swamps, and chenopod scrub. Population size is
strongly correlated with rainfall. Depth of pool
appears to be a significant factor as this species is
rarely found in shallow pools. Found in the Mojave
Desert, desert mountains, Channel Islands, and the
Transverse and Peninsular Ranges. Flowering
period: April to June. Elevation: 98 to 4,265 feet
(30 to 1,300 meters).
None. Although this species has been
reported in the project vicinity, the project
site lacks suitable vernal pools or other wet
habitats to support this species.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
C-4
Appendix C: Special -Status Plant Species Observed or Evaluated for Potential to Occur for the Bobier Property Project 9Z0Z/ L- L-/80
W
CT)
O
CO
O)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status1
Habitat, Ec ology and Life Hist ory
P otential to Occur2
Qu ercus dumosa
Nuttall's scrub oak
/
Perennial shrub. Occurs on sandy or clay loam soils
None . Although this species has been
CRPR 1B.1
County List A
near the coast within coastal scrub, chaparral,
cismontane woodland, and riparian woodland.
Found along the coast, San Jacinto Mountains, and
Peninsular Ranges of southern California.
reported in the project vicinity, this
conspicuous shrub would have been
apparent at the time of the general
biological survey and rare plant survey.
Flowering period: March to May . Elevation: below
1,310 feet (400 meters) .
Selaginella
Ashy spike -moss
/
Perennial herb . Grows in sunny spots or under
L ow . Although this species has been
cinerascens
CRPR 4.1
shrubs within coastal sage scrub and chaparral.
reported in the project vicinity, the project
County List D
Often associated with "red clay" soils . Found in
coastal regions from southern Los Angeles County
south to San Diego County. Flowering period:
site lacks suitable scrub or chaparral habitat
to support this species.
none. Elevation: below 1,804 feet (550 meters).
1 Listing codes as follows: F = Federal; S = State of California; E = Endangered; T = Threatened; C = Candidate for listing; R = Rare.
CRPR = California Native Plant Society California Rare Plant Rank: 1A — presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere; 1B — rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; 2A — presumed extirpated in California, but more c ommon elsewhere; 2B — rare, threatened, or endangered in Calif ornia, but more common elsewhere; 3 — plants fo r which more info rmation needed (review list); 4 — watch list for species of limited distribution. Extensi on codes: .1 —seri ously endangered; .2 — moderately endangered; .3 — not very endangered.
County of San Diego Sensitivity Status: Plant species are divided into Lists A through D on the County Rare Plant List . Lists A and B Plants include those that have a very high level of sensitivity, either because they are listed as threatened or endangered or because they have very specific natural history requirements that must be met . Lists C and D Plants include those species that are becoming less common but are not yet so rare that extirpation or extinction is imminent without immediate action. These species tend to be prolific within their suitable habitat types.
2 Potential to Occur is assessed as fo llows — None: There are no recent or historical records of the species occurring on or in the immediate vicinity (within 2 miles) of the study area and the diagnostic habitats and so ils associated with the species do not occur on or in the immediate vicinity of the study area; Low: Suitable habitat is present in the study area and a recent or historical record of the species occurs in the immediate vicinity (within 2 miles), but existing conditions such as elevation, soils, density of cover, prevalence of non-native species, evidence of disturbance, limited habitat area, and/or isolation reduce the possibility that the species may occur; Moderate: The diagnostic habitats associated with the species occur on or in the immediate vicinity of the study area but there is not a recorded occurrence of the species within the immediate vicinity, or recorded occurrences are limited to historical records. Some species that have extremely limited distributions may be considered moderate, even if there is a recorded occurrence in the immediate vicinity; High: Suitable habitat occurs in the study area and the species has been recorded recently on or in the immediate vicinity but the species was not observed during project surveys; Pre su me d Absen t: Species would be visible all year and would have been observed if present; Present: The species was observed within the study area during biological surveys for the project.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
C-5
Appendix D
Special -Status Animal Species
Observed or Evaluated for Potential
to Occur
08/11/2026
PH2 237 of 876
Appendix D: Special -Status Animal Species Observed or Evaluated for Potential to Occur for the Bobier Property Project 9Z0Z/ L- L-/80
CO
O
CO
Cn
Scientific Name
C omm on Name'.
Status
Habitat Ass ociati ons
Potential to Occur2
INVERTEBRATES
Bombus crotchii
Crotch's Bumble
--/SCE
Found throughout southwestern California
Low. Although this species has been reported
Bee
from the Central Valley south to the
U.S./Mexico border. Inhabits open
grasslands and scrub habitats. Primarily
nests underground and forages on a wide
variety of flowers, but a short tongue
renders it best suited to open flowers with
short corollas . Most commonly observed on
flowering species in the Fabaceae,
Asteraceae, and Lamiaceae families.
in the vicinity of the project site, the project
site regularly mowed which eliminates any
nectar resources to support this species.
Occurrence has also been linked to habitats
containing Asclepias, Chaenactis, Lupinus,
M edicago, Phacelia, and Salvia genera.
Branchinecta
San Diego Fairy
FE/--
Restricted to vernal pools and other
None . Although this species has been
sandiegonensis
Shrimp
County Group 1
ephemeral basins in southern California
from coastal Orange County to San Diego
County. Found in seasonally astatic pools
which occur in tectonic swales or earth
slump basins and other areas of shallow,
standing water often in patches of grassland
and agriculture interspersed in coastal sage
scrub and chaparral.
reported in the project vicinity, the project
site lacks basins that can hold water required
by this species.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
D-1
Appendix D: Special -Status Animal Species Observed or Evaluated for Potential to Occur for the Bobier Property Project 9Z0Z/ L- L-/80
Scientific Name
C omm on Name'.
Status
Habitat Ass ociati ons
Potential to Occur2
Danaus ple xipp us
Monarch
FPT/--
Two migratory populations occur in North
L ow. Although this species has been reported
County Group 2
America to the east and west of the Rocky
Mountains. The population west of the
Rocky Mountains migrates to and
overwinters along the coast of central and
southern California. Inhabits a wide variety
of open habitats including fields, meadows,
marshes, and roadsides and roosts on wind -
protected tree groves (such as eucalyptus
in the project vicinity, the project site
regularly mowed which eliminates any nectar
resources to support this species .
[Eucalyptus spp.], Monterey pine [Pinus
radiata], and cypress [Hesperocyparis sp.]),
with nectar and water sources nearby.
Breeds in areas that have a suitable
abundance of the species' larval host plant,
milkweed (Asclepias sp.) .
VERTEBRATES
Reptiles
Anniella stebbinsi
San Diegan Legless
/
Found throughout southern California from
Low. Although this species has been reported
Lizard
SSC
the Transverse Ranges south to the
in the project vicinity and the project site
County Group 2
U.S./Mexico border. Occurs in sparsely
vegetated areas with moist, warm, loose soil
with plant cover; moisture is essential .
partially comprises sandy soils, the project
site lacks suitable dunes, scrub, woodlands,
or washes to support this species.
Common in several habitats but especially in
beach dunes, coastal scrub, chaparral, pine -
oak woodlands, desert scrub, sandy washes,
and stream terraces. Found primarily in
areas with sandy or loose organic soils or
where there is plenty of leaf litter.
Sometimes found in suburban gardens .
HELIX
Environmental Planning
D-2
Appendix D: Special -Status Animal Species Observed or Evaluated for Potential to Occur for the Bobier Property Project 9Z0Z/ L- L-/80
Scientific Name
C omm on Name'
Status
Habitat Ass ociati ons
Potential to Occur2
Aspidoscelis
hyperythra beldingi
Belding's Orange-
throated Whiptail
/
WL
County Group 2
Found within the southwestern portion of
California in southern San Bernardino,
western Riverside, Orange, and San Diego
counties on the western slopes of the
Peninsular Ranges at elevations below 3,500
feet. Suitable habitat includes coastal sage
scrub, chaparral, juniper woodland, oak
woodland, and grasslands along with alluvial
fan scrub and riparian areas. Occurrence of
the species is correlated with the presence
of perennial plants which provide a food
base for its major food source, termites.
L ow . Although this species has been reported
in the project vicinity, the project site lacks
suitable scrub, chaparral, woodland, or
alluvial fan habitats to support this species .
Aspidoscelis tigris
stejnegeri
San Diego Tiger
(Coastal) Whiptail
/
SSC
County Group 2
Occurs along the coastal region of southern
California from San Luis Obispo south to San
Diego County. Inhabits a wide variety of
habitats, primarily in hot and dry open areas
with sparse vegetation, from sea level up to
4,900 feet . Suitable habitat includes coastal
sage scrub, chaparral, riparian areas,
woodlands, and rocky areas with sandy or
gravelly substrates.
M oderate. This species has been reported in
the project vicinity, and the project site
comprises marginally suitable dry open areas
and rocky areas with sandy soils.
Thamnophis
hammondii
Two -striped Garter
Snake
/
SSC
County Group 1
Found in California from Monterey County
south along the coast to San Diego County
at elevations below 7,000 feet. Commonly
inhabits perennial and intermittent streams
with rocky beds bordered by riparian
habitats dominated by willows (Salix spp .)
and other dense vegetation . Has also been
found in stock ponds, and other artificially
created aquatic habitats, if bordered by
dense vegetation and potential prey, such as
amphibians and fish, are present.
N ot Expected. Although this species has been
reported in the project vicinity, the project
site lacks suitable streams and riparian
habitats to support this species .
HELIX
Environmental Planning
D-3
Appendix D: Special -Status Animal Species Observed or Evaluated for Potential to Occur for the Bobier Property Project 9Z0Z/ L- L-/80
Scientific Name
C omm on Name'
Status
Habitat Ass ociati ons
Potential to Occur2
Birds
Agelaius tricolor
Tricolored Blackbird
--/ST
BCC, SSC
County Group 1
Highly col onial, nomadic species occurring
as a year-round resident of California from
Sonoma County to San Diego County.
Common locally in the Central Valley and
sporadically throughout the state. Breeds in
dense colonies. Breeding habitat typically
characterized by emergent freshwater
marsh dominated by tall, dense cattails
(Typha spp.) and bulrush (Schoenoplectus
spp.; Scirpus ssp.), though also utilizes
willow (Sali x spp.), blackberries (Rubus spp.),
thistles (Cirsium and Centaurea spp.),
nettles (Urtica sp.), and agricultural crops.
Forages in grasslands and cropland habitats
adjacent to breeding areas .
Not Expected. Although this species has been
reported in the project vicinity, the project
site lacks suitable freshwater marsh habitat
to support this species.
Astur (formerly
Cooper's Hawk
/
In California, breeds from Siskiyou County
Low . Although this species has been reported
Accipiter) cooperii
WL
south to San Diego County and eastwards to
in the project vicinity, the project site lacks
County Group 1
Owens Valley at elevations below 9,000
feet . Inhabits forests, riparian areas, and,
more recently, suburban and urban areas .
suitable nesting trees for this species .
However, this species may hunt on the
project site .
Nests within dense woodlands and forests
and isolated trees in open areas .
Athene cu nicularia
Western Burrowing
--/SC
In California, found from central California
L ow . Although this species has been reported
hypugaea
Owl
BCC, SSC
east to the Mojave Desert and south to
in the project vicinity, the project site lacks
County Group 1
coastal San Diego County . Primarily a
burrows and/or colonies of California ground
County NE
grassland species that prefers areas with
level to gentle topography and well -drained
soils. Also occupies agricultural areas,
vacant lots, and pastures. Requires
underground burrows for nesting and
roosting that are typically dug by other
species such as the California ground
squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi). Will
also utilize natural rock cavities, debris piles,
culverts, and pipes for nesting and roosting.
squirrel, which is required by this species. A
portion of the project site comprises suitable
sandy soils, but without burrows this species
is unlikely to occur on the project site .
HELIX
Environmental Planning
D-4
Appendix D: Special -Status Animal Species Observed or Evaluated for Potential to Occur for the Bobier Property Project 9Z0Z/ L- L-/80
Scientific Name
C omm on Name'
Status
Habitat Ass ociati ons
Potential to Occur2
Buteo lineatus
Red -shouldered
Hawk
County Group 1
Year-round resident in California, occurs to
the west of the Sierra Nevada, occupying
mature oak and riparian woodlands,
eucalyptus groves, and suburban areas near
forested areas. Nests in trees, both native
and non-native, often located near a water
source such as a stream or pond .
L ow . Although this species has been reported
in the project vicinity, the project site lacks
suitable mature tree groves to support this
species. However, this species may hunt on
the project site.
Buteo swainsoni
Swainson's Hawk
--/ST
County Group 1
Uncommon breeding resident and migrant
within California. Migrates from breeding
grounds in North America to wintering areas
in South America and forages in flocks,
sometimes numbering up into the
thousands. In California, breeds locally in
the Central Valley and Great Basin regions
within Shasta Valley, Owens Valley, and the
Mojave Desert. Inhabits open grasslands
and shrub habitats as well as canyons,
foothills, and smaller interior valleys in
otherwise mountainous regions .
Increasingly becoming more dependent on
agriculture, especially alfalfa crops . Nests in
stands with few trees, often on the edge of
riparian habitats, though also uses lone
trees in agricultural fields and pastures, and
along roadsides with suitable foraging
habitat nearby.
Low . Although this species has been reported
in the project vicinity, the project site lacks
suitable grasslands or shrub habitats to
support foraging for this species. Nearby
reports of this species are historical (greater
than 50 years old) .
HELIX
Environmental Planning
D-5
Appendix D: Special -Status Animal Species Observed or Evaluated for Potential to Occur for the Bobier Property Project 9Z0Z/ L- L-/80
Scientific Name
C omm on Name'
Status
Habitat Ass ociati ons
Potential to Occur2
Campylorhynchus
Coastal Cactus
/
One of seven subspecies occurring restricted
Not Expected. Although this species has been
brunneicapillus
Wren
BCC, SSC
to southern California from southern
reported in the project vicinity, the project
sandiegensis
(San Diego and
Orange County and San Diego County.
site lacks suitable stands of mature cacti to
Orange counties)
County Group 1
Occupies native scrub vegetation with
thickets of mature cacti consisting of cholla
support this species.
County NE
(Cylindropuntia spp .) or prickly -pear cactus
(Opuntia littoralis). Cacti must be tall
enough to support and protect the bird's
nest (typically three feet or more in height).
Surrounding vegetation usually consists of
coastal sage scrub habitat with shrubs
normally below the level of nest placement.
Circus cyaneus
Northern Harrier
/
Occurs as a year-round resident in
Low. Although this species has been reported
SSC
California, breeding throughout most of the
in the project vicinity, the project site lacks
County Group 1
state at elevations below 9,000 feet, though
generally absent from the eastern desert
regions. Breeding populations in southern
California occurring from Ventura County to
suitable wetlands or dense vegetation in
undisturbed areas to support nesting for this
species. However, this species may hunt on
the project site.
San Diego County are highly fragmented
with many local populations extirpated,
mostly likely a result of habitat loss and
degradation . Inhabits open areas including
wetlands, marshes, marshy meadows,
grasslands, riparian woodlands, desert
scrub, and pastures and agricultural areas.
Nests on the ground in wetlands and
uplands within patches of dense, often tall,
vegetation in undisturbed areas.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
D-6
Appendix D: Special -Status Animal Species Observed or Evaluated for Potential to Occur for the Bobier Property Project 9Z0Z/ L- L-/80
Scientific Name
C omm on Name'
Status
Habitat Ass ociati ons
Potential to Occur2
Coccyzus
Western Yellow-
FT/SE
Uncommon summer resident of California.
None . Although this species has been
americanus
billed Cuckoo
BCC
Current breeding range is restricted to
reported in the project vicinity, the project
occidentalis
County Group 1
County NE
isolated sites in Sacramento, Amargosa,
Kern, Santa Ana, and Colorado River valleys.
site lacks suitable riparian habitats to support
this species .
Riparian obligates that nest in riparian
woodlands with native broadleaf trees and
shrubs, such as cottonwoods (Populus spp .)
and willows (Salix spp.), at least 50 acres or
more in size within arid to semiarid
landscapes. Typically found in patches of
riparian habitat greater than 200 acres.
Empidonax traillii
Southwestern
FE/SE
In California, breeds from the central
N one. Although this species has been
extimus
Willow Flycatcher
County Group 1
portion of the state in Owens Valley (Inyo
reported in the project vicinity, the project
County NE
County) south to San Diego County .
Restricted in San Diego County to two
modest colonies at the San Luis Rey River
and Santa Margarita River, with a few
scattered pairs. Riparian obligates that
breed in relatively dense riparian habitats
along rivers, streams, or other wetlands
where surface water is present, or soils are
very saturated. Breeding habitat can consist
of monotypic stands of willows (Salix spp.), a
mixture of native broadleaf trees and
shrubs, monotypic stands of exotics such as
tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) or Russian olive
site lacks suitable riparian habitats to support
this species .
(Elaea gnu s angustifoli a), or a mixture of
native broadleaf trees and shrubs with
exotics.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
D-7
Appendix D: Special -Status Animal Species Observed or Evaluated for Potential to Occur for the Bobier Property Project 9Z0Z/ L- L-/80
Scientific Name
C omm on Name'
Status
Habitat Ass ociati ons
Potential to Occur2
Falco mexican us
Prairie Falcon
/
BCC, WL
County Group 1
Uncommon permanent resident and
migrant of California ranging from the Sierra
Nevada southwest along the inner coastal
mountains and east to the southeastern
deserts but absent from northern coastal
fog belt . Primary habitats include
grasslands, savannahs, alpine meadows,
some agricultural fields during the winter
season, and desert scrub areas where
suitable cliffs or bluffs are present for nest
sites . Requires sheltered cliff ledges for
cover and nesting that may range in height
from low rock outcrops of 30 feet to cliffs up
to and higher than 400 feet .
Not Expected. Although this species has been
reported in the project vicinity, the project
site lacks suitable open areas with cliffs or
bluffs for this species to nest.
Laterallus
jamaicensis
cotu rniculus
California Black Rail
--/ST
BCC, FP
County Group 2
In California, breeds in the Sacramento -San
Joaquin River Delta, San Francisco Bay area,
Bolinas Lagoon and Tomales Bay in Marin
County, Morro Bay in San Luis Obispo
County, White Slough in San Joaquin
County, the Salton Sea in Imperial County,
and the Lower Colorado River Valley .
Inhabits salt and freshwater marshes and
wet meadows. Associated with pickleweed
(Salicornia ssp.), bulrush (Scirpus spp.), alkali
heath (Frankenia salina), and cordgrass
(Spartina ssp.). Requires dense cover of
upland vegetation in tidal areas for
protection when rails must leave marsh
habitats during high tide events.
None. Although this species has been
reported in the project vicinity, the project
site lacks suitable saltwater or freshwater
marshes to support this species.
Furthermore, this species is considered
extirpated from San Diego County .
Passerculus
sandwichensis
beldingi
Belding's Savannah
Sparrow
--/SE
BCC
County Group 1
County NE
Year-round resident of coastal salt marshes
within southern California from Santa
Barbara County south to San Diego County .
Particularly associated with salt marsh
habitat dominated by dense pickleweed
(Salico rnia ssp.) within which most nests are
found.
None . Although this species has b een
reported in the project vicinity, the project
site lacks suitable coastal salt marsh habitat
to support this species.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
D-8
Appendix D: Special -Status Animal Species Observed or Evaluated for Potential to Occur for the Bobier Property Project 9Z0Z/ L- L-/80
Scientific Name
C omm on Name'
Status
Habitat Ass ociati ons
Potential to Occur2
Polioptila calif ornica
californica
Coastal California
Gnatcatcher
FT/--
SSC
County Group 1
Year-round resident of California occurring
from Ventura County south to San Diego
County, and east to the western portions of
San Bernardino and Riverside counties.
Typically occurs in arid, open sage scrub
habitats on gently sloped hillsides to
relatively flat areas at elevations below
3,000 feet . Composition of sage scrub in
which gnatcatchers are found varies though
California sagebrush (Artemisia californica)
present as dominant or co -dominant
species . Mostly absent from areas
dominated by black sage (Salvia mellifera),
white sage (Salvia apiana), or lemonade
berry (Rhus integrifolia), though may occur
more regularly in inland regions dominated
by black sage.
Not Expected. Although this species has been
reported in the project vicinity, the project
site lacks suitable sage scrub habitat to
support this species.
Rallus obso letus
levipes
Light-footed
Ridgway's Rail
FE/SE
FP
County Group 1
County NE
One of six recognized subspecies occurring
as a resident in coastal salt marshes and
lagoons from Santa Barbara County south to
Baja California. The species is found
primarily in tall, dense cordgrass and
occasionally pickleweed (Salic ornia ssp.) in
the low marsh zone . Also found in
freshwater marshes in winter.
N one. Although this species has been
reported in the project vicinity, the project
site lacks suitable marsh habitat to support
this species.
Riparia riparia
Bank Swallow
--/ST
County Group 1
In California, occurs as a locally common to
uncommon breeding resident in northern
and central California. Extirpated from
historical breeding sites in southern
California. Breeds in lowland areas along the
coast, rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, and
wetlands. Nesting colony sites occur on
vertical banks, bluffs, or cliffs in alluvial,
friable soils suitable for burrowing.
N one. Although this species has been
reported in the project vicinity, the project
site lacks suitable waterways and banks,
cliffs, or bluffs to support this species .
HELIX
Environmental Planning
D-9
Appendix D: Special -Status Animal Species Observed or Evaluated for Potential to Occur for the Bobier Property Project 9Z0Z/ L- L-/80
Scientific Name
C omm on Name'
Status
Habitat Ass ociati ons
Potential to Occur2
Vireo bellii p usill us
Least Bell's Vireo
FE/SE
In California, breeds along the coast and
None . Although this species has been
BCC
western edge of the Mojave Desert from
reported in the project vicinity, the project
County Group 1
Santa Barbara County south to San Diego
site lacks suitable riparian habitats to support
County NE
County, and east to Inyo, San Bernardino,
and Riverside counties. Breeding habitat
consists of early to mid -successional riparian
habitat, often where flowing water is
present, but also found in dry watercourses
within the desert. A structurally diverse
canopy and dense shrub cover is required
for nesting and foraging. Dominant species
within breeding habitat includes
cottonwood (Populus spp .) and willows
this species .
(Salix spp.) with mule fat (Baccharis
salicifolia), oaks (Quercus ssp .), and
sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and
mesquite (Prosopis spp.) and arrowweed
(Pluchea sericea) within desert habitats. Can
be tolerant of the presence of non-native
species such as tamarisk (Tamarix spp.).
Mammals
Dipodomys
Stephens' Kangaroo
FT/ST
Occurs in southern California within the San
L ow. Although this species has been reported
stephensi
Rat
County Group 1
Jacinto Valley, western Riverside County,
and southwestern San Bernardino County,
and northwestern San Diego County at
elevations between 180 to 4,100 feet .
Inhabits native to open grasslands and
sparse coastal sage scrub (less than 30
percent cover) on relatively flat or gently
sloping ground with loose, friable, well -
drained soil. Dominant species include
native and non-native herbaceous species
such as filaree (Erodium spp.), non-native
grasses (Bromus ssp.), California sagebrush
in the project vicinity, the project site lacks
suitable open grassland or sparse sage scrub
habitat to support this species. While the
project site does support filaree species that
this species prefers, the site primarily
comprises dense, non-native forbs that
would most likely exclude this species.
(Artemesia califo rnica), and California
buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum).
HELIX
Environmental Planning
D-10
Appendix D: Special -Status Animal Species Observed or Evaluated for Potential to Occur for the Bobier Property Project 9Z0Z/ L- L-/80
Scientific Name
C omm on Name'
Status
Habitat Ass ociati ons
Potential to Occur2
Myotis y umanensis
Yuma Myotis
/
Widespread in California but uncommon in
Not Expected. Although this species has been
County Group 2
the Mojave and Colorado deserts, except in
the mountain ranges bordering Colorado
River Valley . Found in a variety of habitats
including juniper and riparian woodlands,
riparian forests, and desert regions where
bodies of water (i.e ., rivers, streams, ponds,
lakes, etc .) are present. Closely associated
with water which it uses for foraging and
sources of drinking water. Roosts in caves,
attics, buildings, and mines, and underneath
bridges and other similar structures.
reported in the project vicinity, the project
site lacks suitable bodies of water to support
foraging for this species.
Neotoma bryanti
San Diego Bryant's
/
Occurs along the coastal regions of
Low. Although this species has been reported
intermedia
(formerly Desert)
SSC
California from San Luis Obispo County
in the project vicinity, the project site lacks
Woodrat
County Group 2
south to San Diego County, and in the
western portions of San Bernardino and
suitable dense shrub habitat to support this
species.
Riverside counties. Inhabits a variety of
shrub and desert habitats such as coastal
sagebrush scrub, chaparral, pinion -juniper
woodland, and Joshua tree woodland
among others. Often associated with rock
outcroppings, boulders, cacti patches, and
areas with dense understories . Construct
dens used for shelter, food storage, and
nesting around rock outcroppings and cacti
using various materials such as twigs, sticks,
and o ther debris.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
D-11
Appendix D: Special -Status Animal Species Observed or Evaluated for Potential to Occur for the Bobier Property Project 9Z0Z/ I. 1. /80
919 40 617Z
Scientific Name
Common Name'
Status
Habitat Ass ociations
Pot ential to Occur2
Perognathus
Pacific P ocket
FE/--
Historically occurred in coastal southern
Not Expected. Although this species has been
longimembris
Mouse
SSC
California from Los Angeles County south to
reported in the project vicinity, the project
pacificus
County Group 1
County NE
San Diego County . Current distribution is
within one mile of the coast with three
known populations still present: Dana Point
site lacks suitable coastal strand, dunes,
alluvium, or marine terraces where this
species is found .
Headlands (Orange County), San Mateo
Creek (northern San Diego County), and
Camp Pendleton (northern San Diego
County) . Occurs on fine-grained, sandy, or
gravelly substrates in coastal strand, coastal
dunes, river alluvium, and coastal sage scrub
growing on marine terraces .
' Listing codes are as follows: FE = Federally Endangered; FT = Federally Threatened; FPE = Federally Proposed Endangered; FPT = Federally Proposed Threatened; FC = Federal Candidate species; FD = Federally Delisted; SE = State of California Endangered; ST = State of Calif ornia Threatened; SC = State of California Candidate for listing as endangered or threatened; SD = State of California Delisted; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) BCC = Birds of Conservation Concern; California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) FP = State of California Fully Protected; CDFW SSC = State of California Species of Special Concern; CDFW WL = State of California Wait -Listed.
County of San Diego (County) Sensitivity Status: Animals are divided into Groups 1 and 2 on the Sensitive Animal List. Gr oup 1 Animals include those that have a very high level of sensitivity, either because they are listed as threatened or endangered or because they have very specific natural history requirements that must be met . Gr oup 2 Animals include those species that are beco ming less common but are not yet so rare that extirpation or extincti on is imminent with out immediate action. These species tend to be prolific within their suitable habitat types.
2 Po tential to Occur is asse ssed as follows — No ne : The pro ject site is located outside of the species known range and distribution, the sp ecies is so limited to a particular habitat that it cannot disperse on its own, and/or habitat suitable for species establishment and survival does not occur in the project site; Not Expected: There are no recent or historical records of the species occurring on or in the immediate vicinity (within five miles) of the project site and the suitable habitats associated with the species do not occur on or adjacent to the project site. The species moves freely and might disperse through or across the project site, but suitable habitats for residence or breeding do not occur; Low: There is a recent or historical record of the specie s on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site (within five miles) and potentially suitable habitats associated with the species occur in or adjacent to the project site, but e xisting co nditions such as elevation, speci es compositi on, density of cover, preval ence of non-native species, e vidence of disturbance, limited habitat area, and/or isolation may substantially reduce the possibility that the species may occur; Moderate: Suitable habitats associated with the species occur on or adjacent to the project site but there is not a documented occurrence of the species within the immediate vicinity (within five miles), or recorded occurrences are limited to historical records. Some species that contain extremely limited distributions may be considered moderate, even if there is a recorded occurrence in the immediate vicinity; High: Suitable habitats associated with the species occur in the project site and the species has been recently recorded on or in the immediate vicinity (within three miles) of the project site, but was not observed during project surveys; Present: The species was observed in or adjacent to the project site during biological surveys or during a previous survey and is assumed to occupy the project site.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
D-12
Appendix E
Explanation of Status Codes for Plant
and Animal Species
08/11/2026
PH2 250 of 876
Appendix E: Explanation of Status Codes for Plant and Animal Species for the Bobier Property Project
FEDERAL AND STATE CODES
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
BCC Bird of Conservation Concern
FE Federally listed endangered
FT Federally listed threatened
USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC)
The primary legal authority for Birds of Conservation Concern (2008) is the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (FWCA), as amended. Other authorities include the Endangered Species Act, Fish and Wildlife Act (1956), and 16 USC §701. An FWCA 1988 amendment (Public Law 100-653, Title VIII) requires the Secretary of the Interior through the USFWS to "identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory non -game birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973." The 2008 BCC report is the most recent effort by the USFWS to carry out this proactive conservation mandate.
The BCC report aims to identify accurately the migratory and non -migratory bird species (beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered) that represent the USFWS' highest conservation priorities and draw attention to species in need of conservation action. The USFWS hopes that by focusing attention on these highest -priority species, the report will promote greater study and protection of the habitats and ecological communities upon which these species depend, thereby ensuring the future of healthy avian populations and communities. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 lists are available at: httDs:// www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/birds-of-conservation- concern. oh D.
USFWS Federal Candidate (FC) Species
Federal candidate species are those for which the USFWS has on file "sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened, but for which preparation and publication of a proposal is precluded by higher -priority listing actions. [The USFWS] maintain[s] this list for a variety of reasons: to notify the public that these species are facing threats to their survival; to provide advance knowledge of potential listings that could affect decisions of environmental planners and developers; to provide information that may stimulate conservation efforts that will remove or reduce threats to these species; to solicit input from interested parties to help us identify those candidate species that may not require protection under the [Endangered Species Act] or additional species that may require the Act's protections; and to solicit the necessary information for setting priorities for preparing listing proposals" (Federal Register 70:90 [May 11, 2005]).
USFWS Federal Proposed Endangered (FPE) Species
Any species the Service has determined is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and the Service has proposed a draft rule to list as endangered. Proposed endangered species are not protected by the take prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA until the rule to list is finalized.
Under section 7(a)(4) of the ESA, federal agencies must confer with the Service if their action will jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
E-1
251 of 876
Appendix E: Explanation of Status Codes for Plant and Animal Species for the Bobier Property Project USFWS Federal Proposed Threatened (FPT) Species
Any species the Service has determined is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and the Service has proposed a draft rule to list as threatened. Proposed threatened species are not protected by the take prohibitions of section 9, consistent with any protective regulations finalized under section 4(d) of the ESA, until the rule to list is finalized. Under section 7(a)(4) of the ESA, federal agencies must confer with the Service if their action will jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species.
USFWS Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA)
In 1782, Continental Congress adopted the bald eagle as a national symbol. During the next one and a half centuries, the bald eagle was heavily hunted by sportsmen, taxidermists, fishermen, and farmers.
To prevent the species from becoming extinct, Congress passed the Bald Eagle Protection Act in 1940.
The Act was extremely comprehensive, prohibiting the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, or offer to sell, purchase, or barter, export, or import of the bald eagle "at any time or in any manner." In 1962, the Congress amended the Eagle Act to cover golden eagles, a move that was partially an attempt to strengthen the protection of bald eagles since the latter were often killed by people mistaking them for golden eagles. The golden eagle, however, is accorded somewhat lighter protection under the Act than the bald eagle. Another 1962 amendment authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to grant permits to Native Americans for the traditional religious use of eagles and eagle parts and feathers.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
SE State listed endangered
SSC State species of special concern
WL Watch List
FP Fully Protected species refers to all vertebrate and invertebrate taxa of concern to the Natural Diversity Data Base regardless of legal or protection status. These species may not be taken or possessed without a permit from the Fish and Game Commission and/or CDFW.
Special Animal Refers to all vertebrate and invertebrate taxa of concern to the Natural Diversity Database regardless of legal or protection status.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
For plants with no current federal or state legal standing, "CEQA" refers to the fact that under the Act, impacts to species may be found significant under certain circumstances (e.g., the species are regionally sensitive and/or are protected by a local policy, ordinance, or habitat conservation plan; or the impact involves interference with certain movements or migrations, with wildlife corridors or with nursery sites).
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
PH2
E-2
252 of 876
Appendix E: Explanation of Status Codes for Plant and Animal Species for the Bobier Property Project
OTHER CODES AND ABBREVIATIONS
California Native Plant Society California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) Codes Lists
1A = Presumed extirpated in California and
either rare or extinct elsewhere. Eligible
for state listing.
1B = Rare, threatened, or endangered in
California and elsewhere. Eligible for
state listing.
2A = Presumed extirpated in California but
common elsewhere. Eligible for state
listing.
2B = Rare, threatened, or endangered in
California but more common
elsewhere. Eligible for state listing.
3 = Review List: Plants about which more
information is needed. Some eligible for
state listing.
4 = Watch List: Plants of limited
distribution. Needs monitoring for
changes in population status. Few (if
any) eligible for state listing.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
08/11/2026
List/Threat Code Extensions
.1 = Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of
occurrences threatened/high degree and
immediacy of threat).
.2 = Moderately threatened in California (20-80%
occurrences threatened / moderate degree and
immediacy of threat).
.3 = Not very threatened in California (less than 20%
of occurrences threatened / low degree and
immediacy of threat or no current threats
known).
A "CA Endemic" entry corresponds to those taxa that
only occur in California.
All List 1A (presumed extinct in California) and some
List 3 (need more information; a review list) plants
lacking threat information receive no extension.
Threat Code guidelines represent only a starting point
in threat level assessment. Other factors, such as
habitat vulnerability and specificity, distribution, and condition of occurrences, are considered in setting
the Threat Code.
PH2
E-3
253 of 876
Appendix E: Explanation of Status Codes for Plant and Animal Species for the Bobier Property Project
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
County of San Diego
Plant sensitivity
List A
List B
List C
List D
Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California or elsewhere Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere Plants that may be quite rare, but more information is needed to determine rarity status Plants of limited distribution and are uncommon, but not presently rare or endangered Animal sensitivity
Group 1
Group 2
Animals that have a very high level of sensitivity, either because they are listed as threatened or endangered or because they have very specific natural history requirements that must be met
Animals include those species that are becoming less common but are not yet so rare that extirpation or extinction is imminent without immediate action. These species tend to be prolific within their suitable habitat types
Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Covered
Multiple Species Conservation Program covered species for which the County has take authorization within the MSCP area.