Agenda packet — Escondido City Council, January 11, 2023 (part 1 of 3)

CITY of ESCONDIDO

Council Meeting Agenda
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2023
4:00 PM - Closed Session (Parkview Conference Room) - Cancelled 5:00 PM - Regular Session
Escondido City Council Chambers, 201 North Broadway, Escondido, CA 92025

WELCOME TO YOUR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
We welcome your interest and involvement in the legislative process of Escondido. This agenda includes information about topics coming before the City Council and the action recommended by City staff.

MAYOR
Dane White

DEPUTY MAYOR
Joe Garcia (District 2)

COUNCILMEMBERS
Consuelo Martinez (District 1)
Vacant (District 3)
Michael Morasco (Disctrict 4)

CITY MANAGER
Sean McGlynn

CITY ATTORNEY
Michael McGuinness

CITY CLERK
Zack Beck

HOW TO WATCH
The City of Escondido provides three ways to watch a City Council meeting:

In Person On TV Online

201 N. Broadway Cox Cable Channel 19 and U-verse Channel 99 www.escondido.org

1 Wednesday, January 11, 2023

HOW TO PARTICIPATE
The City of Escondido provides two ways to communicate with the City Council during a meeting:

In Person In Writing

Fill out Speaker Slip and Submit to City Clerk https://escondido-ca.municodemeetings.com

ASSISTANCE PROVIDED
If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact our ADA Coordinator at 760-839-4869.

Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable to city to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired – please see the City Clerk.

2 Wednesday, January 11, 2023

REGULAR SESSION
5:00 PM Regular Session
Mobilehome Rent Review Board

MOMENT OF REFLECTION
City Council agendas allow an opportunity for a moment of silence and reflection at the beginning of the evening meeting. The City does not participate in the selection of speakers for this portion of the agenda, and does not endorse or sanction any remarks made by individuals during this time. If you wish to be recognized during this portion of the agenda, please notify the City Clerk in advance.

FLAG SALUTE
The City Council conducts the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of every City Council meeting.

CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call: Garcia, Martinez, Morasco, White

PRESENTATIONS
Escondido Non-Profit Grant Program Presentation by the Escondido Community Foundation Greater Escondido Chamber of Commerce Directory

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
In addition to speaking during particular agenda items, the public may address the Council on any item which is not on the agenda provided the item is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council. State law prohibits the Council from discussing or taking action on such items, but the matter may be referred to the City Manager/staff or scheduled on a subsequent agenda. Speakers are limited to only one opportunity to address the Council under Oral Communications.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the Consent Calendar are not discussed individually and are approved in a single motion. However, Council members always have the option to have an item considered separately, either on their own request or at the request of staff or a member of the public.

1. AFFIDAVITS OF PUBLICATION, MAILING, AND POSTING (COUNCIL/RRB) - 3 Wednesday, January 11, 2023

2. APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER (COUNCIL)
Request approval for City Council and Housing Successor Agency warrant numbers:
 368788 – 368966 dated November 30, 2022
 368967 – 369194 dated December 7, 2022
 369195 – 369440 dated December 14, 2022
 369441 – 369689 dated December 21, 2022
 369690 – 369823 dated December 28, 2022
Staff Recommendation: Approval (Finance Department: Christina Holmes)

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meetings of November 30, 2022, December 7, 2022, and December 14, 2022

4. WAIVER OF READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS –

CONSENT RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (COUNCIL/RRB)
The following Resolutions and Ordinances were heard and acted upon by the City Council/RRB at a previous City Council/Mobilehome Rent Review meeting. (The title of Ordinances listed on the Consent Calendar are deemed to have been read and further reading waived.)

5. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A

MASTER AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVE-THROUGH COFFEE FACILITY AT 1525 TANGLEWOOD LANE
Approved on December 7, 2022 with a vote of 3/1 (McNamara - No; Morasco - Absent) a) Ordinance No. 2022-24R (Second Reading and Adoption) 4 Wednesday, January 11, 2023

PUBLIC HEARINGS

6. CONWAY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-06, approving a Tentative Subdivision Map, Annexation/Reorganization, and Grading Exemption, for a 56-unit residential subdivision located at 916, 942, and 943 Stanley Avenue, and 2005 – 2175 Conway Drive (odd-numbered addresses only) (“Project”). The request also includes the adoption of a Final Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

Staff Recommendation: Approval (Development Services Department: Andrew Firestine, Director of Development Services)
Presenter: Adam Finestone, City Planner
a) Resolution No. 2023-06

7. NORTH IRIS CONDOMINIUMS
Request the City Council 1) Adopt Resolution No. 2023-03 certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and making certain Findings of Fact in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); 2) Introduce Ordinance No. 2023-03 for a Prezone to Planned Development Residential 14.6 (PD-R 14.6) along with a Master and Precise Development Plan for a 102-unit condominium development; 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2023-04 approving a General Plan Amendment from Suburban to Urban 3, one-lot Tentative Subdivision Map, and Annexation/Reorganization.

Staff Recommendation: Approval (Development Services Department: Andrew Firestine, Director of Development Services)
Presenter: Jay Paul, Senior Planner
a) Resolution No. 2023-03
b) Resolution No. 2023-04
c) Ordinance No. 2023-03 (First Reading and Introduction)

5 Wednesday, January 11, 2023

8. SHORT-FORM RENT INCREASE APPLICATION FOR GREENCREST MOBILEHOME PARK (FILE NO. 0697-20- 10314)
Request the City Council 1) Review and approve Greencrest Mobilehome Park short-form application and adopt Rent Review Board Resolution No. RRB 2023-01; 2) Find a violation of City’s Mobilehome Rent Review Board Guidelines, deny the short-form application, and prohibit Greencrest Mobilehome Park from filing a short-form application for five years.

Staff Recommendation: Approval of Application (Development Services Department: Andrew Firestine, Director of Development Services)
Presenter: Eric Bunge, Management Analyst
a) Resolution No. RRB-2023-01

CURRENT BUSINESS

9. CONSIDERATION OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK ING REGULATIONS Request the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 2023-02, amending Escondido Municipal Code section 28- 142 to regulate recreational vehicle (“RV”) parking.

Staff Recommendation: Approval (City Attorney's Office: Michael R. McGuinness, City Attorney) Presenter: Gary J. McCarthy, Assistant City Attorney
a) Ordinance No. 2023-02 (First Reading and Introduction)

10. SELECTION OF CLEAN ENERGY ALLIANCE DEFAULT ENERGY SUPPLY OPTION FOR CITY OF ESCONDIDO

ELECTRICITY CUSTOMERS
Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-09 selecting “Clean Impact Plus – 50% Renewable / 75% Carbon Free Energy” as the Clean Energy Alliance (“CEA”) Default Energy Supply Option. Staff recommend this option because it provides the best combination of value to the customer and advancement of the goals of the City’s Climate Action Plan. The City Council may, at its discretion, chose either of the other supply options (“Clean Impact” or “Green Impact”) as the default option for the City of Escondido.

Staff Recommendation: Approval (City Manager’s Office: Christopher W. McKinney, Deputy City Manager/Director of Utilities)
Presenter: Christopher W. McKinney
a) Resolution No. 2023-09
6 Wednesday, January 11, 2023

11. NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES APPOINTMENT
Request the City Council appoint a representative to the National League of Cities.

Staff Recommendation: Approval (City Clerk’s Office: Zack Beck) Presenter: Zack Beck

12. REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICIES AND RULES OF PROCEDURE
Request the City Council review the Council Policies and Rules of Procedure. Staff Recommendation: Provide Direction (City Council: Dane White, Mayor) Presenter: Mayor Dane White

FUTURE AGENDA

13. FUTURE AGENDA
The purpose of this item is to identify issues presently known to staff or which members of the City Council wish to place on an upcoming City Council agenda. Council comment on these future agenda items is limited by California Government Code Section 54954.2 to clarifying questions, brief announcements, or requests for factual information in connection with an item when it is discussed.

Staff Recommendation: None (City Clerk's Office: Zack Beck)

COUNCILMEMBERS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS AND OTHER REPORTS

CITY MANAGER’S WEEKLY ACTIVITY REPORT
The most current information from the City Manager regarding Economic Development, Capital Improvement Projects, Public Safety, and Community Development. This report is also available on the City’s website, www.escondido.org.

ADJOURNMENT
7 Wednesday, January 11, 2023

UPCOMING MEETING SCHEDULE
Wednesday, January 25, 2023 4:00 & 5:00 PM Regular Meeting, Council Chambers Wednesday, February 08, 2023 4:00 & 5:00 PM Regular Meeting, Council Chambers

SUCCESSOR AGENCY
Members of the Escondido City Council also sit as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, Escondido Joint Powers Financing Authority, and the Mobilehome Rent Review Board.

8 Consent Item No. 1 January 11, 2023

A F F I D A V I T S

I T E M

P O S T I N G –

 Public Hearing Notice – Tentative Subdivision Map, Grading Exemption, and Annexation – PL21-0269, PL21-0277, and PL22-0584

 Public Hearing Notice – Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Prezone, Tentative Subdivision Map, and a Master and Precise Development Plan – PHG20-0032, PL20-0738, PL20-0739, PL21-0126, PL21-0127, and PL21-0128

9 Item1.

Published in THE ESCONDIDO TIMES-ADVOCATE: 12/29/22
10 Item1.

Published in THE ESCONDIDO TIMES-ADVOCATE: 12/29/22
11 Item1.

STAFF REPORT

January 11, 2023
File Number 0400-40

SUBJECT

APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER (COUNCIL)

DEPARTMENT
Finance

RECOMMENDATION
Request approval for City Council and Housing Successor Agency warrant numbers:
368788 – 368966 dated November 30, 2022
368967 – 369194 dated December 7, 2022
369195 – 369440 dated December 14, 2022
369441 – 369689 dated December 21, 2022
369690 – 369823 dated December 28, 2022
Staff Recommendation: Approval (Finance Department: Christina Holmes)

FISCAL ANALYSIS
The total amount of the warrants for the following periods are as follows:

November 23 – November 30, 2022, is $991,641.11
December 1 – December 7, 2022, is $8,293,243.45
December 8 – December 14, 2022, is $4,142,147.84
December 15 – December 21, 2022, is $4,127,465.98
December 22 – December 28, 2022, is $1,884,650.76

BACKGROUND

The Escondido Municipal Code Section 10-49 states that warrants or checks may be issued and paid prior to audit by the City Council, provided the warrants or checks are certified and approved by the Director of Finance as conforming to the current budget. These warrants or checks must then be ratified and approved by the City Council at the next regular Council meeting.

12 Item2.

November 30, 2022 Escondido City Council Minutes Page 1 of 1

CLOSED SESSION
4:00 PM

CALL TO ORDER

1. Roll Call: Garcia, Inscoe, Martinez, Morasco, McNamara

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.

CLOSED SESSION

1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code §54957.6) a. Agency representative: Sean McGlynn (City Manager) and/or designee Employee organization: Escondido Police Officers’ Association (POA)

b. Agency representative: Sean McGlynn (City Manager) and/or designee Employee organization: Escondido Firefighters’ Association (FFA)

ADJOURNMENT

Mayor McNamara adjourned the meeting at 4:50 p.m.

______________________________ _______________________________

MAYOR CITY CLERK

13 Item3.

December 14, 2022 Escondido City Council Minutes Page 1 of 3

INSTALLATION CEREMONY
5:00 PM Regular Session
December 14, 2022

FLAG SALUTE
Escondido Police and Fire Color Guard

NATIONAL ANTHEM
Uma Richard (Classical Academy High School Student)

CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call: Garcia, Inscoe, Martinez, Morasco, McNamara

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.

CURRENT BUSINESS

1. CERTIFICATION OF NOVEMBER 2022 GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION RESULTS – Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-187 certifying the November 8, 2022, City of Escondido General Municipal results; and adopt Ordinance No. 2022-19 adjusting the City Treasurer’s Salary; and adopt Ordinance No. 2022-20 establishing term limits for elected offices in Escondido. (File Number 0650-40)
Staff Recommendation: Approval (City Clerk's Office: Zack Beck, City Clerk) Presenter: Zack Beck
a) Resolution No. 2022-187
14 Item3.

December 14, 2022 Escondido City Council Minutes Page 2 of 3 b) Ordinance No. 2022-19 (Second Reading and Adoption)
c) Ordinance No. 2022-20 (Second Reading and Adoption)
Motion: Morasco; Second: Martinez; Approved: 5-0

2. PRESENTATION OF PLAQUES AND COMMENTS FROM OUTGOING OFFICIALS - Plaques will be presented to Deputy Mayor Tina Inscoe and Mayor Paul McNamara in recognition of their service on the City Council.

Staff Recommendation: None (City Clerk’s Office: Zack Beck, City Clerk) Presenter: Zack Beck

3. OATH OF OFFICE AND COMMENTS FROM NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS - The Oath of Office will be administered to Councilmember Consuelo Martinez, Councilmember Joe Garcia and Mayor-Elect Dane White.

Staff Recommendation: None (City Clerk's Office: Zack Beck, City Clerk) Presenter: Zack Beck

4. APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY MAYOR -
Request the City Council appoint Councilmember Joe Garcia to serve as Deputy Mayor in accordance with Ordinance No. 2020-28. (File Number 0610-70) Staff Recommendation: Approval (City Clerk's Office: Zack Beck, City Clerk) Presenter: Zack Beck
Motion: Martinez; Second: Morasco; Approved: 4-0

5. REVIEW AND UPDATE OF CITY COUNCIL INTERAGENCY AND SUBCOMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS- Request the City Council ratify members to serve on the Mayor/Council boards and subcommittees. (File Number 0610-55)
Staff Recommendation: Approval (City Clerk's Office: Zack Beck, City Clerk) Presenter: Zack Beck
Motion: Morasco; Second: Garcia; Approved: 4-0

15 Item3.

December 14, 2022 Escondido City Council Minutes Page 3 of 3

6. CITY COUNCIL VACANCY – DISTRICT 3 –
Request the City Council conduct an application/interview process to appoint a new District 3 City Councilmember or call for a special election. (File Number 0610-70) Staff Recommendation: Approval (City Clerk's Office: Zack Beck, City Clerk) Presenter: Zack Beck
Motion to proceed with appointment process: Morasco; Second: Garcia; Approved: 3 -1 (Martinez – No)

FUTURE AGENDA

7. FUTURE AGENDA
The purpose of this item is to identify issues presently known to staff or which members of the City Council wish to place on an upcoming City Council agenda. Council comment on these future agenda items is limited by California Government Code Section 54954.2 to clarifying questions, brief announcements, or requests for factual information in connection with an item when it is discussed.

Staff Recommendation: None (City Clerk's Office: Zack Beck)

COUNCILMEMBERS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS AND OTHER REPORTS
CITY MANAGER’S WEEKLY ACTIVITY REPORT
The most current information from the City Manager regarding Economic Development, Capital Improvement Projects, Public Safety, and Community Development. This report is also available on the City’s website, www.escondido.org.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor White adjourned the meeting at 5:52 p.m.

______________________________ _______________________________

MAYOR CITY CLERK

16 Item3.

December 7, 2022 Escondido City Council Minutes Page 1 of 12

REGULAR SESSION
5:00 PM Regular Session
December 7, 2022

FLAG SALUTE
The City Council conducts the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of every City Council meeting.

CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call: Garcia, Inscoe, Martinez, Morasco (left at 6:30 p.m.), McNamara

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Christiane – Requested the City do more to address homelessness.

Rock Paul – Congratulated Councilmember Martinez and Councilmember Garcia on their re -election to City Council and thanked Mayor McNamara and Deputy Mayor Inscoe for their service on City Council.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion: Morasco; Second: Garcia; Approved: 5-0

1. AFFIDAVITS OF PUBLICATION, MAILING, AND POSTING (COUNCIL/RRB) -

17 Item3.

December 7, 2022 Escondido City Council Minutes Page 2 of 12

2. APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER (COUNCIL) -
Request the City Council approve the City Council and Housing Successor Agency warrant numbers:
 368294 – 368439 dated November 9, 2022
 368440 – 368643 dated November 16, 2022
 368644 – 368787 dated November 22, 2022
Staff Recommendation: Approval (Finance Department: Christina Holmes)

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meeting of November 16, 2022

4. WAIVER OF READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS –

5. ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT ON CAPITAL FUNDS FUNDED BY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66006
Request the City Council receive and file the Annual Financial Report on Development Impact Fees. (File Number 0410-20)
Staff Recommendation: Receive and File (Finance Department: Christina Holmes, Director of Finance)
Presenter: Christina Holmes

6. APPROVAL OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2023/24 RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022 -144, ap proving the Fiscal Year 2023/24 Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (“ROPS”) so that the Successor Agency may continue to make payments due for enforceable obligations. (File Number 0440-35) Staff Recommendation: Approval (Finance Department: Christina Holmes, Director of Finance) Presenter: Christina Holmes
a) Resolution No. 2022-144

7. AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE JUNIPER ELEMENTARY BIKE/PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND APPROVE ACQUISITION AGREEMENT FOR 1644-1660 S.

JUNIPER ST.

Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-160, awarding the construction contract to Granite Construction Company and authorizing the Mayor, on behalf of the City, to execute a Public Improvement Agreement in the amount of $2,078,216 for the Juniper Elementary Bike/Pedestrian Improvement Project (“Project”). It is also requested that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-136 authorizing the Mayor, on behalf of the City, to execute an Acquisition Agreement with the owners of 1644-1660 South Juniper Street (APN: 234-300-25- 18 Item3.

December 7, 2022 Escondido City Council Minutes Page 3 of 12

00) in the amount of $57,600 for payment of impacts to the property as required for the construction of Project improvements. (File Number 0600-10;A-3434) Staff Recommendation: Approval (Development Services Department: Andrew Firestine, Development Services Director and Julie Procopio, City Engineer) Presenter: Jonathan Schauble, Principal Engineer
a) Resolution No. 2022-160
b) Resolution No. 2022-136

8. ANNEXING TERRITORY TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT (CFD) 2022-1 (ECLIPSE AND MOUNTAIN HOUSE) AND CITYWIDE SERVICES CFD 2020-1
Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-182 annexing territory of 32 residential units as Annexation No. 1 to Zone A of Community Facilities District (“CFD”) 2022-1 (Eclipse and Mountain House), and Resolution No. 2022-183 annexing territory of 32 residential dwelling units as Zone 2020-7 of the Citywide Services CFD 2020-1. (File Number 0850-20) Staff Recommendation: Approval (Development Services Department: Andrew Firestine, Development Services Director and Julie Procopio, City Engineer) Presenter: Julie Procopio
a) Resolution No. 2022-182
b) Resolution No. 2022-183

9. FINAL MAPS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL
Request the City Council approve the following Final Maps that have been filed for approval by the City Engineer in accordance with Ordinance No. 2022-02: Tract SUB17-0007 at North Avenue and Laurashawn Lane: North Avenue Estates Project and Tract SUB18-0011 at 555 E.

Valley Parkway: Palomar Heights Project. (File Number 0800-10) Staff Recommendation: Approval (Development Services Department: Andrew Firestine, Director of Development Services)
Presenter: Julie Procopio, City Engineer

19 Item3.

December 7, 2022 Escondido City Council Minutes Page 4 of 12

10. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE ESCONDIDO CREEK TRAIL FENCING

PROJECT
Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-165, awarding the construction contract to Lightning Fence Co., Inc., and authorizing the Mayor, on behalf of the City, to execute a Public Improvement Agreement in the amount of $324,400 for the Escondido Creek Tra il Fencing Project (“Project”); and authorizing the Mayor to execute a change order in the amount of $404,500 for the construction of Phase 2 of the Project contingent on the programming of additional funding. (File Number 0600-10;A-3437)
Staff Recommendat ion: Approval (Development Services Department: Andrew Firestine, Development Services Director and Julie Procopio, City Engineer) Presenter: Jonathan Schauble, Principal Engineer
a) Resolution No. 2022-165

11. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL ADMINISTRATION Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-173, authorizing the Mayor to execute, on behalf of the City, a Consulting Agreement with Granicus, LLC, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company, for three-years with two (2) options to extend the Consulting Agreement for one (1) year per extension, and approve a budget adjustment request in the amount of $42,000 for professional services for the Short-term Rental Administration Project (“Project”). (File Number 0600-10;A-3438)
Staff Recommendation: Approval (Development Services Department: Andrew Firestine, Director of Development Services, Jennifer Schoeneck, Deputy Director of Economic Development, and Christina Holmes, Director of Finance) Presenter: Andrew Firestine
a) Resolution No. 2022-173

20 Item3.

December 7, 2022 Escondido City Council Minutes Page 5 of 12

12. SANDAG SENIOR TRANSPORTATION GRANT
Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-166, authorizing the Deputy City Manager/Director of Communications and Community Services or his designee to apply for $92,463 in Senior Mini-Grant (SMG) funding through the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG); and if awarded, to accept the grant funds, complete the budget adjustment, and complete the grant documents on behalf of the City of Escondido (“City”). (File Number 0430-20)
Staff Recommendation: Approval (Community Services Department: Joanna Axelrod, Deputy City Manager / Director of Community Services)
Presenter: Robert Rhoades, Deputy Director of Community Services a) Resolution No. 2022-166

13. RYAN PARK FIELD EXPANSION
Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-157, authorizing an amendment to the scope of the Ryan Park Field Expansion and Lighting Capital Improvement Project (Project No. 501205) and authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with MUSCO Sports Lighting, LLC (“MUSCO”) for equipment to light two additional soccer fields at Frances Ryan Park with light- emitting diode (“LED”) technology in an amount not to exceed $276,700 utilizing Park Development funds. (File Number 0600-10;A-2980)
Staff Recommendation: Approval (Public Works Department: Joseph Goulart, Director of Public Works)
Presenter: Wayne Thames, Public Works Superintendent
a) Resolution No. 2022-157

21 Item3.

December 7, 2022 Escondido City Council Minutes Page 6 of 12

14. CHANGE ORDERS FOR THE WEST 7TH AVENUE AND SOUTH BROADWAY WATER MAIN

REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-175, authorizing change orders to the Public Improvement Agreement with S.C. Valley Engineering, Inc., in the amount of $478,596.00 for the West 7th Avenue and South Broadway Water Main Replacement Project (“Project”). (File Number 0600-10;A-3383)
Staff Recommendation: Approval (Utilities Department: Christopher W. McKinney, Deputy City Manager/Director of Utilities)
Presenter: Angela Morrow, Deputy Director of Utilities
a) Resolution No. 2022-175

15. DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES GRANT APPLICATION FOR RECYCLED WATER AND

WATER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-180, authorizing the submittal of an application and execution of a funding agreement and any amendments thereto with the Department of Water Resources (“DWR”) for grant funding for the Hale Avenue Resource Recovery Facility (“HARRF”) Tertiary System Replacement Project and adopt Resolution No. 2022-181, authorizing submittal of an application and execution of a funding agreement and any amendments thereto with the DWR requesting grant funding for the Treated Water Interconnect Project. (File Number 0480-70)
Staff Recommendation: Approval (Utilities Department: Christopher W. McKinney, Deputy City Manager/Director of Utilities)
Presenter: Angela Morrow, Deputy Director of Utilities
a) Resolution No. 2022-180
b) Resolution No. 2022-181

22 Item3.

December 7, 2022 Escondido City Council Minutes Page 7 of 12

16. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO AND THE ESCONDIDO POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION – SWORN PERSONNEL BARGAINING UNIT Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-184, approving a one-year extension to the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between the City of Escondido (“City”) and the Escondido Police Officers’ Association - Sworn Personnel Bargaining Unit (“Association”), commencing January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023, and a budget adjustment of $279,300 to account for the increased contract costs in Fiscal Year 2022/23. (File Number 0740-30)
Staff Recommendation: Approval (Human Resources Department: Jessica Perpetua, Director of Human Resources)
Presenter: Jessica Perpetua
a) Resolution No. 2022-184

17. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO AND THE ESCONDIDO FIREFIGHTERS’ ASSOCIATION – SAFETY AND NON -SAFETY PERSONNEL

BARGAINING UNIT
Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-185, approving the execution of a one-year contract extension to the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between the Escondido Firefighters’ Association – Safety and Non-Safety Bargaining Unit (“Association”) and the City of Escondido (“City”), commencing January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023. (File Number 0740-30)
Staff Recommendation: Approval (Human Resources Department: Jessica Perpetua, Director of Human Resources)
Presenter: Jessica Perpetua
a) Resolution No. 2022-185

18. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 6 OF THE ESCONDIDO MUNICIPAL CODE, TO ADOPT THE 2022 CALIFORNIA

BUILDING, RESIDENTIAL, PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, HISTORICAL BUILDING,

EXISTING BUILDING AND ENERGY CODES, AND THE GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE Approved on November 16, 2022 with a vote of 5/0.
23 Item3.

December 7, 2022 Escondido City Council Minutes Page 8 of 12

a) Ordinance No. 2022-21 (Second Reading and Adoption)

19. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE ESCONDIDO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT THE 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE

CODE AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS
Approved on November 16, 2022 with a vote of 5/0.
a). Ordinance No. 2022-22 (Second Reading and Adoption)

PUBLIC HEARINGS

20. ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO VMT EXCHANGE PROGRAM Request the City Council approve to adopt Resolution No. 2022-162, adopting the VMT Exchange Program and certifying/adopting the associated Initial Study/Negative Declaration prepared for the project. (File Number 1050-30)
Staff Recommendation: Approval (Development Services Department: Andrew Firestine, Development Services Director and Julie Procopio, City Engineer) Presenter: Julie Procopio, City Engineer
a) Resolution No. 2022-162
John Kaye – Expressed support for this item.

Rick Paul – Expressed support for this item and concern about the item referencing the El Caballo Master Plan.

Lori Pfeiler – Expressed support for this item.

Motion: Morasco; Second: Garcia; Approve: 5-0

21. MASTER AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A DRIVE -THROUGH COFFEE FACILITY Request that the City Council conduct a public hearing on the development proposal and adopt Ordinance No. 2022 -24 approving a Master Development Plan and Precise Development Plan for construction of a drive -through coffee facility at 1525 Tanglewood Lane in the City of Escondido; and for the adoption of a Notice of Exemption pursuant to the Californi a Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. (APN: 235-090-35-00) (“Project.”). (File Number 1010-35) Staff Recommendation: Approval (Development Services Department: Andrew Firestine, Director of Development Services)
Presenter: Adam Finestone, City Planner
24 Item3.

December 7, 2022 Escondido City Council Minutes Page 9 of 12

a) Ordinance No. 2022-24R (First Reading and Introduction) Judith Jones-Crane – Expressed concern regarding the proposed Starbucks sign.

Dean Boyles – Expressed concern regarding the proposed Starbucks sign. Has worked with Starbucks counsel to address concern s in principal. Requested approval of this project conditionally.

Rick Paul – Expressed concern regarding future planning or the area surrounding the proposed project.

Dave Ferguson – Expressed support for the project.

Barret Bradley – Expressed support for the project.

Motion to conditionally approve the project, based on the agreement between Lexus Escondido/The Centre and Starbucks regarding the sign concerns and limit the height of trees on the Starbucks property is executed : Martinez; Second: Inscoe; Approved: 3-1 (McNamara – No; Morasco – Absent)

22. VACATION OF A PORTION OF A PUBLIC STREET FORMERLY KNOWN AS PACIFIC AVENUE Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-134 authorizing the vacation of a portion of a public street formerly known as Pacific Avenue. (File Number 0690-40) Staff Recommendation: Approval (City Manager’s Department: Jennifer Schoeneck, Deputy Director of Economic Development)
Presenter: Vince McCaw, Real Property Manager
a) Resolution No. 2022-134
Patrick McClusky - Expressed concern about easements.

Motion: Morasco; Second: Martinez; Approved; 5-0

25 Item3.

December 7, 2022 Escondido City Council Minutes Page 10 of 12

23. VACATION OF PUBLIC STREET: A PORTION OF AN UNNAMED ALLEY IN BLOCK 75 OF ESCONDIDO, BETWEEN S. PINE STREET AND W. 2ND AVENUE
Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-133, authorizing the street vacation for a portion of the unnamed public alley in Block 75 of Escondido, between S. Pine Street and W. 2nd Avenue. (File Number 0690-40)
Staff Recommendati on: Approval (City Manager’s Department: Jennifer Schoeneck, Deputy Director of Economic Development)
Presenter: Vince McCaw, Real Property Manager
a) Resolution No. 2022-133
Motion: Garcia; Second: Inscoe; Approved: 5-0

CURRENT BUSINESS

24. CHANGE ORDERS FOR THE OAKVALE ROAD REALIGNMENT PROJECT Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-169, authorizing change orders to the Public Improvement Agreement with L.B. Civil Construction, Inc., in the amount of $4,963,698.45 for the Oakvale Road Realignment Project (“Project”). (File Number 0600-10;A- 3354)
Staff Recommendation: Approval (Utilities Department: Christopher W. McKinney, Deputy City Manager / Director of Utilities)
Presenter: Angela Morrow, Deputy Director of Utilities
a) Resolution No. 2022-169
Motion: Garcia; Second: Inscoe; Approved: 4-0 (Morasco – Absent)

25. FISCAL YEAR 2021/22 FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT AND AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN UPDATE Request the City Council receive and file the annual Financial Status Report and American Rescue Plan Update for FY2021/22 (Attachment 1); Adopt Budget Adjustments (Attachment 2) to distribute the fiscal year-end financial resources and commitments and allocate American Rescue Plan Act project funds; Adopt Resolution No. 2022-186 authorizing a three-year agreement with Crayon in the amount of $1,689,820 to provide a Microsoft Enterprise Licensing Agreement with Software Assurance (SA); and adopt Resolution No. 2022-178 Amending the Salary Schedule for the Unclassified and Management Groups and Adopt Resolution No. 2022-179 Amending the Part-time Salary Plan. (File Number 0430-30) Staff Recommendation: Approval (Finance Department: Christina Holmes, Director of Finance) 26 Item3.

December 7, 2022 Escondido City Council Minutes Page 11 of 12

Presenter: Christina Holmes
a) Resolution No. 2022-186
b) Resolution No. 2022-178
c) Resolution No. 2022-179
Lori Roundtree – Expressed support for Pickleball funding.

William Nugent – Expressed support for Pickleball funding.

Rick Paul – Expressed support for El Caballo Master Plan funding.

Motion: Inscoe; Second: Morasco; Approved: 5-0

FUTURE AGENDA

26. FUTURE AGENDA
The purpose of this item is to identify issues presently known to staff or which members of the City Council wish to place on an upcoming City Council agenda. Council comment on these future agenda items is limited by California Government Code Section 54954.2 to clarifying questions, brief announcements, or requests for factual information in connection with an item when it is discussed.

Staff Recommendation: None (City Clerk's Office: Zack Beck)

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
27 Item3.

December 7, 2022 Escondido City Council Minutes Page 12 of 12

ADJOURNMENT

Mayor McNamara adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m.

______________________________ _______________________________

MAYOR CITY CLERK
28 Item3.
29 Item4.

ORDINANCE NO. 2022-24R

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MASTER AND

PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A
DRIVE-THROUGH COFFEE FACILITY AT 1525

TANGLEWOOD LANE
CASE NOS.: PL22-0325/PL22-0326
The City Council of the City of Escondido, California does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council makes the following findings:
a) Newmark Merrill Companies (“Applicant”) filed a land use application, Planning Case Nos. PL22- 0325 and PL22-0236 (” Application”), constituting a request for a Master and Precise Development Plan to facilitate the construction of a 1,026 square foot dual-lane drive-through coffee facility (“Project”). The Project site is approximately .46 -acres and is located west of Interstate 15 and south of Auto Park Way , addressed at 1525 Tanglewood (APN: 235-090-35-00), and more particularly described in Exhibit “A” and incorporated by this reference as through fully set forth herein (“Property”); and b) The Application was submitted to, and processed by, the Planning Division of the Development Services Department as Planning Case Nos. PL22-0325 and PL22-0326 and is depicted on the Project plans attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein; and c) Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et. seq.), the City is the Lead Agency for the Project, as the public agency with the principal responsibility for approving the proposed Project; and d) The Application was assessed in conformance with CEQA and a Notice of Exemption (“NOE”) was prepared; and
30 Item5.

STAFF REPORT

January 11, 2023
File Number 0800-10

SUBJECT

CONWAY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION

DEPARTMENT
Development Services Department, Planning Division

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Request the City Council a dopt Resolution No. 2023 -06, approving a Tentative Subdivision Map , Annexation/Reorganization, and Grading Exemption, for a 56-unit residential subdivision located at 916, 942, and 943 Stanley Avenue, and 2005 – 2175 Conway Drive (odd-numbered addresses only ) (“Project”). The request also includes the adoption of a Final Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

Staff Recommendation: Approval (Development Services Department: Andrew Firestine) Presenter: Adam Finestone, City Planner

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission considered the Project at its December 13, 2022, meeting, and the staff report has been included as Attachment “1.” Two members of the public submitted written correspondence to the Planning Commission ahead of or at that meeting (included in Attachment “2” to this report) and 14 members of the public spoke at the hearing : four (4) in favor, one (1) neutral, and nine (9) opposed.

Commenters were generally related to land use compatibility, density, parking, and traffic generated by the Project. After deliberation, the Planning Commission voted 4 – 1 (Commissioner Paul voting no) to recommend approval of the Project.

FISCAL ANALYSIS
The Project is a private development project that will require the payment of development impact fees in effect at the time permits are requested. In addition, as part of the overall decision -making process to move forward with a proposed development proje ct, it is important to evaluate the contributions and demands that development will place upon the City’s general fund and ability to provide ongoing public services. To avoid the need to subsidize new development, current City policy requires the developer of a private development project to establish a special funding mechanism to ensure that new development pays for itself.
31 Item6.

Community Facilities District (“CFD”) No. 2020 -1, Citywide Services, was formed by the City Council on May 13, 2020 as a means by which a developer can offset its impacts to the provision of ongoing public services. The special tax that would be assessed on projects that opt to annex into the CFD is based upon the Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) that was prepared to support the creation of CFD No. 2020-01. While other means of offsetting general fund impacts are available, the benefit of entering CFD No. 2020 -01 is that the annexation process is significantly streamlined, which saves staff time and costs to developers.

At the time of thi s writing, an applicant is required to fully offset potential impacts to the General Fund created by their project. This can be accomplished through either formation of a CFD, annexation into CFD No. 2020-01, or establishment of another lawful funding mech anism reasonably acceptable to the City (“Public Services Funding Agreement”). Should an applicant desire to utilize the streamlined process available through annexation into CFD No. 2020-01, they would be required to sign a Unanimous Consent to Annex, whi ch serves as their authorization to annex. The Applicant declined to sign a Unanimous Consent to Annex at this time because they intend to sell the entitled Project to another developer. This would allow that developer an opportunity to decide whether they want to join citywide CFD No. 2020-1 or explore different options for the funding of ongoing public services. A Letter of Intent to Offset and Fund Ongoing Public Services has been provided by the applicant to this effect and is included as Attachment 3 t o the Planning Commission staff report. Additionally, a condition of approval has been included as part of Exhibit “H” to draft City Council Resolution No. 2023-06 to reflect the requirement to establish a funding mechanism as described above prior to the recordation of the Final Map. (It should be noted, however, that the City Council has directed staff to look at the current policy and bring back recommendations that may modify this requirement.)
If the future developer opts to annex into CFD No. 2020 -01, the Project would fall into Category 1. The maximum established levy for Category 1 is $575.19 per unit for the tax year 2023/24, subject to annual adjustments which currently are based on the Consumer Price Index or 2%, whichever is greater. The City Council retains the discretionary authority to set the levy each year which could be set an amount less than the maximum levy. The costs for providing ongoing municipal services to the 56 -unit Project is estimated at $32,211. If annexation into CFD No. 2020 -01 is the way by which the developer opts to provide the ongoing funding source, the affordable housing units would be included in the annexation; however, State law provides an exemption from CFDs for affordable housing owners that meet specific criteria (referred to as the welfare exemption) Should the developer opt to pursue a funding mechanism other than CFD No. 2020 -01, such mechanism, including the assessment rate, would be subject to approval by City Council.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Escondido North, LLC (“Applicant”) submitted an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map, Grading Exemption, and Annexation for a 56 -unit residential subdivision (Planning Case Nos. PL21 -0269, PL21- 0278, and PL22-0584). The subdivision would consist of 46 single-family lots, two of which would contain existing homes, and one multi -family lot that would accommodate ten (10) units (in the form of five 32 Item6.

duplexes) which would be deed-restricted as affordable housing units. The project includes a request for a density bonus which enables an increase in the otherwise allowable residential density in exchange for the provision of affordable housing units. One (1) of the lots included with the Project is currently in the County of San Diego and would be required to annex into the City of Escondido, subject to approval by the Local Agency Formation Commission.

A complete project description can be found on December 13, 2022, Planning Commission staff report (Attachment “1”).

LOCATION
The project site is comprised of seven parcels generally located on the west side of Conway Drive on both sides of Stanley Avenue, and north of Lehner Avenue. The property contains 13 dwelling units addressed as 916, 942, and 943 Stanley Avenue, and 2005 – 2175 Conway Drive (odd-numbered addresses only).

PREVIOUS ACTION
On April 6, 2022, t he City Council authorized the intake and processing of the annexation request . That authorization does not commit the City Council to any future action on the Project.

ANALYSIS
The Project is located within the Suburban (south of Stanley Avenue) and Estate II (north of Stanley Avenue) land use designation s of the City’s General Plan and is zoned R -1-10 (single-family residential, 10,000 square foot minimum lot size) south of Stanley Avenue and RE -20 (estate residential, 2 0,000 square foot minimum lot size) north of Stanley Avenue. The parcel noted above subject to annexation is north of Stanley Avenue and was previously pre -zoned RE-20. The project proposes parcels which are smaller than those typically allowed in the subj ect zones and also includes duplex units which are not typically permitted in the subject zones. Because the project includes a density bonus request, the lot sizes and duplex units are permitted pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law and Article 67 of th e Escondido Zoning Code. A complete analysis of the Project can be found in Attachment “1.”

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) was prepared for the Project , which identified potentially significant impacts in the areas of Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Noise, Transportation/Traffic, and Tribal Cultural Resource. However, mitigation measures were incorporated which would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. The Draft IS/MND was released for a 20-day public review period on October 28, 2022. Nine (9) comment letters were received which identified concerns in the areas of Density Bonus Law; traffic and circulation; interface between properties; displacement of bugs, wildlife, and rodents; associated grading activities, impacts, and construction noise; lack of architecture details or materials; 33 Item6.

street parking; demolition of existing hom es; and land use allowances. Responses to those comments were prepared and have been incorporated into a Final IS/MND. The Final IS/MND has identified no new environmental impacts which have not been addressed through the aforementioned mitigation measures. The Final IS/MND has been included as Exhibit “E” to Resolution No. 2023-06.

CONCLUSION
The Project is a residential subdivision consisting of a total of 56 dwelling units on 46 lots. While the project site is zoned for single-family residential use at a lower density than proposed, the application includes a density bonus request to allow an increased density in exchange for the provision of affordable housing units, pursuant to the State Density Bonus law. As part of the request, the applicant has ident ified the need to construct multi-family dwelling units (duplexes) as an incentive to make the provision of 10 low- income units financially feasible and has also identified a number of waivers from development standards to accommodate the proposed subdivis ion. Because the Project must be reviewed and processed consistent with State Density Bonus Law , it is therefore consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site, as well as other applicable General Plan goals and policies. Additionally, the provision of 10 affordable housing units will assist the City in meeting the housing goals established by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation.

Both the Planning Commission and City staff recommend the City Council approve the Project, including the adoption of the final Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for it, and make an application to LAFCO for annexation/reorganization of a portion of the Project site.

RESOLUTIONS
a. Resolution No. 2023-06
b. Resolution No. 2023-06, Exhibits “A” through “H”

ATTACHMENTS
a. Attachment “1” – December 13, 2022, Planning Commission staff report b. Attachment “2” – December 13, 2022, Planning Commission written correspondence 34 Item6.

Agenda Item No.: G.1
Date: December 13, 2022
PROJECT NUMBER / NAME: PL21-0269 / Conway Residential Subdivision REQUEST: A Tentative Subdivision Map and Grading Exemption for a 56-unit residential project. The project includes 47 residential lots comprised of 46 single -family lots, two of which have existing homes, and one multi-family lot which would accommodate five duplex es. An Annexation is also proposed for a 2.01 acre portion of project site that is currently in the County of San Diego. The request includes a density bonus and would provide 10 affordable housing units.

LOCATION: 916, 942, and 94 3 Stanley Avenue , and
2005 – 2175 Conway Drive (odd numbered addresses
only)
APN / APNS: 224-141-23-00, 224-141-24-00; 224-141-
25-00, 224-142-30-00, 224-142-31-00, 224-142-32-00, &
224-142-33-00
GENERAL PLAN / ZONING: S (Suburban), E2 (Estate II) /
R-1-10 (Single Family Residential), RE-20 (Estate Residential) APPLICANT: Escondido North, LLC
PRIMARY REPRESENTATIVE:

Dylan Bird & John Kaye (Argus
Land Company, Inc.)
DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS REQUESTED: Tentative Subdivision Map , Grading Exemption and Annexation
PREVIOUS ACTIONS: The City Council authorized the intake and processing of the annexation request on April 6, 2022
PROJECT PLANNER: Adam Finestone, City Planner
CEQA RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
REQUESTED ACTION: Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-15 CITY COUNCIL HEARING REQUIRED: ☒ YES ☐ NO
REPORT APPROVALS: ☐Andrew Firestine, Director of Development Services
☐ Adam Finestone, City Planner
Attachment "1"
35 Item6.

PL21-0269
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 2022

2 A. BACKGROUND:

The project site totals 14.07 acres, including approximately 12.06 acres in the City of Escondido, and

2.01 acres in the County of San Diego that would have to be annexed into the City of Escondido. The property consists of seven parcels containing a total of 13 residential units, and is generally located west of Conway Drive on both sides of Stanley Avenue and north of Lehner Avenue, addressed as 916, 942, and 943 Stanley Avenue, and odd-numbered addresses between 2005 – 2175 on Conway Drive ( “Property”), and is more particularly described in Exhibit “A” to draft Planning Commission Resolution 2022-15, which is attached to this staff report as Attachment 4. The area consists of existing suburban and semi-rural residential neighborhoods, as well as vacant land. Rincon Middle School is located southwest of the site.

The portion of the project site to the north of Stanley Avenue is zoned RE-20 (estate residential, 20,000 square foot minimum lot size) and has a General Plan land use designation of Estate II. The portion of the project site to the south of Stanley Avenue is zoned R-1-10 (single-family residential, 10,000 square foot minimum lot size) and has a General Plan land use designation of Suburban. The 2.01 acre parcel currently within the County of San Diego is on the north side of Stanley Avenue, east of Weiss Way, and was previously assigned a pre-zoning designation of RE-20, consistent with its Estate II General Plan land use designation. A location map, General Plan land use map and zoning map are included as Attachment 1 to this staff report.

B. SUMMARY OF REQUEST:

Escondido North, LLC (“Applicant”) submitted an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map, Grading Exemption, and Annexation to subdivide the Property into 46 single-family residential lots and one multi-family lot (“Project”), as depicted on Exhibit “B” (“Plans”) to Attachment 4. The single-family lots would accommodate 44 new single -family residences, with two existing single-family residences to remain, each being accommodated on its own lot. Lot sizes would range from 6,515 square feet to 14,071 square feet, with the two existing residences situated on 31,689 square foot and 12,384 square foot lots. The two existing residences currently occupy one 2.01 acre lot which is currently within the County of San Dieg o and would be required to annexation into the City of Escondido , subject to approval by the Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”). The 10 multi-family units would be in the form of five duplexes on one 31,368 square foot lot, and would be mapped for condominium ownership. Two lettered lots would also be provided for open space and stormwater detention basins.

Underlying zoning and General Plan land use designations for the Property would typicall y accommodate 40 dwelling units. However, Article 67 of the Escondido Zoning Code, and State Density Bonus law, allow an increase in residential density for projects that restrict a percentage of those base units as affordable housing units. In the case of the Project, restricting 10 units for affordable housing to low-income households (those making less than 80% of the area median income) would allow an the Applicant to develop the Project as designed. The project is also entitled to up to three density bonus incentives/concessions, and can request other waivers to development standards that are necessary to accommodate the construction of the affordable units. In order to provide the required number of affordable housing units, the Applicant has proposed to construct five duplexes (10 units) which would be restricted for sale to low-income households. Additional information on the requested density bonus is provided in the Analysis section later in this staff report.

Attachment "1"
36 Item6.

PL21-0269
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 2022

3 The Property is on the west side of Conway Drive, running approximately 1,500 feet from Lehner Avenue to the south, to a point approximately 775 feet north of Stanley Avenue. The Property has approximately 500 feet of frontage on the north side of Stanley Avenue, and 380 feet on the south side. Frontage on Lehner Avenue is approximately 380 feet on the north side only. Conway Drive and Stanley Avenue are classified as Local Collector roadways in the Mobility and Infrastructure chapter of the Escondido General Plan, with Lehner Avenue being an unclassified residential street. All three roadways would be improved with curb, gutter and sidewalk along their frontages in conformance with the General Plan and City of Escondido design standards. Access onto the Property would be via new public roads on the north sides of Lehner and Stanley Avenues (Streets “F” and “H,” respectively) for the new single-family lots, and a new private drive toward the north end of the Property along Conway Drive for the multi-family lot. Internal circulation would include the aforementioned streets, as well as an additional public street (S treet “G”), all of which would terminate in cul -de-sacs. The two existing homes would continue to take access from Stanley Avenue.

Existing topography of the Property generally slopes downward to the northeast and southeast from a high point at the western Property boundary on Stanley Avenue. A natural draining course runs westerly along the northern boundary of the Property. Grading for the Project wou ld include a combination of cut and fill slopes, and would require approximately 41,000 cubic yards of import ed dirt. A Grading Exemption has been requested for a fill slopes up to approximately 17.5 feet in height (including a six foot retaining wall) along backyard of Lot 10, and for a cut-slope (approximately 20 feet high) with a grade exceeding 2:1 at the southwest corner of Lot 24, as shown on the Plans. Stormwater detention basins would be provided in the northwestern and southeastern corners of the Property and have been designed in accordance with City and regional standards.

As noted, the unincorporated 2.01 acre parcel would need to be annexed into the City of Escondido.

Approval of the Project by the City of Escondido would authorize the applicant to make application to LAFCO for the annexation of this portion of the Property on behalf of the City. LAFCO is responsible for ensuring the logical expansion of jurisdictional boundaries, including ensuring that territory involved in annexation is physically contiguous to city boundaries and that the annexation configuration assures the efficient provision of municipal services.

C. SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILS OF REQUEST:

1. Property Size: Gross: 14.07 acres
Net: 12.63 acres

2. Number of Lots:

Existing
7 Proposed
47 3. Number of Units: 15 Single-family (new): 44
Single-family (existing): 2
Multi-family (new): 10
Total 56

Attachment "1"
37 Item6.

PL21-0269
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 2022

4 4. Density: 4.43 units/acre (net)

Required Proposed*

5. Lot Size: R-1-10: 10,000 sq. ft. (min)
RE-20: 20,000 sq. ft. (min)
Single-family: 6,516 – 31,689 sq. ft.

Multi-family: 31,368 sq. ft.

6. Lot Coverage (max): R-1-10: 40%
RE-20: 30%
50%

7. Setbacks – R-1-10
Zone (min):

Front: 15’ to building
20’ to garage
Side: 5’ / 10’
Rear: 20’
Front: 10.5’ to building
15’ to garage
Side: 5’
Rear: 20’

8. Setbacks – R-1-10
Zone (min):

Front: 25’
Side: 10’
Rear: 20’
Front: 10.5’ to building
15’ to garage
Side: 5’
Rear: 20’

9. Floor Area Ratio: 0.5 0.6

10. Height (max): 35’ 35’

11. Lot Width (min): R-1-10: 80’
RE-20: 100’
60’

12. Parking: 2 covered spaces/unit 2 covered spaces/unit * Deviations proposed as part of density bonus request

D. PROJECT ANALYSIS:

1. General Plan Conformance:

a) Land Use and Community Form:

The City’s General Plan land -use designation for the project site is Suburban (S) south of Stanley Avenue and Estate II (E2) north of Stanley Avenue, allowing single-family residential development of up to 3.3 and 2.0 dwelling units per acre, respectively and is permitted within the Suburban land-use designation and up to 2.0 dwelling units per acre permitted within the Residential Estates (E2). Based on the size of the Property (14.07 acres), the underlying land- use designation would allow up to 40 units. The request to subdivide the Property site into 47 lots to accommodate 56 units with a resulting net density (excluding dedicated rights-of-way) of 4.43 dwelling units per acre is consistent with the similar land use density in the vicinity.

State Density Bonus law is codified in G overnment Code section 65915 – 65918 and specifically states, “granting of a density bonus shall not require, or be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment…zoning change, or other discretionary approval.” As such, regardless of density, the Project is consistent with provisions of the General Plan as long as it complies with density bonus law and Article 67 of the Escondido Zoning Code.

Attachment "1"
38 Item6.

PL21-0269
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 2022

5 b) Housing:

The City is taking steps to encourage, promote, and facilitate the development o f housing consistent with policies 1.1 and 2.1 of the Housing Element of the General Plan, while accommodating the City’s share of regional housing needs, consistent with Government Code section 65584. No Net Loss Law (Government Code section 65863) ensur es development opportunities remain available throughout the planning period to accommodate a jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”), especially for lower - and moderate -income households. In general, jurisdictions cannot approve new hou sing at significantly lower densities or at different income categories than was projected in the Housing Element without making specific findings and identifying other sites that could accommodate these units and affordability levels “lost” as a result of the approval. The “no net loss” provisions apply when a site is included in the jurisdiction’s Housing Element’s inventory of sites and is either rezoned to a lower residential density or is approved at a lower residential density than shown in the Housing Element. (Gov’t Code § 65863(b).)

Three of the seven parcels that make up the Project site are identified in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element inventory of sites suitable for residential development , and contain nine dwelling units. The remaining four parcels have a total of six dwelling units, though those parcels are not identified in the inventory. All parcels in the Project site would be assumed to accommodate housing for above -moderate income households based on the type of development that typically occurs on properties with Estate II and Suburban General Plan land use designations. Because the provision of “no net loss” applies to housing located on any site listed in the City’s Housing Element, the City is required to determine if this Project or a decision related to this Project would be subject to No Net Loss provisions and its remedies .

Geographically, at least 31 of the new units, including the 10 affordable units, will be on the three suitable sites inventory parcels. Therefore, the Pro ject would result in no net loss pursuant to the Government Code.

Therefore, the provisions of the Government Code related to no net loss are not applicable because the City would still have adequate capacity to provide housing in the amount and at the income levels identified in the Housing Element. In fact, the Project would provide housing at a significantly higher rate than that specified in the Element. Findings required by the Government Code have been included in Exhibit “D” to Attachment 4.

2. Zoning Conformance:

As noted, the project consists of the construction of single- and multi-family residential units, street improvements, stormwater basin s, and common open space areas. While no zone change is proposed, lot sizes will be smaller than those otherwise required in the subject property’s R-1-10 and RE-20 zones, pursuant to State Density Bonus law. Modifications to other development standards and zoning code requirements necessary to make the provision of affordable housing units feasible have been requested, as described below. Pursuant to Government Code section 65915(e)(1), a city may not “apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically Attachment "1"
39 Item6.

PL21-0269
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 2022

6 precluding the construction of a development …at the densities or with the con cessions or incentives permitted” by Density Bonus law.

3. Density Bonus and Residential Incentives

Article 67 of the Escondido Zoning Code is intended to encourage and incentivize the production of housing affordable to all segments of the population , consistent with State Density Bonus law.

At a high level, a density bonus project is permitted to build more units than would otherwise be permitted on a particular property in exchange for restricting a percentage of those units for moderate, low, or very-low income households. The increase in density is based on the percentage of units restricted and the income level at which they are restricted for. A density bonus project is also entitled to up to three incentives or concessions, which are defined in Government Code section 65915(k), in part, to include “[a] reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements… that results in identifiable and actual cost reductions…” A density bonus project is allowed a maximum increase in density of 50% and a maximum of three incentives or concessions. Additionally, density bonus projects are entitled to waivers from development standards which would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a density bonus project. For reference, Article 67 of the Escondido Zoning Code can be found at the following link:
https://library.qcode.us/lib/escondido_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/chapter_33- article_67?view=all.

The Applicant has submitted a Density Bonus Project Proposal (“Proposal”) which outlines their request. It has been updated several times, most-recently on December 1, 2022, to address issues that have been identified through the entitlement process, and is included as Attachment 2 to this staff report. The Proposal includes a density bonus calculation which identifies the density that could be achieved on each parcel based on the General Plan land use designation, and how many density bonus units could be achieved on each lot as we ll as the number of affordable housing units that would be required. The numbers are then added up to determine the maximum yield derived from the Property, the number of affordable housing units that would be provided, and the number of bonus units. As shown in the Proposal, the Property could accommodate 40 dwelling units, and by reserving 10 of them (25%) as affordable units for low -income households (those making less than 80% of the area median income, adjusted for household size), the project could ultimately yield up to 18 bonus units. While this would allow the Applicant to provide up to 58 units, the Project only proposes 56 units, two of which are existing units.

It should be noted that the density bonus calculation provided by the Applicant was done in a different manner than has been the case on other density bonus projects in the City . While the Applicant determined the density bonus calculation separately for each parcel and then added up the total number of units, staff would typically add up the size of the parcels first, then determine the number of units which be attained. Certain provisions of Article 67 of the Escondido Zoning Code could lend credence to the Applicant’s methodology, including the requirement for any density calculations to be rounded up (Section 33 -1412(b)), and the requirement that the A rticle be interpreted liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of total housing units (Section 33-1423(b)), both of which are consistent with State Density Bonus law.

Attachment "1"
40 Item6.

PL21-0269
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 2022

7 The applicant has also requested one incentive or concession for the Project (although they are entitled to up to three). Specifically, they have requested the ability to construct duplex units in the RE zone instead of detached single-family residences. In addition, they have identified a series of waivers of development standards that would otherwise preclude the construction of the density bonus project as designed. These waivers include setback reductions, lot size reductions, increases in lot coverage and floor-area ratio, lot width reductions, modifications to street standards and alternative Fire Department turn-around, grading exemptions, and modifications to storm drain standards. Staff has reviewed the requested waivers and determined that they woul d not create an adverse impact upon the health, safety or the physical environment.

Density Bonus law requires that any rental unit occupied by a lower income household which is demolished in order to accommodate the new project be replaced and deed -restricted as part of the new project. In other words, any density bonus project must provide at least the same number of affordable housing units, at the same level of affordability, as currently exists. If the income category of the household in occupancy is not known, it shall be rebuttably presumed that lower income renter households occupied these units in the same proportion of lower income renter households to all renter households within the jurisdiction, as determined by the most recently available data from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy database.

The Property consists of 15 existing dwelling units. Two of those are to -remain, one is owner - occupied, and the remaining 12 are rental units. In Escondido, 78.2 percent of renter households are occupied by lower income renters. As such, 10 of the 12 rental units to be demolished can be assumed to be occupied by lower income renters. Because the Project would provide 10 affordable housing units, it meets the requirements of the relevant Density Bonus law provisions.

4. Annexation:

As noted previously, the Project includes seven existing parcels, one of which is currently in the County of San Diego. T hat lot is approximately 2.01 acres and contains two single -family residences. The homes on the lot are to remain, however the Project will create new property lines such that each home will be on its own lot. Combined, the two new lots will comprise 1.01 acres, with the remaining 1 acre being wrapped into the new subdivision and accessing from the proposed internal roads. Both existing homes would continue to be accessed directly from Stanley Avenue, and would be tied into the existing City sewer in that street as well.

As part of the annexation process, the Applicant surveyed other property owners in the nearby unincorporated County of San Diego to determine if they had any interest in annexing into the City along with the parcel that would be annexed as part of the project. Responses were received from three neighbors, with zero stating that they would be interested in joining the annexation request.

Should the Project be approved by the City Council, annexation would be subject to approval by LAFCO prior to Final Map recordation. The City Council’s approval would authorize the Applicant to submit an application for annexation to LAFCO on the City’s behalf.

Attachment "1"
41 Item6.

PL21-0269
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 2022

8 5. Site Design:

a) Subdivision Design, Access and Parking:

The Applicant proposes to subdivide the Property into 46 single-family residential lots ranging in size from 6,515 – 31,689 square feet (including the two lots that would each accommodate one existing single-family residence), and one 31,368 square foot multi-family residential lot to accommodate five duplexes. Twenty-one of the new residential lots would take access via a new public street on the north side of Lehner Avenue and 23 would take access from a new public street on the north side of Stanley Avenue , in a typical suburb an setting. Within the portion of the subdivision north of Stanley Avenue, a short private driveway would “T” off of the primary road, and all on-site roads would terminate in cul-de-sacs. The two existing homes to remain would continue to take access from Stanley Avenue, and the five duplexes would be accessed via a private drive toward the north end of the Property from Conway Drive. A 12 foot wide private driveway would be provided at the northern Property boundary to provide access to a detention basin.

The Project would be required to dedicate eight feet of land on the north side of Lehner Avenue as public right -of-way. Required public right -of-way along all other Project frontages already exists, and all streets would be improved to their ultimate half-street width with curb, gutter and sidewalk on the Project-side of the streets, consistent with City standards.

Even though Density Bonus law would allow for a reduction in the number of required on -site parking spaces, the Project would provide two covered parking spaces for each unit in accordance with Article 39 (Off -Street Parking) of t he Escondido Zoning Code. Additional parking would be available in the driveways for most of the single-family residences. On-street parking within the Project site would be allowed (both sides of streets “F” and “H,” and on one side of street “G”) except along cul-de-sacs, where parking would be prohibited in order to provide necessary turning radii for fire trucks. Parking would also be prohibited along the private drive providing access to the duplexes, which would terminate in a hammerhead to allow fire truck turn-around. A condition of approval would be applied to the project requiring driveways on the internal streets to be located in a manner to allow the greatest number of on- street parking spaces possible. Parking would also be permitted be on the e xternal public streets (Conway Drive, and Stanley and Lehner Avenues).

b) Grading:

The existing high-point of the Property is at the western Project boundary on Stanley Avenue, with the Property generally sloping down to the northeast and southeast from that point.

Grading would consist of a combination of cut and fill slopes to provide relatively flat pads for the new lots. The largest cut slope would be approximately 20 feet in height in the southwest corner of Lot 24, and the largest fill slope would be approximately 17.5 feet in height (including a six foot retaining wall) in the northwest corner of Lot 10.

Attachment "1"
42 Item6.

PL21-0269
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 2022

9 Pursuant to Article 55 of the Escondido Zoning Code, grading exemptions are required for any fill slope within 50 feet of a property line that exceeds 10 feet in height and must include the height of any retaining wall in the calc ulation. The aforementioned fill slope in the northwest corner of Lot 10 meets these parameters , as does a fill slope (including retaining wall) in the northeast corner of the project site, adjacent to the access driveway to the detention basin .

Grading exemptions are also required for any slopes greater than 2:1 which are determined by the D irector to impact adjacent properties. The aforementioned fill slope at the southwest corner of Lot 24 may have such an impact so it is being included in the request as well.

The decision-making body is required to consider several factors when reviewing a requested grading exemptions, as follows: 1) the criteria contained within section 33-1066; 2) the stability of the slope; 3) the impact of the slope on surrounding properties; 4) the reason for the slope; and 5) whether reasonable alternatives to the proposed design are available. The cited Escondido Zoning Code section (33 -1066) can be found here:
https://library.qcode.us/lib/escondido_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/chapter_33-article_55- sec_33_1066.

In this instance, because the City cannot require compliance with zoning or other development standards which would physically preclude the construction of the proposed density bonus project, the Applicant is entitled to the requested grading exemptions unless an adverse impact upon the health, safety or the physical environment would occur. Therefore, the only item of those listed above that must be considered is the stability of the slopes; all others would be waived as a result of the density bonus request.

6. Phasing of Development:

The Applicant has indicated to staff that t hey do not intend to construct the project themselves.

Rather, they would sell the project for construction by a different entity. This is common for development projects due to areas of expertise, with some developers focusing on processing entitlements of land and others with more experience in actual construction.

As discussed in Attachment 2, the Applicant has stated that the affordable housing units would be developed by Habitat for Humanity, a non -profit organization with expertise in construction a nd management of affordable housing projects. Upon completion of construction, Habitat for Humanity would be responsible for identifying and qualifying prospective buyers of the affordable housing units. Deed restrictions would be placed on these units to ensure that future sales of the units are limited to low -income households for a period of 55 years. The restrictions would be included in an affordable housing agreement that would be recorded concurrently with the final map for the project.

Because the Project has requested an increase in allowable density pursuant to State Density Bonus Law and Article 67 of the Escondido Zoning Code, it is important to ensure that the affordable housing units be constructed in a timely manner. As a residential subdivision where the affordable units are anticipated to be constructed by a different developer than the market -rate units, assurances must be put in place to ensure that the City receives the benefits derived from Attachment "1"
43 Item6.

PL21-0269
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 2022

10 the provision of affordable housing prior to construction of the market-rate units in a quantity which exceeds that which would otherwise be permitted on the Property. Development of the Property could yield up to 40 units absent the density bonus. Because two existing units would remain, 3 8 new units could be constructed. As such, conditions would be placed on approval of the Project that would require the issuance of certificates of occupancy for the affordable housing units prior to issuance of the building permit for the 39th market rate unit.

E. FISCAL ANALYSIS

The proposed Project is a private development project that will require the payment of fees in effect at the time permits are requested. As part of the overall decision -making process to move forward with a proposed development project, it is important to evaluate the contributions and demands that development will place upon a public agency’s general fund and the city or county’s ability to provide ongoing public services. To avoid the need for a city or county to subsidize new development, cities and counties can establish or require special funding mechanisms to ensure that new development pays for itself.

Community Facilities District (“CFD”) No. 2020-1, Citywide Services, was formed by the City Council on May 13, 2020. The special tax that will be assessed on properties as a result of the development of new residential units is based upon the F iscal Impact Analysis (FIA) that was prepared to support the creation of CFD No. 2020 -01. Developers to whom these residential project entitlements are assigned are responsible to establish a funding mechanism to provide a source of funds for the on - going municipal services required for the project. The benefit of entering CFD No. 2020-01 is that the annexation process is significantly streamlined, which saves staff time and costs to developers.

At the time of this writing, an applicant is required to fully offset potential impacts to the General Fund created by their project. This can be accomplished through either formation of a CFD, annexation into CFD No. 2020-01, or establishment of another lawful funding mechanism reasonably acceptable to the City (“Public Services Funding Agreement”). Should an applicant desire to utilize the streamlined process available through annexation into CFD No. 2020-01, they would be required to sign a Letter of Intent (“LOI”) to do so, which serves as their authorization to annex. The Applicant declined to sign an LOI because they intend to sell the entitled Project to another developer. This would allow th at developer an opportunity to decide whether they want to join citywide CFD No. 2020 -1 or explore different options for the funding of on-going public services. A Letter of Intent to Offset and Fund Ongoing Public Services has been provided by the applicant to this effect and is included with this staff report as Attachment 3. Additionally, a condition of approval has been included as part of Exhibit “E” to draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-15 to reflect the requirement to establish a funding mechanism as described above prior to recordation of the Final Map. (It should be noted, however, that the City Council has directed staff to look at the current policy and bring back recommendations that may modify this requirement.)
If the future developer opts to annex into CFD No. 2020-01, the Project would fall into Category 1. The current rate for Category 1 is $575.19 per unit through the end of this fiscal year (June 30, 2023), subject to annual adjustments which currently are based on the Consumer Price Index or 2%, whichever is greater. The total annual cost for the 56-unit Project would be approximately $32,211. If annexation into CFD No. 2020 -01 is the way by which the developer opts to provide the ongoing Attachment "1"
44 Item6.

PL21-0269
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 2022

11 funding source, the affordable housing units would be included in the annexation, however they would be eligible for a welfare exemption from the Franchise Tax Board. Should the developer opt to pursue a funding mechanism other than CFD No. 2020-01, such mechanism, including the assessment rate, would be subject to approval by City Council.

F. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies to proposed projects initiated by, funded by, or requiring discretionary approvals from state or local government agencies. CEQA Guidelines Section 15367 states that a lead agency, in this case, the City of Escondido, is the agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project and is responsible for compliance with CEQA. As lead agency, the City must complete an environmental review to determine if implementation of the Project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts. In compliance with CEQA, an Initial Study (“IS”) has been prepared to assist in making that determination. Based on the nature and scope of the Project and the evaluation contained in the I S environmental checklist, the City has concluded that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the appropriate level of analysis for the Project.

As provided in CEQA Statute Section 21064.5, and stated in CEQA Guidelines section 15070, a n MND can be prepared when “(a) the initial study shows that there is not substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or (b) the initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; and (2) there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.” The MND prepared for the Project identified potentially significant impacts in the areas of Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Noise, Transportation/Traffic, and Tribal Cultural Resource. However, through incorporation of mitigation measures, the impacts can be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

A Draft IS/MND was released for a 20-day public review period on October 28, 2022. Nine comment letters were received which identified concerns in the areas of Density Bonus L aw; traffic and circulation; interface between properties; displacement of bugs, wildlife, and rodents; associated grading activities, impacts, and construction noise; lack of residential architecture details or materials; street parking; demolition of existing homes; and land use applications. Responses to those comments were prepared and have been incorporated into a Final IS/MND. The Final IS/MND has identified no new environmental impacts which hav e not been addressed through the aforementioned mitigation measures. The Final IS/MND has been included as Exhibit “F” to Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-15.

Attachment "1"
45 Item6.

PL21-0269
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 2022

12 G. PUBLIC INPUT:

In addition to public notification provided when the Draft IS/MND was released for public review, notification of this public hearing was provided consistent with the requirements of both the Escondido Zoning Code and the State Law. Additionally, because the Project includes a request for annexation, surveys were provided to property owners in the surrounding unincorporated County of San Diego as described in the Annexation section above. Beyond those comments provided on the Draft IS/MND and “no” responses to the annexation survey staff has not received any correspondence from the public regarding the Project as of the publication of this report.

H. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

The Project proposes a residential subdivision that is compatible with the surrounding uses and makes efficient use of the Property. Additionally, the Project would include much-needed affordable housing and provide opportunities for home -ownership in a suburban setti ng where such housing is not typically available. The project is consistent with the provisions of Article 67 of the Escondido Zoning Code and State Density Bonus law.

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 2022 -15, recommending City Council approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map, Grading Exemptions, and Annexation, based on the findings of fact and conditions of approval included as Exhibits “D” and “E,” respectively, to said Resolution, and adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project included as Exhibit “F” to said Resolution.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Location Map, General Plan Map, and Zoning Map

2. Density Bonus Project Proposal

3. Letter of Intent to Offset and Fund Public Services

4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-15 with Exhibits “A” through F”

Attachment "1"
46 Item6.

PL21-0269
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 2022

13 Attachment 1
Location Map, General Plan, and Zoning Map

Attachment "1"
47 Item6.

PL21-0269
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 2022

14 Attachment "1"
48 Item6.

PL21-0269
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 2022

15 Attachment "1"
49 Item6.

Escondido North LLC
Density Bonus Project Proposal
Revised 12/1/22
Escondido North LLC is proposing the development of a density bonus project consisting of 54 new residential units, as well as 2 existing residential units that will remain. Forty-four of the new housing units are to be market-rate single-family homes and ten are to be aﬀordable duplex units which will be restricted to “low-income” households. The site is currently comprised of seven parcels with APNs as shown in the table below, and lies northwest of the intersection of Conway Drive and Lehner Avenue, extending north of Stanley Avenue. The site is surrounded by new homes as well as older housing stock.

Pursuant to Escondido Municipal Code Sections 33-1412 and 33-1413, the applicant for a density bonus project shall submit a written proposal for the project including the information provided below. This document is intended to satisfy the requirements therein.

Housing costs and market pricing depend on market conditions, including mortgage rates. As such, pricing for the market-rate units would be determined at the time they come to market.

By law, pricing for restricted units is based on the area median income and depends on the size of the household. For “low-income” units, housing costs cannot exceed 30% of 70% of the area median income for a family of a given size. The restricted pricing would be set accordingly, depending on those factors at the time they are available on the market.

Habitat for Humanity has expertise in the construction of aﬀordable housing, as well as the identiﬁcation and qualiﬁcation of, and sale to, buyers of aﬀordable housing. They would manage and control the construction and sale of the aﬀordable units, and would be responsible for identifying and qualifying the buyers.

Density Bonus Calculations
The project parcels have two diﬀerent General Plan designations as reﬂected in the table below. In addition to the information required (in bold), we have included additional information for clarity. Please note that given the number of aﬀordable units, 18 Bonus DUs and 58 total DUs are allowed, but the project proposes only 16 Bonus and 56 total DUs.

Page of 1 6
Proposed Low Low-Income DUs Density Bonus Allowed Density Allowed Allowed APN Acres GP DUs/Ac GP DUs Income Units As Percent of GP Permi9ed Bonus DUs Total DUs DUs/Acre 224-142-33 1.40 3.3 5 1 20% 35% 2 7 5.0
224-142-32 1.57 3.3 6 1 17% 29% 2 8 5.1
224-142-31 0.94 3.3 4 1 25% 50% 2 6 6.4
224-142-30 1.36 3.3 5 1 20% 35% 2 7 5.1
224-141-25 2.09 2.0 5 2 40% 50% 3 8 3.8
224-141-23 4.70 2.0 10 3 30% 50% 5 15 3.2
224-141-24 2.01 2.0 5 1 20% 35% 2 7 3.5
Totals: 14.1 40 10 18 58 4.1
ATTACHMENT 2
Attachment "1"
50 Item6.

There are currently 13 dwelling units on the property and there have been no other units on the property in the last ﬁve years. One dwelling unit is an owner-occupied 1,975 square-foot single-family home built in 1946. The other 12 dwelling units are multi-family rental units. Size of household and incomes of those units are not known. They were built between 1943 and 1995 and range between 725 and 2,688 square feet.

Title does not show any recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that has restricted rents on these parcels in the last ﬁve years.

This revision to the Density Bonus Project Proposal originally submitted by Escondido North LLC on June 1, 2021 and previously updated 9/2/21, 3/18/22, and 10/27/22 is a result of conversations with city staﬀ and consultation with land use attorneys and the city attorney's oﬃce. Below are the updated proposed incentives and waivers based on those conversations.

These incentives and waivers will help to provide much-needed housing, and in particular, aﬀordable housing, to the city of Escondido.

Concession/Incentives
The proposed project provides 10 low income units of the General Plan-designated 40 units, or 25% low income units. Pursuant to Government Code section 65915(d)(2), a project that provides at least 24% of the units for lower income shall receive three concessions/incentives.

However, at this time we propose only one concession/incentive which is for the construction of duplex product in the R-E zone. Cost savings include less dirt import, less paving, a smaller detention basin, as well as saving on architectural costs due to the use of existing plans, and construction savings due to the use of less windows and stucco.

Waivers
Pursuant to Government Code section 65915(e)(1), development standards may not be imposed that would preclude the construction of a project that is allowed under the density bonus law. The table below lists changes or waivers to development standards that, if not granted, would physically preclude the construction of the project as designed. All identiﬁed development standards below fall squarely under the deﬁnition of “development standards” in Government Code section 65915(o)(1) which includes “a site or construction condition... that applies to a residential development pursuant to any... [city] policy….” Waiver Dev. Standard Proposed JusNﬁcaNon
Front Yard
Setback
R-E zone: 25’
R-1 zone: 15’ with a
garage facing the
street required to be
setback 20’

10.5’ (with street-
facing garage to be
setback 15’)
The exisVng standards would
preclude construcVon of the project
as designed. The project makes
eﬃcient use of the site which results
in limited physical area to meet the
standard without making backyards
unfeasibly small. Therefore, the
exisVng setback development
standard would need to be reduced
in order for the project to be
constructed as designed.

Page of 2 6
Attachment "1"
51 Item6.

Interior Side
Yard Setback
R-E zone: 10’
R-1 zone: 5’ on one
side (and 10’ on the
other, unless abu^ng
an alley)
5’ on both sides The exisVng standards would
preclude construcVon of the project
as designed. The project makes
eﬃcient use of the site which results
in limited physical area to meet the
standard. The exisVng development
standard would need to be reduced
in order for the project to be
constructed as designed.

Accessory
Building
Setback
Requirements
Front, side, and rear
setback requirements
as stated in EMC Sec.
33-102
Any reference in EMC
Sec. 33-102 to
“underlying” zoning
shall be interpreted as
the main building’s
actual setback which
may have been
reduced given the
setback waivers herein,
or less if state law
allows.

As the primary dwelling unit may
have reduced setbacks, the ADU’s
setback would need to be reduced
as well. The exisVng development
standard would need to be reduced
in order for the project to be
constructed as designed.

Min. Lot Area R-E zone: 20,000 SF
R-1 zone: 10,000 SF
6,515 SF The exisVng standards would
preclude construcVon of the project
as designed. The project makes
eﬃcient use of the site which results
in limited physical area to meet the
standard. It would need to be
reduced in order for the project to
be constructed as designed.

Avg. Lot
Width
R-E zone: 100’
R-1 zone: 80’
60’ The exisVng standards would
preclude construcVon of the project
as designed. The project makes
eﬃcient use of the site which results
in limited physical area to meet the
standard. It would need to be
reduced in order for the project to
be constructed as designed.

Lot Width @
Street
R-E zone: 20’
R-1 zone: 35’
R-1 zone: 25’ The exisVng standards would
preclude construcVon of the project
as designed. The project makes
eﬃcient use of the site which results
in limited physical area to meet the
R-1 standard. It would need to be
reduced in order for the project to
be constructed as designed.

Page of 3 6
Attachment "1"
52 Item6.

Max Lot
Coverage for
Primary &
Accessory
Structures
R-E zone: 30%
R-1 zone: 40%
50% The exisVng standards would
preclude construcVon of the project
as designed. The project makes
eﬃcient use of the site which results
in limited physical area to meet the
standard when potenVal ADUs are
considered. The standards would
need to be increased to a
percentage more appropriate for
lots of the proposed size.

Max FAR 0.5 0.6 The exisVng standard would
preclude construcVon of the project
as designed. The project makes
eﬃcient use of the site which results
in limited physical area to meet the
standard when potenVal ADUs are
considered. The standard would
need to be increased to a raVo more
appropriate for lots of the proposed
size.

Suburban
ResidenVal
Road (for “G”
Street)
48’ ROW with 28’
paved
Guier on both sides
6 parking spaces on
each lot, min.

Sidewalk on 1 side
upon approval
Parking plan showing

1.5 on-street spaces
per unit
34’ ROW with 28’
paved
No guier on south side
4 parking spaces on
each lot, min.

Sidewalk on 1 side
(hereby w/approval)
No parking plan
required
The exisVng standard would
preclude construcVon of the project
as designed. The project makes
eﬃcient use of the site which results
in limited physical area to meet the
standard. It would need to be
reduced in order for the project to
be constructed as designed. Guier
is not needed on the south side as
the project design does not drain
water along that edge.

Page of 4 6
Attachment "1"
53 Item6.

Grading Along
Weiss Way
Possible required
setback for
accommodaVon of
possible future
widening of Weiss
Way to the east.

Reduced setback if
Grading ExempVon is
not possible (as
discussed with staﬀ)
since Weiss Way can
not be widened to the
east.

As discussed with City staﬀ and as
demonstrated on the exhibit
provided in the Jan. 24 leier and
provided again concurrent with this
updated Density Bonus Project
Proposal (all as part of the 4th
submiial), Weiss Way cannot be
widened to the east due to the
exisVng house that abuts it at 916
Stanley Ave. As discussed with City
staﬀ, if the designed grading along
Weiss Way cannot be approved
under a Grading ExempVon, the
exisVng standard would preclude
construcVon of the project as
designed. The project makes
eﬃcient use of the site which results
in limited physical area to meet the
standard. It would need to be
reduced in order for the project to
be constructed as designed.

Lot 13 Access
per Fire-5
Comment
Cul-de-sac instead of
hammerhead
Hammerhead Fire has indicated this should be
changed from a hammerhead to a
cul-de-sac, but the standard
(deﬁned here as a cul-de-sac) would
preclude construcVon of the project
as designed. The project makes
eﬃcient use of the site which results
in limited physical area to meet the
standard. It would need to be
waived in order for the project to be
constructed as designed.

Precedence for such is another
Habitat for Humanity duplex
project, TR 20-002, GP21-0003. As
in that case, and per Fire’s
requirement, no parking will be
provided on the hammerhead road.

Page of 5 6
Attachment "1"
54 Item6.

We look forward to providing additional housing, including aﬀordable housing, to the city of Escondido.

Conway
Storm Drain
LocaVon
Not to be located
under sidewalk or
parkway
Small porVon to be
located under ROW
Pursuant to Jan. 5 conference call
with Engineering & Planning, site
constraints dictate that to get the
number of lots as designed, a small
porVon of the storm drain must lie
under the parkway. To minimize the
amount under the ROW, the project
has been redesigned to bring the
storm drain between lots 14 & 15,
as close as possible to the historical
poing of entry. The Conway Dr. low
point does not coincide with the
historical entry point so some length
is needed to connect the two, and
crossing the SDCWA pipeline 2 is to
be avoided.

Conway
Storm Drain
Easement
20’ wide 10’ wide, with no
drivable surface, no
access to interior
Street “H”
The exisVng standard would
preclude construcVon of the project
as designed. The project makes
eﬃcient use of the site which results
in limited physical area to meet the
standard. Therefore, the standard
would need to be reduced in order
for the project to be constructed as
designed.

Page of 6 6
Attachment "1"
55 Item6.

ATTACHMENT 3
Attachment "1"
56 Item6.

Agenda Item No.: G.1
Date: December 13, 2022

TO: Planning Commissioners

FROM: Planning Staff

SUBJECT: Conway Residential Subdivision - Modified Condition of Approval and Supplemental Project Information

I. Revised Condition of Approval

A prior memorandum sent to the Planning Commissioners by staff on December 12, 2022, identified a revision to a proposed condition of approval for the subject project. An additional revision to that condition (Housing and Neighborhood Services Condition No. 1 found on page 13 of Exhibit “”E” to Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022 -15) has been identified and is provided below. (T he underlined text below reflects additional language based on the original condition of approval.)

The Project shall provide a minimum of 10 affordable dwelling units for low income households (those earning less than 80% of the Area Median Income for the San Diego- Carlsbad-San Marcos MSA). Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall sign a binding affordable housing agreement with the City, which will set forth the conditions and guidelines to be met in the implementation of Density Bonus Law requirements and any other applicable requirements, and notes shall be added to the Final Map to this effect. It is anticipated that the affordable dwelling units will be for -sale units, however if they are rented, the affordable housing agreement shall require that the developer will be responsible for annual recertification of household income qualifications and compliance with rent limits. If the affordable dwelling units are rented, the agreement will also establish specific compliance standards and remedies available to the City upon failure by the developer to restrict units to target households for the prescribed time period (55 years for all target units as described in Government Code section 65915(c)). Income- qualified households will be monitored by the City of Escondido Housing and Neighborhood Services Division for the duration of the af fordability period. Monitoring fees will be applied per the affordable housing agreement.

If the affordable dwelling units are for -sale units, the affordable housing agreement shall ensure that the units are either:
a) Initially occupied by persons or f amilies of low income (as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code), are offered at an affordable housing cost (as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code), and are subject to an equity sharing agreement in compliance with Government Code Section 65915(c)(2); or
Attachment "2"
57 Item6.

Agenda Item G.1
December 13, 2022

Page 2 ends

b) Purchased by a qualified nonprofit housing corporation pursuant to a recorded contract that satisfies all of the requirements specified in Government Code Section 65915(c)(2).

II. Supplemental Project Information

Supplemental information has been provided by the project applicant related to the cost savings that are anticipated through construction of duplex units rather than detached single -family homes. Said information is presented below.

Escondido North LLC
Conway TSM - City of Escondido
Incentive Cost Savings to Build 10 Duplexes Instead of SFRs

Reduced Dirt Import $ 14,000 1,000 cu. yds. @ $14/cu. yd.

Reduced Paving $ 10,500 30’ shorter length for affordable drive & basin access road

Reduced Detention Basin Size $ 5,000 Less impervious area Use of Existing Architecture $ 75,000 Re-use existing duplex plans Elimination of 10 Exterior
Walls
$ 25,000 Eliminate stucco and windows
Total: $129,500

As demonstrated above, the ability to build duplexes instead of single-family residences results in cost savings of $129,500.

Attachment "2"
58 Item6.

Kelsey E. Quist
Direct Dial: (714) 338-1864
E-mail: [email protected]

December 13, 2022

VIA E-MAIL
Honorable Chair and Commissioners
City of Escondido Planning Commission
210 N. Broadway
Escondido, CA 92025

Re: December 13, 2022 Planning Commission Agenda Item No. G.1 Conway Residential Subdivision (PL21-0269)
Dear Honorable Chair and Commissioners:

This office represents the residents of the single family home located at 2166 Weiss Way, which is directly adjacent to where the northern portion of the above-referenced proposed Conway Residential Subdivision ( “Project”) would be developed. My clients are not the stereotypical “NIMBY” neighbors looking to stop any new development, but instead have always understood that a residential project will eventually built on the Project site. However, my clients are opposed to physically and procedurally “jamming” a project through the City ’s entitlement process – without complying with applicable law – that by the applicant’s own admission, has not been fully formed, and must insist on a full and complete analysis of all the Pr oject’s potential impacts pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

The purpose of this letter is to urge the Planning Commission to recomm end that the City Council deny approval of the Project because, for all the reasons set forth in this office’s extensive November 17, 2022 comment letter on the draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) and herein, (1) the MND does not comply with the requirements of CEQA, (2) the Project does not comply with the letter or the spirt of state Density Bonus Law or the City’s own density bonus ordinance (Chapter 33, Article 67 of the Escondido Municipal Code) , and (3) the Project is not consistent with the Project site ’s General Plan land use designations or zoning districts. At a minimum, my clients respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council require the preparation of a full environmental impact report (“EIR”) before considering any approval of the Project. For ease of reference, my November 17, 2022 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A , which makes a number of still valid comments that are not all repeated herein.

As an initial matter, the Final MND – which contains over one hundred pages of responses to comments and revisions to the Draft MND – was only recently released on December 8, 2022, giving the public two business days to review these responses and changes prior to the date of the Planning Commission’s hearing. Accordingly, my clients request that the Planning Commission Attachment "2"
59 Item6.

Honorable Chair and Commissioners
December 13, 2022

Page 2 ends

2523/037477-0001
18612489.1 a12/13/22

continue the hearing on the Project to the next regular meeting to allow this office and the public at large adequate time to review and respond to the Final MND, and particularly, its responses to comments. As a result of the short timeframe, this letter does not necessarily contain comprehensive responses to many of the flaws in the Final MND, but instead focuses on several key issues.

I. The Project Does Not Comply with the Site’s General Plan Land Use Designation, Zoning or Density Bonus Law
A. Duplexes are Not Permitted Uses on the Site, and Density Bonus Law Does not Allow the City to Amend Permitted Uses without a General Plan or Zoning Code Amendments
There is no dispute that duplexes – along with all other multifamily residential uses – are not permitted uses on the Project site, either under its existing General Plan land use designations (Estate II & Suburban) or zoning districts (R-E and R -1). ( See, Ex. A, p. 3.) Yet, the Project proposes 10 duplex units as its income restricted affordable units, while the remainder of the Project would be single family homes. My previous comment letter pointed out this issue, which was entirely unaddressed in the Draft MND.

In response, the Final MND asserts – for the first time – that Density Bonus Law allows the City to authorize a different use than otherwise permitted as a “zoning concession” pursuant to Government Code section 65915(k) . (Final MND, p. 103.) This is in addition to the ten “waivers” from development standards that are already being requested by the applicant, which actually were discussed in the original IS/MND.

First, the standard for granting zoning concessions—which are numerically limited—is significantly different than the standard for granting waivers, which revolves around whether failure to grant the waiver would physically preclude development of the Project. Importantly, the concession must result in “identifiable and actual cost reductions .” (Government Code § 65915(d)(1)(A).) These actual cost reductions have not been identified even as part of the revised Final MND, and of course were not identified in the Draft MND, in which this purported concession was not discussed at all. At a minimum, the City must require the applicant to provide evidence that duplexes result in identifiable and actual cost reductions when compared to single family homes, and provide that information to the public as part of a recirculated Final MND or full EIR. Without this evidence of actual and identifiable cost reductions, the Project cannot be approved.

Second, even if the Project applicant identifies actual and identi fiable cost reductions, allowing a use that is not a permitted use under either the General Plan or zoning code does not qualify for a zoning concession, which is defined as “[a] reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that exceed the Attachment "2"
60 Item6.

Honorable Chair and Commissioners
December 13, 2022

Page 3 ends

2523/037477-0001
18612489.1 a12/13/22

minimum building standards . . . including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback and square footage requirements and in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be required that results in identifiable and actual cost reductions, to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c). ” (Government Code § 65915(k)(1).) Simply put, nothing in the statute or case law supports the complete change of use as a concession, as compared to a reduction of zoning standards such as setbacks and design guidelines to allow the same type of use where it might otherwise not “fit” or would be cost prohibitive.

Finally, the assertions in the Final MND that the inclusion of a use type not permitted by the General Plan and zoning designations is not a CEQA impact is simply wrong. Th e proposed concession, along with the ten waivers, result in unique impacts when compared to otherwise permitted uses, and these impacts were not adequately analyzed in the MND. In particular, allowing a use not otherwise permitted is a significant land use impact that requires the preparation of a full EIR. In fact, the flawed discussion of land use issues infects the entire MND, and virtually all sections must be revised as part of an EIR – or at minimum, a recirculated MND – in order to comply with CEQA.

B. The Applicant has Artificially Inflated the Density Bonus by Calculating Bonuses per Parcel
The Project applicant has calculated the total density bonus for the Project by calculating the total potential bonus for each individual existing parcel, rounding each figure up, and t hen totaling all of those figures. While Density Bonus Law does require rounding up, it is done on a project-wide basis, with only one figure rounded up, rather than “compounding” the rounding parcel by parcel to artificially inflate the total bonus numbe r. Page six of the City ’s staff report notes that this is not how the density bonus amount is calculated for any other projects in the City.

This method of calculation is flawed not only because of the compounded rounding, but further, there are no affordable units planned on a number of the existing parcels, meaning that the density bonus for those parcels should be zero. Finally, if the Project were to be approved, none of the existing parcels would continue to exist, as the Project would be subdivided in 47 total lots, with all ten affordable units on one lot. There is no support – logical or legal – for calculating the bonus based on parcels that, if the Project is approved, would not even exist. Thus, the density bonus number should be recalculated on a project-wide basis, and the Project revised accordingly.

Taken together, the proposed concession to allow development of an otherwise prohibited use, ten separate and significant waivers from development standards, and extremely aggressive density bonus calculation, the Project applicant ’s sole goal is not to develop a good Project or consider and mitigate all impacts, but instead to squeeze as many units as possible on the Project site to maximize return.

Attachment "2"
61 Item6.

Honorable Chair and Commissioners
December 13, 2022

Page 4 ends

2523/037477-0001
18612489.1 a12/13/22

C. The Project Fails to Provide Affordable Units that are of Similar Quality and Type to the Market Rate Units
This office’s previous letter noted that the provision of 10 multifamily duplex units as the affordable units on one lot, with 46 single family homes on their own lots as the market rate units, violates the both state law and the City ’s own requirement that the afforda ble units must be of a similar caliber as the market rate units to qualify for a density bonus. (Escondido Municipal Code (“EMC”) § 33-1417(f) [“Design consistency. The design and appearance of the target units shall be consistent or compatible with the d esign of the total housing development in terms of appearance, materials, and finished quality”].) This also violates other similar provisions of City’s local density bonus ordinance , which states that affordable units should be dispersed throughout the housing development, not concentrated on one of 47 parcels, as proposed here. (EMC § 33- 1417(b).)
The Final MND did not respond to this comment, referring to General Response 1, which did not address this point. (Final MND, p. 64.) Thus, the Project remains in violation of state law and the EMC, and the Final MND’s responses to comments are legally inadequate.

II. The Project Description Remains Legally Inadequate under CEQA, and Further Demonstrates that the Project Does Not Qualify for the Requested Concession and Waivers
The Final MND’s responses to this office’s previous comments regarding the total lack of information regarding the proposed housing units – e.g., square footage, room count, height, elevations/aesthetic appearance, etc . – states that this information simply is not available at this stage, and is not required by CEQA, deferring all analysis to the design review stage. (Final MND, pp. 7-9, 65-66.) This is not a legally adequate response.

First, the Project applicant is required to m ake its best estimate regarding these details so that the Project’s impacts can be analyzed (and mitigated) as accurately and completely as possible. (See, CEQA Guidelines § 15124; Dry Creek Citizens Coalition v . County of Tulare (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 20 [while final designs are not necessarily required , the CEQA documents should at least include conceptual project designs].) The Final MND ’s assertions otherwise are simply wrong. Thus, the MND not only has an inadequate project description, but as describ ed in this office’s previous correspondence, its analysis of a number of impact categories are also legally deficient as a result.

Second, and perhaps more problematic, it cannot be true that none of these details are known, while at the same time, all ten of the applicant’s requested waivers are necessary in order for the development of the Project to be physically possible. (See, EMC 33-1417(h) [“Waiver/reduction of development standards. Any waiver or reduction from the applicable development standard s shall be limited to those necessary to implement the density and Attachment "2"
62 Item6.

Honorable Chair and Commissioners
December 13, 2022

Page 5 ends

2523/037477-0001
18612489.1 a12/13/22

incentives/concessions to which the developer is entitled under section 33-1413” (emph. added)]; see also, § 33-1414(E)(3) [“Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the city to grant a concession or incentive if the city finds that the proposed concession or incentive is not required to achieve the required affordable housing costs or rents, would cause a public health or safety problem, would cause an environmental problem , would harm historical property, or would otherwise be contrary to law” (emph added)].)
If the size of the future units are not known – or even estimated – it is impossible for the City to adequately analyze if the waivers or concessions are actually necessary for the Project.

Surely, waivers required to develop 1,000 square foot duplex units and 4,000 square foot single family homes would be different than 700 square foot duplex units and 2,00 0 square foot single family homes, yet the public and the City are left to guess where in this range (if it all) the proposed Project’s residential units would fall. Thus, the applicant appears to have requested waivers that may very well be more aggressi ve than actually required to not physically preclude development of the Project, which violates Density Bonus Law . Further, the City ’s own density bonus ordinance requires the bedroom mix for the affordable units to be equal to the bedroom mix for the mar ket rate units – if this is currently unknown, the City cannot approve a density bonus Project. (EMC § 33-1417(d).)
Finally, with respect to the newly proposed concession for duplexes, if no details about the proposed improvements are currently known, ho w can the Project applicant demonstrate that the concession would result in actual and identifiable cost reductions? The answer is they cannot.

III. The Project’s Impacts on Transportation and Traffic Remain Significant, and thus the City Must Require the Preparation of an EIR
The Final MND’s responses regarding the MND ’s transportation/traffic analysis are also inadequate, and the imposed mitigation measures do nothing to ensure that the Project’s significant transportation impacts are actually reduced to a less than significant level. Specifically, while the MND admits that the Project -generated vehicle miles traveled ( “VMT”) would exceed the applicable significant thresholds, it asserts that Mitigation Measure MM TRANS-1 would mitigate these impacts to a less than significant level by requiring the construction of four crosswalks and one new sidewalk . (Draft MND, pp. 82 -84; Final MND, pp. 83 -84.) T he MND asserts these mitigation measures would reduce the VMT generated by the Project by 430. (Id.) Simple logic demonstrates that there is no way these four crosswalks and a sidewalk would actually reduce VMT generated by the Project by 430 VMT (or at all) , as there is nothing within reasonable walking distance that would replace even one veh icle trip by any future Project residents. In response to this office ’s previous comment in this regard, the Final MND does not identify even one destination that these crosswalks and sidewalks would encourage future residents to walk to. (Final MND, pp. 83-84.) This information is not contained in the cited traffic impact analysis either, which instead assigns numerical values to the proposed mitigation measures based Attachment "2"
63 Item6.

Honorable Chair and Commissioners
December 13, 2022

Page 6 ends

2523/037477-0001
18612489.1 a12/13/22

on a standardized formula, without regard to the actual facts on the ground , and what other uses actually exist near the Project site. (MND Appendix J [Transportation Impact Analysis, Escondido North LLC, prepared by Linscott, Law, & Greenspan, dated October 6, 2022] , pp. 20 -23.) The actual facts on the ground – and the very low likelihoo d any future Project residents would walk anywhere instead of driving – constitutes substantial evidence in support of a fair argument that the Project may result in significant impact relating to transportation/traffic, requiring the preparation of a full EIR.

Indeed, a reviewing court will not defer to the agency ’s determination that mitigation measures will work when their efficacy is not apparent and there is no evidence in the record showing they will be effective in remedying the identified environmental problem. (King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v County of Kern (2020) 45 C al.App.5th 814, 866 [EIR discussion of mitigation measure that has uncertain effect must identify and explain the uncertainty in measure’s effectiveness and the reasons for that uncertainty]; Sierra Club v County of San Diego (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1168 [no evidence that recommendations for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would function as enforceable or effective mitigation measures ]; Gray v County of Madera (2008) 167 CA4th 1099, 1116 [rejecting mitigation measures proposed to addres s project’s adverse impacts on water levels in wells used by neighboring landowners because mitigation measures would force them to change the way they use water].) When the effectiveness of a mitigation measure is not apparent, the CEQA document must include facts and analysis supporting its characterization of the expected result. (Sierra Club v County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 522.) Mitigation measures that are unrealistic and unlikely to be implemented create an illusory analysis and should no t be relied upon. (Cleveland Nat’l Forest Found. v San Diego Ass’n of Gov’ts (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 413, 433.)
IV. The Final MND Does Not Resolve Any of the Other Deficiencies Identified in this Office’s Previous Letter
Finally, nothing in the Final MND ’s responses to this office ’s previous comments fully addresses those comments, and as a result, my clients stand by all of their previous assertions as set forth in Exhibit A . Many of these deficiencies – which are not repeated herein – can be potentially cured by requiring the preparation of the full EIR. ***
For all the foregoing reasons, on behalf of my client, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council (1) deny approval of the Project as inconsistent with state Density Bonus Law, the City’s density bonus regulations, and planning and zoning law

Attachment "2"
64 Item6.

Honorable Chair and Commissioners
December 13, 2022

Page 7 ends

2523/037477-0001
18612489.1 a12/13/22

and (2) require the preparation of an EIR for the Project or any revised version thereof. I look forward to attending the public hearing later today, and will be availab le to answer any questions that the Commission may have.

Sincerely,
Kelsey E. Quist
KEQ:mrs
Enclosure
Attachment "2"
65 Item6.

Kelsey E. Quist
Direct Dial: (714) 338-1864
E-mail: [email protected]
November 17, 2022
R u t a n & Tu c k e r , L L P | 1 8 5 7 5 J a mb o r e e R o a d, 9 th F l o o r I r v i n e, C A 9 2 6 1 2 | 7 1 4- 6 4 1- 5 1 0 0 | Fa x 7 1 4- 546 -9 0 3 5 O r a n g e C o u n ty | P a lo A lto | S a n F ra n c is c o | w w w .r u ta n . c o m 2523/037477-0001
18479812.3 a11/17/22

VIA E-MAIL & FIRST CLASS MAIL
Greg Mattson, Adjunct Planner
City of Escondido
201 N. Broadway
Escondido, CA 92025
[email protected]
Re: Conway Residential Subdivision Project - TTM SUB21-069 City File No. PL21-0269
Comment on Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Mr. Mattson:

This office represents the residents of the single family home located at 2166 Weiss Way, which is directly adjacent to where the northern portion of the proposed Conway Residential Subdivision (“Project”) would be developed. My clients – who directly submitted a comment on the Project’s NOP, attached hereto as Exhibit A – have resided at their home since 1987, and their home is shown in the aerial picture below, directly west of the currently vacant portion of the Project site:

EXHIBIT A
Attachment "2"
66 Item6.

Greg Mattson, Adjunct Planner
[email protected]
November 17, 2022

Page 2 ends

2523/037477-0001
18479812.3 a11/17/22

While understanding the existence of the Housing Accountability Act ( “HAA”), Density Bonus law, and other state law that encourages the development of housing, it is important to remember that none of these laws preempt or otherwise override the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Instead, the ability to approve residential projects , such as the Project at issue here, is expressly contingent on full compliance with CEQA. My clients are not trying to stop development of the Project, but rightfully insist that any development is done right, including full compliance with CEQA, while being a good neighbor.

The Project, which takes advantage of state Density Bonus Law to significantly increase density beyond what is otherwise permitted by the Project site’s zoning (adding 16 extra units), as well as an incredible thirteen waivers from otherwise applicable development standards, proposes to cram 56 total residential units onto approximately 14 acres that are not designed to handle such an intense and dense development. The fact that so many waivers are required, standing alone, is substantial evidence of the significant impacts this completely out of character Project will have on the environment in general , and on surrounding properties in particular. Th e nearby rural infrastructure was simply not designed or built to handle the demand that will be generated by 56 new units in this area , yet the Mitigated Negative Declaration ( “MND”) does not impose any mitigation measures requiring improvements to the existing infrastructure. The Project applicant is attempting to take advantage of state law to forcibly jam a square peg into a round hole, but still must comply with CEQA and mitigate its actual impacts.

As made plain by the aerial photograph embedded above and the annotated site photograph attached here as Exhibit B, the Project is not at all consistent with the charter of the relatively rural area at the edge of the northern portion of the City, and in fact, the Project includes a parcel in an unincorporated portion of San Diego County (“County”) that the City proposes to annex. The area around the Project site consists of large lot single family homes, narrow single lane roadways without sidewalks, open space , and small scale agricultural uses, including vineyards on my clients’ property (noted with a “C” on Ex. B), directly adjacent to the Project site. The rural nature of the area is also made clear on page 7 of the MND, which shows th at the zoning for the Project site and surrounding areas is single family residential, residential estates, a nd the County’s rural residential zone. The City’s residential estate zoning “is established to provide a rural setting for family life in single -family detached dwellings. Provisions are made for the maintenance of limited agricultural pursuits as well as those uses necessary and incidental to single-family living.” (Escondido Municipal Code ( “EMC”) § 33 -90(b)(2) [emph. added].) Similarly, the City’s R-1 single family zone is “established to provide a suburban setting suitable for family life in single - family, detached dwellings.” (Id., (b)(2) [emph. added].)

EXHIBIT A
Attachment "2"
67 Item6.

Greg Mattson, Adjunct Planner
[email protected]
November 17, 2022

Page 3 ends

2523/037477-0001
18479812.3 a11/17/22

I. The Proposed Project is Not Permitted under the Project Site ’s General Plan Land Use Designation or Zoning
Despite the fact that the Project site is located entirely in single family zones, where detached single family residences are the principally permitted use, the Project proposes 5 duplex structures (10 total condominium units) – which are attached two-family dwellings – that are not permitted, as clearly shown on the City’s land use table (highlighting added):

Likewise, the Project Site’s Estate II General Plan land use designation “accommodates detached single-family homes on large lots” and “[s]paced single family development on relatively large lots,” and the Suburban General Plan Land use designation “applies to areas that generally surround the urbanized core of the community and accommodates single family detached homes on relatively large lots.” (General Plan Land Use and Community Form Element, pp. II-19 to -20 [emph. added].)
Thus, the Project – which includes ten attached duplex condominium units – requires a General Plan amendment and zoning change, which are two distinct legislative approvals that the Project requires by law, yet are not currently under consideration by the City. Density Bonus Law cannot be used to waive or change the permitted uses on a particular project site, and in fact, the MND completely fails to address any of these concerns, and does not list the allowance of attached condominium duplex units as a “waiver” from the otherwise applicable zoning standard (nor could it). Thus, the Project’s proposed tentative tract map – the only discretionary entitlement analyzed by the MND and under consideration by the City (MND, p. 13) – cannot be approved, as the City cannot make the required findings that it would be consistent with the City ’s General Plan and applicable zoning. (See, EMC § 32.209.01.)

EXHIBIT A
Attachment "2"
68 Item6.

Greg Mattson, Adjunct Planner
[email protected]
November 17, 2022

Page 4 ends

2523/037477-0001
18479812.3 a11/17/22

Further, the MND’s entire analysis is fatally flawed because it analyzes all of the Project’s impacts under the incorrect assumption that the Project is consistent with the Project site’s existing General Plan land use designation and zoning. As a result, the MND drastically underestimate s the Project ’s potential impacts, which standing alone, is sufficient grounds to require the preparation of a full environmental impact report ( “EIR”), as discussed in more detail herein . It also bears noting that because the Project is not consistent wi th its existing land use and zoning designations, the HAA does not apply.

Finally, Density Bonus law requires the affordable units to be substantially similar to the market rate units, but here, the Project proposes condominium duplexes units for all of the affordable units, and single family homes for all the market rate units. (See, MND, p. 10) In order to qualify for the requested density bonus, the Project must propose “like for like ” units – i.e., income restricted single family homes. This is not being done here, and further, there is no information to allow the reader to determine if the elevations, finishes and other details are similar in quality for the affordable units as the market rate units, as also required by law.

II. The City Should Require the Preparation of an EIR for the Project As a result of th e Project ’s inconsistency with its surroundings and a nu mber of other factors set forth below – not least of which is the amount of traffic that will be generated when compared to the much less dense zoning this Project site has long been planned for , without requiring any roadway or other improvements – after a careful review of the proposed mitigated negative declaration (“MND”), it is clear that substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may have a significant impact on the environment, and thus the City should require the preparation of a full environmental impact report ( “EIR”). (See, Communities for a Better Env ’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-320; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 504 –505.) “Significant environmental effect” is defined very broadly as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” (Pub. Res. Code § 21068; 14 Cal. Code Regs. (“CEQA Guidelines”) § 15382.)
Indeed, the EIR is the very heart of CEQA , and an “environmental ‘alarm bell ’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return. ” (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 . 1220; see also, Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927. ) The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” (Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.” (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.)

EXHIBIT A
Attachment "2"
69 Item6.

Greg Mattson, Adjunct Planner
[email protected]
November 17, 2022

Page 5 ends

2523/037477-0001
18479812.3 a11/17/22

Under the “fair argument” standard, preparation of an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency ’s decision. (CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150 -51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 15 97, 1602. ) The “fair argument ” standard creates a “low threshold ” favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.) In sum, the MND fails to adequately analyze and mitigate all of the Project’s impacts to a less than significant level, and instead, there is a fair argument that the Project may in fact result in significant environmental impacts in a number of respects . As further discussed below, t he MND is specifically deficient and does not comply with CEQA in all of the following respects, which individually and/or taken together, require the preparation of an EIR.

A. The Project Description is Inadequate
The MND is completely devoid of any details regarding the total proposed 56 residential units, other than an overview proposed tentative map showing lot and structure locations, a vague range of lots sizes, and the fact that 46 units will be single family homes, and 10 will be condominium units in 5 buildings. (MN D, pp. 8 -10.) Noticeably absent are any (1) proposed square footages of any units, (2) bedroom counts, (3) proposed height/stories, or (4) any proposed elevations, for either the single family or duplex units. As a result, the MND cannot accurately analyze the potential impacts of the Project – which cannot be based on lot count alone – and instead, these details are critical for a full and complete analysis of the Project’s impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, populatio n/housing, and transportation/traffic, at a minimum. My client s are left wondering if a one -story 2,000 square foot home or a three -story 5,000 square foot home will be built next to their property . Further, there is no indication how high the ultimate grade will be, and considering the significant sloping near my clients’ property, there is no way to tell if the graded pad for the nearest residence will be 30+ feet higher than the existing grade, or 30+ feet lower. All of these questions must be answered for any meaningful analysis of the Project’s impacts to occur.

The MND ’s project description is also not clear as to what income level the proposed affordable units will be restricted to, or how the continued affordab ility will be enforced (e.g., an affordable housing agreement with the City, deed restriction, etc.), and whether the affordable units will be rented or sold . Th ese details must be added to allow the public to verify that the density bonus was correctly calculated, and to also confirm that the Project even qualifies for a density bonus in the first place.

EXHIBIT A
Attachment "2"
70 Item6.

Greg Mattson, Adjunct Planner
[email protected]
November 17, 2022

Page 6 ends

2523/037477-0001
18479812.3 a11/17/22

Finally, the MND also fails to adequately explain why the Project would be physically precluded unless thirteen different waivers are granted, including significant departures from three different setback requirements, minimum lot area, average lot width, lot width along streets, maximum lot coverage, max imum floor area ratio ( “FAR”), standards for suburban resident ial roads, reduced grading setbacks, hammerhead street termination, and storm drain locations and easement size. (MND, pp. 12-13.) Surely not all of these significant waivers are truly required for the Project to proceed, but instead are aimed at maximizi ng developer profit. Further, the MND fails to analyze the impacts all of these waivers will have on the surrounding community – particularly related to aesthetics, air quality, noise and traffic (including traffic hazards/safety from the drastically different standards for suburban residential roads) throughout the discussion of all of the various topics covered in environmental checklist/Appendix G. An EIR should be prepared to fully address the impacts of all these waivers, as again, nothing in the Density Bonus law allows this Project to circumvent any aspect of CEQA.

B. The MND Does Not Adequately Analyze the Project ’s Aesthetic Impacts, and Incorrectly Assumes the Project Complies with Applicable Zoning The MND makes no effort to analyze its aesthe tic impact from the point of view of my clients or any other neighboring properties, does not contain any photographs showing the current views when looking at the Project site from surrounding properties , nor does it contain any computer simulations/renderings that show what views of the Project site would look like following development. In fact, as mentioned above, the MND does not contain any renderings of the Project’s proposed elevations at all , or otherwise indicate the elevation of the final graded pads. At a minimum, the MND should be revised to include these photographs/renderings and associated analysis to determine if there are potentially significant aesthetic impacts.

Instead of containing any meaningful actual analysis of how the Project will change existing conditions, the MND appears to imply that , simply because the Project site is “zoned residential,” the Project would not have any aesthetic impacts on the surrounding environment . (MND, p. 7.) As mentioned above, the MND does not even state the proposed square footage or height of the residences along the edge of the Project Site (or anywhere), making any real analysis impossible. The MND’s bare conclusion violates CEQA.

The MND goes on to state that the relevant th reshold of significance is “whether the Proposed Project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality,” and concludes that because the Project complies with the City ’s residential estates and single family residentia l zones , its aesthetic impacts are less than significant . However, as explained above, the Project is not consistent with these zones, which allow detached single family homes; two-family attached duplexes are expressly not permitted. (EMC, Table 33 -94.) Thus, under the City’s own threshold of significance, the aesthetic impacts would be significant because

EXHIBIT A
Attachment "2"
71 Item6.

Greg Mattson, Adjunct Planner
[email protected]
November 17, 2022

Page 7 ends

2523/037477-0001
18479812.3 a11/17/22

the Project does, in fact, conflict with applicable zoning, and as a result, the City must require the preparation of an EIR.

Further, even if duplexes were allowed under the Project site’s General Plan land use designation and zoning, the MND does not discuss or even identify the fact that the aesthetic impacts of this Pr oject will be increased when compared with a typical residential development that actually complies with the letter of the applicable zoning requirements, as a result of the due to the 16 additional units, and the 13 waivers from otherwise appli cable zoning standards. In particular, an EIR should be prepared to specifically analyze and impose mitigation measures relating to the Project ’s specific and unique aesthetic impacts that result from : (1) 16 extra units on the Project site ; (2) proposed front and i nterior setbacks less than half of what is currently required; (3) less than half the minimum lot area otherwise required in this zone; (4) significantly reduced average lot widths; (5) increased lot coverage and maximum FAR; and (6) reduced setbacks during grading. The City should impose a condition of approval that requires high quality masonry walls around the entire edge of the Project Site, at least eight feet in height.

Additionally, the MND notes that the Project would remove 186 mature and protected trees, and as result, the Project applicant would be required to purchase replacement trees either on or offsite. (MND, p. 17 [citing MM BIO-3 and BIO-4.) To be clear, the purchase of offsite trees in no way mitigate s or otherwise lessens the Project’s impacts on aesthetics. Thus, at a minimum, MM BIO-4 should be revised to require purchase and placement of replacement trees entirely onsite, or else this measure cannot be relied upon to mitigate the Project ’s impacts to a less than significant level. Further, and as discussed more herein relating to impacts on biological resources, the Project should entirely avoid disturbing the area at the northern end of the Project site containing a significant amount of mature trees and coast live oak woodland / riparian habitat, generally noted with an “A” on Exhibit B.

Finally, the MND inaccurately describes the potential impact of the Project ’s light pollution, particularly in the area adjacent to my clients’ property, which is an empty field. Simply put, replacing the open space near my client s’ property – which currently has no lighting – with streetlights, house lights, and headlights from approaching and departing vehicles will absolutely create a potentially significant impact.

C. The MND’s Air Quality Analysis is Inadequate
The MND does not appear to analyze the air quality impacts of t he Project ’s grading activities (approximately 59,200 cubic yards of cut and 99,600 cubic yards of fill ), which in addition to all o f the other construction activities , will create significant particulate matter emissions that will severely impact my clients, and likely damage or destroy the active grape vines on my clients ’ property. At a minimum, additional mitigation should be imposed to require increased setbacks from my clients’ property during construction and grading activities.

EXHIBIT A
Attachment "2"
72 Item6.

Greg Mattson, Adjunct Planner
[email protected]
November 17, 2022

Page 8 ends

2523/037477-0001
18479812.3 a11/17/22

The MND also does not appear to quantify or consider emissions from the trucks that will be required to import 55,000 cubic yards of dirt to the Project site. The MND should be revised to include this analysis, or if it already does, revised to clearly show that emissions from both trucks serving the general construction of the Project and trucks importing fill materials were considered. Further, the MND does not list the equipment anticipated to be used during construction in order to allow the reader to unders tand what assumptions were made, and what type of equipment the MND assumed would be used at the same time. In sum, the MND presents bare emissions conclusions without any ability for the reader to understand the assumptions made to arrive at those conclusions, and therefore does not comply with CEQA.

Finally, given the presence of a number of sensitive receptors directly adjacent to the Project site – including my clients’ property (B & C, on Ex. B) – a health risk assessment must be conducted. Failure to do so creates the presumption of a fair argument that the Project may have a significant impact relating to health risks, particularly in light of the Project ’s more dense development than anticipated under existing General Plan land use and zoning designations.

D. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that the Project May Have a Significant Impact on Biological Resources, even after the Mitigation Imposed by the MND
The MND incorrectly states that the Swainson ’s Hawk has a “low potential ” to appear onsite – as shown in the photographs attached hereto as Exhibit C, the Swainson’s Hawk, along with an active nest, is actually currently present on the Project site, and has regularly existed for approximately 20 years. ( See, MND, p. 20.) The area on the Project Site where this hawk and nest were identified is noted by an “A” on Exhibit B, on the northern portion of the Project Site.

Clearly, the literature review upon which the MND ’s biological resources section is based is not sufficient, and revised technical studies based on field surveys should be generated and included in an EIR prepared for the Project. Thus, the so-called “potential” impacts mentioned in the MND relating to raptors are not potential, but in fact actual (and significant) impacts. (Id., p. 29.) None of the mitigation imposed will replace the habitat currently being used by the Swainson’s Hawk, with active nests present each year, personally observed by my clients. In light of the impacts on raptors and other signi ficant impacts that would result from disturbing this high quality habitat, the City should require the Project applicant to entirely avoid disturbing this area.

The MND’s proposed offsite mitigation is not sufficient to mitigate impacts to the Project site’s actual confirmed raptor habitat or other significant impacts to non-native grasslands and trees to a less than significant level. (See, MM BIO-2.) At a minimum, the City should require at least a portion of this mitigat ion to occur onsite and preserve a portion of the Project site as open space/habitat, rather than using every single inch to squeeze 5 6 units onto 14 acres. MM BIO -2 does not even require mitigation to be anywhere near the Project site, which does nothing to help local raptors find suitable nearby foraging habitat, and thus likely to result in unmitigated

EXHIBIT A
Attachment "2"
73 Item6.

Greg Mattson, Adjunct Planner
[email protected]
November 17, 2022

Page 9 ends

2523/037477-0001
18479812.3 a11/17/22

significant impacts to those birds that we know are on the Project site. The same is true for the mitigation proposed for the valuable coast live oak woodl and habitat in MM BIO -3, and mature and protected trees in MM BIO-4.

With respect to the jurisdictional delineation performed for the Project, the MND’s analysis is also incorrect – the Project site drains into Reidy Creek, which in turn drains into Escond ido Creek, and therefore, the Project site does in fact contain jurisdictional drainage features. Impacts to these wetlands must be analyzed in an EIR, and appropriate mitigation imposed.

While the MND sets forth the number of mature and protected trees, the reader/public is unable to understand which trees on the Project site were determined to be mature or protected. (MND, pp. 32 -33.) Thus, the MND should be revised to include a map so that the decisions regarding which trees were determined to be mature and/or protected, and which were not, can be analyzed.

E. The MND Does Not Explore Opportunities to Incorporate Sources of Renewable Energy as Part of the Project
The MND does not adequately analyze the potential for the Project to incorporate sources of renewable energy, or explain what type of renewable energy features will be incorporated into the Project in any meaningful detail. (MND, pp. 38 -39.) The failure to include this analysis violates CEQA. ( See, League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain Area P reservation Foundation v.

County of Placer (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 63.)
F. The MND Unlawfully Defers Mitigation Relating to Geology and Soils The MND imposes two mitigation measures – MM GEO-1 and MM GEO-2 – that would purportedly reduce all impacts relating to geology and soils to a less than significant level. (MND, p. 43.) However, both of these mitigation measures unlawfully defer mitigation by v aguely referring to “recommendations” and require compliance with a yet to be prepared report, without any performance measures setting forth specifically what the report must contain. As written, it is clear that there is a fair argument that these measu res will not reduce the Project ’s impacts on geology and soils to a less than significant level.

G. The MND’s Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions is Inadequate The MND fails to actually quantify the Project ’s numerical greenhouse gas ( “GHG”) emissions, depriving the reader and the public of the most basic information regarding such emissions. This makes accurate analysis of the Project’s impacts from GHG emissions impossible, let alone imposition of appropriate mitigation measures to reduce all impacts to a less than significant level. (MND, pp. 45 -47.) Instead, the MND relies entirely on qualitative analysis of

EXHIBIT A
Attachment "2"
74 Item6.

Greg Mattson, Adjunct Planner
[email protected]
November 17, 2022

Page 10 ends

2523/037477-0001
18479812.3 a11/17/22

the Project’s implementation of various measures from the City ’s Climate Action Plan ( “CAP”).

However, since the Project ’s impacts are not ad equately disclosed in the first instance, this qualitative analysis is virtually meaningless and does not comply with CEQA. Indeed, applicable caselaw clearly favors quantitative GHG emissions analysis, which again, is entirely absent here.

Further, the MND incorrectly states that “Step 1 of the CAP Checklist is land use consistency. The proposed Project has demonstrated consistency with the City ’s General Plan, Zoning Code, and Density Bonus statutes. Since land use consistency has been demonstrated, Step 2 of the CAP Checklist is applicable. ” However, as discussed above, the Project is actually not consistent with the City ’s General Plan or Zon ing Code. Therefore, the City should require the preparation of a revised air quality/GHG technical report and an EIR to fully analyze the Project’s impacts from GHG emissions, under the correct premise that the Project is not consistent with the Project site’s existing land use designations/zoning.

H. The MND’s Analysis of Hazards and Hazardous Materials is Inadequate The MND recognizes that construction of the Project will involve the transport, use and disposal of hazardous materials, and that the older structures that will be demolished likely contain PCBs. (MND, p. 49.) However, the MND fails to mention, analyze or mitigate for any potential impacts on the adjacent sensitive receptors, such as my clients’ directly adjacent residential home.

An EIR containing this analysis regarding a potentially significant impact should be prepared.

The MND also completely fails to discuss and analyze fire evacuation routes and estimated evacuation times (MND, p. 52), which recent case law holds is required in order to comply with CEQA. (Newtown Preservation Society, et al. v. County of El Dorado, et al. (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 771; Sierra Watch v. County of Placer (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 1.) This is particularly true for the North San Diego County area, which is susceptible to wildfires, and for the Project at issue here, which crams 56 new residential units (and retains 2 existing units) onto 14 acres without requiring any “capacity enhancing” improvements to existing roadways to improve traffic or evacuation times. Clearly, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may result in a significant impact in this regard. The MND’s wildfire section is legally deficient for this same reason. (MND, pp. 9-96.)
I. The MND ’s Land Use and Planning Section is Entirely Flawed, and Must be Completely Revised as Part of an EIR
As discussed in detail above, the Project is not consistent with its existing General Plan land use or zoning designations, and thus requires the approval of a General Plan amendment and zone change. The entire Land Use and Planning Section of the MND must therefore be rewritten.

Given the significant impacts that would occur from proposing a Project not consistent with existing General Plan land use or zoning designations, it must be rewritten as part of an EIR.

EXHIBIT A
Attachment "2"
75 Item6.

Greg Mattson, Adjunct Planner
[email protected]
November 17, 2022

Page 11 ends

2523/037477-0001
18479812.3 a11/17/22

Further, even if the Project was consiste nt with existing zoning, the MND contains no meaningful analysis of the impacts that the 13 waivers would have on the surrounding development, other than to note they exist and conclude, without analysis, that the extra density and other extensive waivers would not result in any increased impacts than if the Project site was to be developed with market rate housing that complied with all applicable zoning regulations. (MND, pp. 60-62.) This analysis does not comply with CEQA ’s requirements because it fails to connect facts to conclusions, and further, t he ultimate bare conclusion is contrary to common sense.

J. The MND’s Analysis of Noise Impacts is Incomplete
The MND and associated acoustical analysis should be revised – as part of an EIR – to analyze peak noise, not average noise, which artificially understates the actual nois e impacts on neighboring sensitive receptors. (See, MND, pp. 66-67.) The MND also does not detail what type of equipment the acoustical analysis assumed would be operated, and what activities would be occurring at the same time, making an evaluation of th e accuracy of the underlying assumptions impossible.

K. The MND ’s Population and Housing, Public Services and Recreation Sections Incorrectly Conclude that Unplanned Growth Does Not Result in Any Significant Impacts
The MND recognizes that the Project wo uld exceed the General Plan ’s projections for housing on the Project site, but nonetheless concludes that this is not a significant impact, with no mitigation required. (MND, pp. 72 -79.) This is not accurate, and instead, there is at least a fair argument that the Project’s increased growth beyond what has long been planned for the Project Site – and the Project ’s inconsistency with its existing General Plan land use and zoning designations – may result in a significant impact, requiring the preparation of an EIR.

Further, the MND does not include bedroom count, making a truly accurate estimate of the population the Project will add to the area impossible.

L. The Traffic Generated by the Project Will Result in a Significant Impact The MND correctly notes that CEQA now requires a vehicle miles traveled ( “VMT”) analysis in place of the traditional level of service (“LOS”) analysis. (MND, p. 80-81.) However, due to the fact that, as admitted in the MND, the City’s General Plan includes LOS standards, LOS still must be analyzed as a CEQA impact, as inconsistency with the General Plan is considered an impact on the environment. The MND should be revised to include this analysis, which is entirely absent, despite the Project’s traffic impact analysis studying the Project’s impacts on LOS to some degree. Further, the MND does not impose any mitigation requiring roadway improvements as a

EXHIBIT A
Attachment "2"
76 Item6.

Greg Mattson, Adjunct Planner
[email protected]
November 17, 2022

Page 12 ends

2523/037477-0001
18479812.3 a11/17/22

result of the Project, which standing alone, appears to be substantial evidence sporting a fair argument that the Project’s impacts may be significant.

Moving to the MND’s VMT analysis, the City’s initial conclusion that the Project requires an EIR as a result of its significant VMT impact was the correct one, and paper changes to the City’s VMT policies do not impact actual physical effects on the environment. (See, MND, p. 1.) Additionally, the VMT generated by the Project – which by the MND’s own admission, exceeds the relevant threshold of significance – appears to be based on an incorrect calculation which “nets out” the VMT generated by the 13 existing units, but then does not consider the 2 units that will remain on the Project site. (MND, p. 82.) While it is improper to artificially reduce impacts by “netting out” existing uses, and the analysis should be based on the full Project of 56 reinstall units, at a minimum, the analysis should include VMT generated by the 2 existing units, if it is going to take credit for “eliminating” the VMT generated by the 13 residences to be demolished. The MND’s assumptio n of 3.21 residents per household when calculating the Project ’s VMT also likely significant underestimates the population of the proposed Project – indeed, my clients have personally observed that the existing four unit property on the Project site contains 21 parked cars.

Finally, the MND does not indicate how it arrived at an assumption of 3.21 residents per household when it does not even describe the square footage or bedrooms count of the proposed units, which is critical information for accurately estimated the number of new residents.

Regarding the discussion of proposed mitigation, there is simply no way that the proposed mitigation measures – constructing four crosswalks and a new sidewalk – will result in a meaningful reduction of the Project’s VMT such that its impacts are conclusively reduced to a less than sig nificant level. (MND, pp. 83 -84.) The Project site is in a relatively rural, large lot residential area at the edge of the City, also near open space and agricultural uses . There is virtually nothing – aside from other residences – within walking distance of the Project site to justify the conclusion that the proposed crosswalks would result in residents walking instead of driving. The MND does not identify any such amenities or where residents would be walking to, and in fact, the surrounding areas do not even have sidewalks. (See, Exhibit D.) MM TRANS-1 requires the applicant to build a “bridge to nowhere ” that will not reduce the Project ’s actual impacts relating to VMT. Indeed, MM TRANS-1 relies entirely on voluntary measures that the future residents can (and likely will) simply choose not to use, and should be given no credit for any reduction in VMT. Thus, on this basis alone, the City must require the preparation of an EIR and a serious discussion of feasible mandatory mitigation measures.

With respect to hazards, the MND completely fails to discuss the proposed waiver for roadway standards, which will result in a hazardous condition. Specifically, the Project includes a request for waiver whereby at least one of the Project’s “suburban residential road” (1) will be 14 feet narrower than required, (2) will contain a sidewalk and gutter only on one side, and (3) will not include a parking plan . Additionally, photographs showing the area where the 56 residential units will take access onto Stanley Avenue, as well as the nearby Conway Drive, are attached

EXHIBIT A
Attachment "2"
77 Item6.

Greg Mattson, Adjunct Planner
[email protected]
November 17, 2022

Page 13 ends

2523/037477-0001
18479812.3 a11/17/22

hereto as Exhibit D, showing narrow, rural roads that are not ready for the proposed increased traffic without requiring roadway improvements. These unsafe conditions would be created for the sole purpose of allowing the applicant to cram 56 total residential units onto 14 acres.

Further, the hills in both directions on both Stanley Avenue (where an access point will be located) and Conway Drive appear to create line of sight issues. (See, Exhibit D; see, also, Ex. B, [notes E, F, G & H].) A line of sight study should be conducted to ensure that all proposed access points are safe – on Stanley Avenue, Conway Drive and Lehner Avenue – and impose mitigation as appropriate. At present, the MND completely fails to analyze these potential impacts. ***
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the MND for the proposed Project. As a directly adjacent neighbor, my client s are not opposed to new development, and have always understood that the Project site is slated for residential development. However, new development must be properly and fully analyzed in compliance with CEQA and all other applicable laws, and comply with the City ’s own land use documents and other regulations . Thus, my client s respectfully request that the City require the applicant to : (1) submit applications for a General Plan and zoning amendments, and (2) prepare a full EIR.

Please provide the undersigned with notices of all further ac tion relating to the Project, including notices for the Planning Commission and City Council hearings where it may be considered.

Sincerely,
Kelsey E. Quist
KEQ:mrs
Enclosures

EXHIBIT A
Attachment "2"
78 Item6.

6 May 2022
Comments and Questions on Escondido North, LLC Project, Case # PL21—0269 Dr. Gregory Quist
Mrs. Cindy Quist
2166 Weiss Way, Escondido, CA 92026

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and submit questions/concerns on the above named Proposed Project.

We have lived at 2166 Weiss Way, a lot abutting the Proposed Project directly to the west, since 1987.

An existing chain link fence line demarcates our mutual property line. Our lot relative to the proposed project is shown in Figure 1.

There are three general areas of concern and interest we would like to address:

1. Concerns about the project during development

2. Concerns about the project once it is completed

3. How the proposed project will change the existing landscape

1.0 Concerns about the project during the development

1.1 Noise and hours of operation – we understand a significant amount of grading is planned, generating a lot of noise directly next to our property, feet from our windows. We request the development strictly obeys both City and County ordinances regarding noise and operation times and days. This noise will generate a major nuisance and impact our quality of life during the development period, from grading to the completion of structure construction.

1.2 Dust and air quality – we expect that the grading will generate a significant amount of dust, particulate matter and debris that will drift onto our property. We don’t know the potential chemical constituents of the grading detritus that could cause harm to our property and our respiratory health. We also have serious concerns about dust, flying debris and exhaust from the grading and construction equipment and how this will affect our active vineyard - and other producing fruit trees – both of which are literally feet from the property line. See Figure 2. In addition, we have a pool beyond the vineyard, and dust and debris will impact our pool, including the filter and motors, and all outdoor areas.

1.3 Vegetation that transverses the 2166 Weiss Way property line chain link fence. There is vegetation – trees and bushes - on both sides on the fence that demarks the property line between our property and the development. If the plan is for all vegetation in the project to be demolished, this will cause significant damage to the existing fence, as well as damage to the vegetation we have planted along our side of the property. See Figure 3. Is a fence proposed for the western side of the development along our property line? Will any existing trees or shrubs not be disturbed?

1.4 Increased traffic and pedestrian safety risks. During grading and development, there will be substantial large equipment activities on the roads around this development. These roads are intended and designed for low density housing and associated traffic. Young students walk along these roads all the time to and from Rincon Middle School, and this equipment EXH A, p. 1

EXHIBIT A
Attachment "2"
79 Item6.

will create substantial noise and disruption along Stanley and Conway and disturb all the neighborhood in this area. Potential safety issues and hazards resulting from the construction of should be analyzed and mitigated. Have all the neighbors, and those affected by construction traffic on Conway been noticed about this project?

1.5 Migration of pests from project property. Our vineyard is susceptible to ground squirrels and gophers. We expect grading to force the existing fauna living on the site – gophers, squirrels, snakes, etc. – to our property.

We would like the City to impose obligations on the project to mitigate these impacts.

2.0 Concerns about the project after completion

2.1 Water supply - California is undergoing yet another severe drought, and the Governor has already declared a statewide drought emergency, expected to become worse, meaning the state and local agencies are unable to provide sufficient water to existing homes and businesses and cutbacks must occur. Yet this development – with 56 new dwellings where there currently are none - is being considered for approval, adding further stress to a system already unable to meet existing demands.

2.2 Student and pedestrian safety - There will be significantly Increased traffic, posing a safety risk to students walking to Rincon School.

2.3 Parking - 56 new residences will be crammed into 14.1 acres in an area that currently is semi-rural. We would expect this could require additional parking for as much as – or maybe more than – 200 vehicles in this area. This parking could impact traffic and vehicle safety in the area. The County has already marked a section of Weiss Way for No Parking due to the dangers associated with cars parking on the road, and this development could overwhelm existing and planned streets and curbs with parked cars. The proposed project does not seem to fit within the character of the neighborhood or generally comply with applicable planning documents.

2.4 Access for emergency vehicles – the combination of high density development, parking, and hundreds of new vehicle trips per day could create a problem for access for emergency vehicles such as ambulances and fire apparati.

2.5 Water drainage – grading and terracing of the property adjacent to 2166 Weiss Way will create problems with storm water drainage. How will this problem be addressed, to avoid run-off from slopes that current have no slope discontinuities to ones that will be terraced versus natural slopes?

2.6 Security of adjacent and neighboring properties – the addition of 56 high density dwellings adds to the probability of problems with security for adjacent and neighboring properties.

2.7 Wastewater system – if the wastewater from the new dwellings needs to be lifted up to the existing City of Escondido sewer system, it will require pumps. These pumps will create noise and the risk of failure, which could cause sewage spills in this area, where there is now an open field.

2.8 Loss of privacy – we have not seen elevations for roofs or windows overlooking adjacent and neighboring properties. The addition of these homes eliminates the current existing privacy and would likely negatively affect the resale value of these properties.

EXH A, p. 2

EXHIBIT A
Attachment "2"
80 Item6.

3.0 How the Proposed Project will change the existing landscape.

3.1 Native bird habitat - There is a long-time – at least 20 year – mature and active nest of hawks in the eucalyptus trees either on or adjacent to the proposed project. See Figure 4. It is clear plans for this development will destroy, disturb, and/or harass the existing native birds who have been established and lived in this location for more than 20 years.

3.2 Monarch butterfly habitat – It is well-known and established that eucalyptus groves are habitat for migrating Monarch butterflies. Destruction or significant loss of eucalyptus groves can reduce this habitat, and the current plan for the project is complete demolition of all properties and vegetation on the project site - this will result in a loss of Monarch butterfly habitat.

3.3 Other sensitive/threatened species – There may be other sensitive and/or threatened species on the undeveloped land northwest of Stanley and Conway. The lower portion of the property is a natural water collection and capture area and every year during the winter and spring months, frogs can be heard in this area.

3.4 Drainage and groundwater recharge – The proposed development will alter the current drainage patterns and groundwater recharge that is naturally occurring on the undeveloped land northwest of Stanley and Conway.

FIGURES

Figure 1 – 2166 Weiss Way lot and proximity to proposed project.

EXH A, p. 3

EXHIBIT A
Attachment "2"
81 Item6.

Figure 2a – Proximity of project line to active vineyard on 2166 Weiss Way

Figure 2b – Proximity of project line to active vineyard on 2166 Weiss Way

Figure 2c – Proximity of project line to fruit trees on 2166 Weiss Way EXH A, p. 4

EXHIBIT A
Attachment "2"
82 Item6.

Figure 3a – Example of tree/shrub growth through the property line fence

Figure 3b – Example of tree/shrub growth through the property line fence EXH A, p. 5

EXHIBIT A
Attachment "2"
83 Item6.

Figure 3c – Example of tree/shrub growth through the property line fence and proximity of sprinkler set to fence.

EXH A, p. 6

EXHIBIT A
Attachment "2"
84 Item6.

Figure 4a – Hawk resting on tree proposed for demolition, near nest in eucalyptus grove on project property.

Figure 4b – Location of long-time active hawk’s nest in eucalyptus grove EXH A, p. 7

EXHIBIT A
Attachment "2"
85 Item6.

Figure 4c – Close-up of long-term active hawk’s nest

EXH A, p. 8

EXHIBIT A
Attachment "2"
86 Item6.

A
B
C
E
F
G
H
EXH B

EXHIBIT A
Attachment "2"
87 Item6.

Location of Swainson’s Hawk nest, on NW corner of proposed Conway Project. Note location of active vineyard adjacent to the proposed project site. See A and B on map
A
B
EXH C, p. 1

EXHIBIT A
Attachment "2"
88 Item6.

Close‐up Swainson’s Hawk nest, on NW corner of proposed Conway Project. See A on map.

EXH C, p. 2

EXHIBIT A
Attachment "2"
89 Item6.

Another view of Swainson’s Hawk nest, on NW corner of
proposed Conway Project. See A on map.

A
EXH C, p. 3

EXHIBIT A
Attachment "2"
90 Item6.

Swainson’sHawk, July 2022, on 2166 Weiss Way property,
adjacent to proposed project. See C on map.

EXH C, p. 4

EXHIBIT A
Attachment "2"
91 Item6.

Conway Drive hill, looking south, immediately north of project boundary and proposed entrance/exit for 10 units. See E on map.

Conway Drive hill, looking north from the top of hill at approximate location of proposed entrance/exit to project. See F on map.

EXH D, p. 1

EXHIBIT A
Attachment "2"
92 Item6.

Stanley Avenue blind spot, looking W.

See G on map.

Stanley Avenue blind spot, looking E.

See H on map.

EXH D, p. 2

EXHIBIT A
Attachment "2"
93 Item6.

Attachment "2"
94 Item6.

Attachment "2"
95 Item6.

Attachment "2"
96 Item6.

Attachment "2"
97 Item6.

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-06

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA , APPROVING A TENTATIVE

SUBDIVISION MAP AND GRADING EXEMPTION FOR A
56-UNIT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 916,
942, AND 943 STANLEY AVENUE, AND ODD-NUMBERED
ADDRESSES BETWEEN 2005 – 2175 CONWAY DRIVE ;

AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION TO THE

LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION FOR

INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION
AND REORGANIZATION OF A 2.01 ACRE PARCEL
LOCATED AT 916 STANLEY DRIVE; AND ADOPTI NG A

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR

THE PROJECT

CASE NOS. PL21-0269, PL21-0278, PL22-0584

WHEREAS, Escondido North, LLC (“Applicant”) filed a land use development application, Planning Case Nos. PL21 -0296, PL21-0277, and PL22 -0584 (“Application”), constituting a request for a Tentative Subdivision Map and Grading Exemption for a 56 -unit residential project. The project includes 47 residential lots comprised of 46 single-family lots, two of which have existing homes, and one multi-family lot which would accommodate five duplexes. An Annexation is also requested for a 2.01-acre portion of the project site that is currently in the County of San Diego. The request includes a density bonus and would provide 10 affordable housing units (“Project”). The Project site is located along Conway Drive on both sides of Stanley Avenue and north of Lehner Avenue, in the R-1-10 (single-family residential, 10,000 square foot minimum lot size) and RE-20 (estate residential) zones; and WHEREAS, the Project site consists of seven parcels totaling 14.07 gross acres located at 916, 942, and 943 Stanley Avenue, and odd -numbered addresses between 2005 – 2175 Conway Drive (APNs 224- 141-23-00, 224-141-24-00, 224-141-25-00, 224-142-30-00, 224-142-31-00, 224-142-32-00, and 224-142- 33-00), and is all that real property described in Exhibit "A," which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference as though fully set forth herein (“Property”); and 98 Item6.

WHEREAS, the portion of the Project site which is subject to annexation into the City of Escondido is located at 916 Stanley Avenue (APN 224-141-24-00), and is all that real property described in Exhibit "B" and depicted in Exhibit “C,” both of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference as though fully set forth herein (“Annexation Property”); and WHEREAS, the Application was submitted to, and processed by, the Planning Division of the Development Services Department in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Escondido Zoning Code and the applicable procedures and time limits specified by the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code section 65920 et seq.) and the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”); and
WHEREAS, single-family residential development is a permitted use within the R -1-10 & RE -20 zones, subject to the approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map, in accordance with Chapter 32 of the Escondido Municipal Code and Article 6 of the Escondido Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the ability to construct multi -family residential units on the Property has been requested as a density bonus incentive; and
WHEREAS, the annexation/reorganization is consistent with the Sphere of Influence of the City of Escondido and affected districts; and
WHEREAS, the annexation of the Property into the City of Escondido would also include concurrent detachment from County Service Area (“CSA”) No. 135 (San Diego Regional Communications System) and exclusion from the Rincon Del Diablo Improvement District “E;” and 99 Item6.

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Escondido desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese/Knox/Hertzberg Local Governme nt Reorganization Act, Division 3, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code for the proposed annexation/reorganization; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et. seq.), the City is the Lead Agency for the Project, as the public agency with the principal responsibility for approving the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Division studied the Application, performed necessary investigations, prepared a written report, and hereby recommends approval of the Project as depicted on the plan set shown in Exhibit "D," which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference as though fully set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Initial Study and Mit igated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) was prepared, circulated, and notice was made of its availability for public review and comment during the period from October 28, 2022, to November 17, 2022; and
WHEREAS, during the 20-day public comment period of the Draft IS/MND, the City consulted with and requested comments from responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others.

The City subsequently analyzed and considered any and all comments received during this public review comment period and have determined that they did not contain any significant new information within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, a Final IS/MND , attached as Exhibit “ E” and incorporated by this reference, was subsequently prepared, which is comprised of any and all public comment letters received during the public review period, responses to comments, corrections/additions to the Draft IS/MND, and revisions and additions to the appendices or other referenced documents; and 100
Item6.

WHEREAS, in addition to the Final IS/MND, a Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (“MMRP”) has been prepared for the Project, attached as Exhibit “F” and incorporated herein by this reference, to ensure compliance with the required mit igation measures or project revisions during project implementation; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission of the City of Escondido held a duly noticed public hearing on December 13, 2022, as prescribed by law, at which interested persons were given the op portunity to appear and present their views with respect to the Application. Evidence was submitted to and considered by the Planning Commission, including written and oral testimony from City staff, interested parties, and the public. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-15, which recommended that the City Council approve the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Escondido held a duly noticed public hearing on January 11, 2023, as prescribed by law, at which time the City Council received and considered the reports and recommendation of the Planning Division and Planning Commission, and gave all person’s full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and testimony regarding the Project. Evidence was submitted to and considered by the City Council, including, without limitation:
a) Written information including plans, studies, written and graphical information, and other material, submitted by the Applicant;
b) Oral testimony from City staff, interested parties, and the public; c) The City Council staff report, dated January 11, 2023, with its attachments as well as City staff’s recommendation on the Project, which is incorporated herein as though fully set forth herein; and d) The Planning Commission’s recommendation; and
101
Item6.
e) Additional information submitted during the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk, whose office is located at 201 North Broadway, Escondido CA 92025, is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based, which documents and materials shall be available for public inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of th e Ca lifornia Public Records Act.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Escondido, California as follows:

1. That the above recitations are true.

2. That the City Council has reviewed and considered the Final IS/MND prepared for the Project in conformance with CEQA, the staff report dated January 11, 2023, and testimony given at the public hearing, and makes the environmental determinations included with Findings of Fact attached as Exhibit “G ” hereto and incorporated by this reference. The Final IS/MND adequately address es all environmental issues associated with the Project, and the Project would not result in any significant impacts to the environment. Approval of this resolution includes the adoption of the Final IS/MND.

3. That the MMRP addresses mitigation for potential project -related impacts and the report will sufficiently mitigate and assign ongoing responsibility for carrying out mitigation responsibilities which are appropriate to address and mitigate project-related impacts.

4. That the Findings of Facts, attached as Exhibit “G ” hereto and incorporated by this reference, were made by the City Council, and upon their consideration along with the staff reports, public testimony presented at the hearing, and all other oral and written evidence on this project, this City Council approves the Project, subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit “H” hereto and incorporated 102
Item6.
by this reference. The City Council expressly declares that it would not have made this decision except upon and subject to each and all of said conditions, each and all of which shall run with the land and be binding upon the Applicant, the owner, and all subsequent owners of the Property, and all persons who use the Property for the use permitted hereby.

5. That this Tentative Subdivision Map shall be null and void unless a Final Map, conforming to the Tentative Subdivision Map and all required conditions, is filed within three (3) years of the effective date of this resolution, or unless an Extension of Time is granted pursuant to Section 66452.6 of the California Government Code.

6. That application and proposal is hereby made to the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of San Diego for the annexation/reorganization described below. This proposal is made pursuant to the Cortese/Knox/Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act, as amended, commencing with Section 56000 of the Government Code of the State of California. The Local Formation Commission of the County of San Diego is hereby requested to undertake proceedings for the annexation/reorganization proposed herein. The following changes of the organization are proposed:
a. Annexation of the subject territory to the City of Escondido as legally described and depicted in Exhibits “B” and “C.”
b. Detachment of the subject territory from CSA No. 135 (San Diego Regional Communication Systems) and exclusion from the Rincon Del Diablo Improvement District “E.”

7. That the City Council of the City of Escondido hereby requests the Local Agency Formation Commission to designate the City of Escondido as conducting agency, and that the City of Escondido be authorized to order the proposed annexation.
103
Item6.

8. That the City Clerk of the City of Escondido is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the applicable fees required by Section 54902.5 of the California Government Co de to the executive officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of San Diego County.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1):

1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the project is subject to certain fees described in the Ci ty of Escondido’s Development Fee Inventory on file in the Development Services Department. The project is also subject to dedications, reservations, and exactions, as specified in the Conditions of Approval.

2. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the 90-day period during which to protest the imposition of any fee, dedication, reservation, or other exaction described in this resolution begins on the effective date of this resolution and any such protest must be in a manner that complies with Section 66020.

104
Item6.

EXHIBIT “A”

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PL21-0269, PL21-0278, PL22-0584
Real property in the City of Escondido, County of San Diego, State of California, described as follows:

Portion of Lot 4: (APN: 224-141-23-00)
ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT 4 IN BLOCK 415 OF THE RANCHO RINCON DEL DIABLO, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 723, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY, AUGUST 13, 1892. EXCEPTING THE S OUTHEASTERLY 350 FEET (MEASURED ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY AND SOUTHWESTERLY LINES) OF SAID LOT 4.

Portion of Lot 4: (APN: 224-141-24-00)
ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT 4 IN BLOCK 415 OF THE RANCHO RINCON DEL DIABLO, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNI A, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 723, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY, AUGUST 13, 1892, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 4; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SA ID LOT A DISTANCE OF 250.50 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 4, 250.50 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 4; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE 350.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

Portion of Lot 4: (APN: 224-141-25-00)
ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT 4 IN THE BLOCK 415 OF THE RANCHO RINCON DEL DIABLO, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 723, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY, AUGUST 13, 1892, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 4 DISTANT NORTHEASTERLY THEREON 250.50 FEET FROM THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 4; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE 260.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 4; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE THEREOF 350.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 4 A DISTANCE OF 260.00 FEET TO POINT IN A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 250.50 FEET NORTHEASTERLY FROM THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 4, SAID 400.00 FEET BEING MEASURED ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY, LINE THEREOF; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE 350.00 FEE T TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

Portion of Lot H: (APN 224-142-30-00)
ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT H IN BLOCK 418 OF A RESUBDIVISION OF BLOCKS 418 AND 419, OF RANCHO

RINCON DEL DIABLO, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1520, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY, JANUARY 21, 1913, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT H, DISTANT THEREON SOUTH 55° 36' 00" WEST, 138.00 FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 55° 36' 00" Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "A"

Page 1 of 2 ends

105
Item6.

WEST ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE 200.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT H; THENCE SOUTH 34° 24' 00" EAST ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE THEREOF 296.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55° 36' 00" EAST, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT H, 200.00 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 138.00 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT H; THENCE NORTH 34° 24' 00" WEST, ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE 296.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. APN: 224-142-30-00

Portion of Lot H: (APN: 224-142-31-00)
THE NORTHEASTERLY 138.00 FEET OF THE NORTHWESTERLY 296.00 FEET OF LOT H IN BLOCK 418 OF A RESUBDIVISION OF BLOCKS 418 AND 419 IN RANCHO RINCON DEL DIABLO, IN THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1520 , FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY, JANUARY 21, 1913.

Portion of Lot H: (APN: 224-142-32-00)
THE SOUTHEASTERLY 202.00 FEET OF THE NORTHWESTERLY 498.00 OF LOT H IN BLOCK 418 OF A RESUBDIVISION OF BLOCKS 418 AND 419, RANCHO RINCON DEL DIABLO, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1520, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY, JANUARY 21, 1913.

Portion of Lot H: (APN: 224-142-33-00)
LOT H IN BLOCKS 418 AND 419 IN RANCHO RINCON DEL DIABLO, IN THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1520, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY, JANUARY 21, 1913. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE NORTHWESTERLY 498.00 FEET THEREOF.

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "A"

Page 2 of 2 ends

106
Item6.

EXHIBIT “B”

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ANNEXATION AREA
PL21-0269, PL21-0278, PL22-0584
Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "B"

Page 1 of 1 ends

107
Item6.

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "C"

Page 1 of 1 ends

108
Item6.

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "D"

Page 1 of 7 ends

109
Item6.

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "D"

Page 2 of 7 ends

110
Item6.

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "D"

Page 3 of 7 ends

111
Item6.

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "D"

Page 4 of 7 ends

112
Item6.

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "D"

Page 5 of 7 ends

113
Item6.

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "D"

Page 6 of 7 ends

114
Item6.

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "D"

Page 7 of 7 ends

115
Item6.

EXHIBIT “E”

FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PL21-0269, PL21-0278, PL22-0584
Due to the number of pages of Exhibit “E,” a link has been provided to review the document electronically on the City’s website at:
https://www.escondido.org/conway-drive-subdivision
Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "E"

Page 1 of 1 ends

116
Item6.

Exhibit “F” - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 1 ends

November 2022

EXHIBIT F

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT REFERENCE NUMBER (SCH 2022100635) PROJECT NAME: Conway Residential Subdivision
PROJECT LOCATION: 916, 942, and 943 Stanley Avenue, and 2005 – 2175 Conway Drive (odd-numbered addresses only) Escondido, San Diego County, California 92026
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Proposed Project includes the construction of 44 new single-family detached residences, the construction of 10 new affordable attached dupl ex residences, retention of 2 existing single-family residences, 2 biofiltration basins, common open space areas, annexation to the City of 2.01 acres, and the demolition of 13 existing single -family residences on approximately 14.07 acres.

LEAD AGENCY: City of Escondido
CONTACT PERSON/ TELEPHONE NO.: Adam Finestone, City Planner APPLICANT: Escondido North, LLC
CONTACT PERSON/ TELEPHONE NO.: Dylan Bird & John Kaye (Argus Land Company, Inc.)| (949) 233-4086 No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Agency/Party
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Air Quality
MM AQ-1 The Proposed Project shall utilize low emission “clean diesel” equipment with new or modified Tier 4
engines that include diesel oxidation catalysts, diesel particulate filters or Moyer Program retrofits that meet CARB best available control technology for all feasible off-road diesel powered construction equipment.

During all
construction
activities
Contractor
Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "F"

Page 1 of 18 ends

117
Item6.

Exhibit “F” - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 2 ends

November 2022

Biological Resources
MM BIO-1 Prior to ground disturbances that would impact potentially suitable nesting habitat for avian species, the project applicant shall adhere to the following:

1. Vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled
outside the nesting season (September 1 to
February 14 for songbirds; September 1 to
January 14 for raptors) to the extent feasible to
avoid potential impacts to nesting birds and/or
ground nesters.

2. Any construction activities that occur duri ng
typical nesting season (February 15 to August 31
for songbirds; January 15 to August 31 for
raptors) will require that all suitable habitat, on -
site and within 300-feet surrounding the site (as
feasible), be thoroughly surveyed for the
presence of nesti ng birds by a qualified
biologist within three days before
commencement ground disturbances. If active
nests are identified, the biologist would
establish buffers around the vegetation (500 feet
for raptors and sensitive species, 200 feet for
non-raptors/non-sensitive species). All work
Prior to
Grading/Ground
disturbance
Project
Biologist

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "F"

Page 2 of 18 ends

118
Item6.

Exhibit “F” - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 3 ends

November 2022
within these buffers would be halted until the
nesting effort is finished (i.e. the juveniles are
surviving independent from the nest). The onsite
biologist would review and verify compliance
with these nesting boundaries a nd would verify
the nesting effort has finished. Work can resume
within these areas when no other active nests are
found. Alternatively, a qualified biologist may
determine that construction can be permitted
within the buffer areas and would develop a
monitoring plan to prevent any impacts while
the nest continues to be active (eggs, chicks,
etc.). Upon completion of the survey and any
follow-up construction avoidance management,
a report shall be prepared and submitted to City
for mitigation monitoring com pliance record
keeping.

MM BIO-2 Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the Project Applicant shall purchase 3.33-acres (0.5:1 ratio to the

6.65 acres of NNG impacts) of Non-Native Grasslands
at the Daley Ranch Mitigation Bank or other City
approved Mitigation Bank.

Prior to grading
permit
Project
Applicant

MM BIO-3 Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the Project Applicant shall purchase 0.78 -acres, (2:1 ratio to the

0.39-acres of Oak Woodland impacts) of Coast Live
Oak Woodland at the Daley Ranch Mitigation Bank or
other City approved Mitigation Bank.

Prior to grading
permit
Project
Applicant

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "F"

Page 3 of 18 ends

119
Item6.

Exhibit “F” - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 4 ends

November 2022
MM BIO-4 The Project Applicant shall replace impacted mature trees at a minimum of 1:1 ratio, a total of 175 trees,
unless other biologically equivalent or superior
mitigation has been determined by the City. Trees
may be replaced either on or off -site. The number,
size, and species of replacement trees shall be
determined on a case -by-case basis by the
Development Services Director pursuant to
Escondido Municipal Code Section 33-1069.

The Project Applicant shall replace impacted
protected trees at a minimum of 2:1 ratio, a total of 22 trees, unless other biologically equivalent or superior mitigation has been determined by the City.

Protected trees may be replaced on or off -site. The
size of the replaced protected trees shall be a
minimum of 24 -inch box or as det ermined by the
Development Services Director and shall be replaced
in-kind with the same species as impacted.

To avoid double counting mitigation of oak trees
since Mitigation Measure MM BIO -3 requires
mitigation for coast live oak woodland habitat that
includes individual oak trees subject to this mitigation measure, the number of oak trees associated with the
purchase of oak woodland habitat (either actual or
estimate) mitigation credits may also be used to
satisfy the individual tree replacement mitiga tion
requirement found in this Mitigation Measure MM
BIO-4.

Prior to grading
permit
Project
Applicant

Cultural Resources
Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "F"

Page 4 of 18 ends

120
Item6.

Exhibit “F” - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 5 ends

November 2022
MM CUL-1 If cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric sites, historic sites, and isolated artifacts) are discovered during
grading or construction activities in the Project area, work shall be halted immediately within 50 feet of the
discovery, the City Planning Depart ment shall be
notified, and a professional archaeologist who meets
the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards in archaeology and/or
history shall be retained to determine the significance of the discovery.

The City shall consi der mitigation recommendations
presented by a professional archaeologist who meets
the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards in archaeology and/or
history for any unanticipated discoveries. The City and the Project applicant of the site where the discovery is made shall consult and agree on implementation of a
measure or measures that the City deems feasible.

Such measures may include avoidance, preservation
in place, excavation, documentation, curation, data
recovery, or other appropriate measures. The Project
applicant shall be required to implement any
mitigation necessary for the protection of cultural
resources.

During
Grading/Ground
Disturbances
Archaeologist /
City Planning
Department

MM CUL-2 If human remains are encountered during excavation activities, all work shall halt and the County Coroner
shall be notified (California Public Resources Code
§5097.98). The Coroner will determine whether the
remains are of forensic interest. If the Coroner , with the aid of the County -approved Archaeologist,
During
Construction
Project
Archaeologist/
County
Coroner

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "F"

Page 5 of 18 ends

121
Item6.

Exhibit “F” - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 6 ends

November 2022
determines that the remains are prehistoric, s/he will
contact the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC). The NAHC shall be responsible for
designating the most likely descendant (MLD), who
will be responsible for the ultimate disposition of the remains, as required by Section 7050.5 of the
California Health and Safety Code. The MLD shall
make his/her recommendation within 48 hours of
being granted access to the site. The MLD’s
recommendation shall b e followed if feasible, and
may include scientific removal and non -destructive
analysis of the human remains and any items
associated with Native American burials (California
Health and Safety Code §7050.5). If the landowner
rejects the MLD’s recommendatio ns, the landowner
shall rebury the remains with appropriate dignity on
the property in a location that will not be subject to
further subsurface disturbance (California Public
Resources Code §5097.98).

Geology and Soils
MM GEO-1 The Project Applicant shall implement the
recommendations contained in the Updated
Geotechnical Due -Diligence Assessment, Parcel H,
Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 224 -141-23-00 and
224-141-25-00, Northwest Corner of Stanley Avenue
and Conway Drive, City of Escondido, San Diego
County, California, dated April 7, 2021, and
Geotechnical Due -Diligence Assessment, Parcel F,
Assessor Parcel Numbers 224-142-30-00; -31-00; -32-
00 and -33-00, Adjacent Northwest Corner of Lehner
Avenue and Conway Drive, City of Escond ido, San
During Grading Project
Geologist/
Public Works
Department

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "F"

Page 6 of 18 ends

122
Item6.

Exhibit “F” - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 7 ends

November 2022
Diego County, California, dated April 15, 2021) to
reduce geologic hazards during implementation of
the Proposed Project. Included in the reports are site- specific recommendations involving such topics as,
grading and earthwork, slope stability, retaining walls, seismic design, construction materials, geotechnical
observation, and testing and plan reviews.

MM GEO-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare a final geotechnical report
based on the final rough grading plans and the final
geotechnical report shall incorporate all of the
recommendations included in the preliminary
geotechnical reports included in Appendices D and
E. The geotechnical reports inclu ded in Appendices
D and E have established that the site is
geotechnically suitable for development and a final
geotechnical report is required to ensure all
construction-level geotechnical recommendations
and design parameters are included on the final
rough grading plans.

Prior to Grading
Permit
Project
Geologist/
Public Works
Department

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MM HAZ-1 Prior to the demolition of existing structures, a survey for asbestos containing materials (ACM), lead based
paint (LBP), and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs) shall
be conducted, and any such materials shall be
removed and disposed of properly by qualified
certified technicians in accordance with State
regulations.

Prior to
Demolition of
Buildings
Project
Applicant/
City Public
Work

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "F"

Page 7 of 18 ends

123
Item6.

Exhibit “F” - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 8 ends

November 2022
Noise
MM NOI-1 Construction Noise. Prior to issuance of construction permits, the City’s Building Division shall verify that all construction plans include the following measures.

The measures may include but are not limited to the
following:

▪ Staging areas should be placed as far as
possible from sensitive receptors.
▪ Place stationary equipment in locations that
will have a lesser noise impact on nearby sensitive
receptors.
▪ Turn off equipment when not in use.
▪ Limit the use of enunciators or public address
systems, except for emergency notifications.
▪ Equipment used in construction should be
maintained in proper operating condition, and all
loads should be properly secured to prevent
rattling and banging.
▪ Schedule work to avoid simultaneous
construction activities that both generate high
noise levels.
▪ Use equipment with effective mufflers.
▪ Minimize the use of backup alarms.

During
Construction
Project
Contractor/
City Public
Works
Department

Transportation/Traffic
MM TRANS-1 Prior to the issuance of the 34th certificate of occupancy for new construction on the Project site,
the Applicant shall complete construction of all the
following improvements to reduce VMT below the
Prior to the
issuance of the
34th certificate of
occupancy
Project
Applicant/
City’s Public

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "F"

Page 8 of 18 ends

124
Item6.

Exhibit “F” - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 9 ends

November 2022
threshold of significance. Prior to beginning
construction of the improvements, the Applicant shall
submit construction plans to the City for review and
approval and obtain all necessary permits, such as an
encroachment permit, for construction of said
improvements. The Applicant shall make the
following improvements and receive VMT reduction
credits:

• N. Ash Street / Vista Avenue – install high
visibility crosswalks and accessible pedestrian
signals on all four legs. VMT reduction equates
to 60 VMT per measure – total reduction for this
intersection is 120 VMT.
• N. Broadway / Rincon Avenue – install high
visibility crosswalks on the north, south and east
legs, and install accessible pedestrian signals on
all four legs. VMT reduction equates to 60 VMT
per measures – total reduction for this
intersection is 120 VMT.
• Stanley Avenue / Conway Drive – install high
visibility crosswalks on the west leg and curb
ramps on the northwest and southwest corner.

VMT reduction equates to 15 VMT for the high
visibility crosswalk and 8 VMT per curb ramp –
total reduction for this intersection is 31 VMT.
• Lehner Avenue / Conway Drive – install high
visibility crosswalks on the west and south legs,
and curb ramps on the northwest corner. VMT
reduction equates to 30 VMT for the high
Works
Department
Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "F"

Page 9 of 18 ends

125
Item6.

Exhibit “F” - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 10 ends

November 2022
visibility crosswalks and 8 VMT for the curb ramp
– total reduction for this intersection is 38 VMT.
• New sidewalk – approximately 1 mile of new
sidewalk equates to 303 VMT reduction. The
Proposed Project proposes to construct
approximately 2,111 feet of new sidewalk along
its project frontage. Total VMT reduction for this
improvement is 121 VMT.

Tribal Cultural Resources
MM TRC-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall enter into a Tribal Cultural Resource
Treatment and Monitoring Agreement (also known as
a Pre -Excavation Agreement) with a tribe that is
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Project Location (“TCA Tribe”). The purposes of the
agreement are (1) to provide the Applicant with clear
expectations regarding tribal cultural resources, and
(2) to formalize protocols and procedures between
the Applicant/Owner and the TCA Tribe for the
protection and treatment of, including but not limited
to, Native American human remains, funerary objects,
cultural and religious landscapes, ceremonial items,
traditional gathering areas and cultural items, located and/or discovered through a monitoring program in
conjunction with the construction of the Project,
including additional archaeological surveys and/or
studies, excavations, geotechnical investigations,
grading, and all other ground -disturbing activities.

The agreement shall incorporate, at a minimum, the
performance criteria and standards, protocols, and
Prior to Grading
Permit
Project
Applicant/
Project
Archaeologist/
Native
American
Monitor

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "F"

Page 10 of 18 ends

126
Item6.

Exhibit “F” - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 11 ends

November 2022
procedures set forth in mitigation measures MM TRC-
2 through MM TRC-10, and the following information:

• Parties entering into the agreement and contact
information.
• Responsibilities of the Property Own er or their
representative, archaeological monitors, and
tribal monitors.
• Project grading and development scheduling,
including determination of authority to adjust in
the event of unexpected discovery, and terms of
compensation for the monitors, includin g
overtime and weekend rates, in addition to
mileage reimbursement.
• Requirements in the event of unanticipated
discoveries, which shall address grading and
grubbing requirements including controlled
grading and controlled vegetation removal in
areas of cultural sensitivity, analysis of identified
cultural materials, and on-site storage of cultural
materials.
• Treatment of identified Native American cultural
materials.
• Treatment of Native American human remains
and associated grave goods.
• Confidentiality of cultural information including
location and data.
• Negotiation of disagreements should they arise.

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "F"

Page 11 of 18 ends

127
Item6.

Exhibit “F” - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 12 ends

November 2022
• Regulations that apply to cultural resources that
have been identified or may be identified during
project construction.

MM TRC-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall provide written verification to the City that a
qualified archaeologist and a Native American
monitor associated with a TCA Tribe have been
retained to implement the monitoring program. The
archaeologist shall be responsible for coordinating
with the Native American monitor. This verification
shall be presented to the City in a letter from the
Project archaeologist that confirm s the selected
Native American monitor is associated with a TCA
Tribe. The City, prior to any pre-construction meeting, shall approve all persons involved in the monitoring
program.

Prior to Grading
Permit
Project
Applicant/
Project
Archaeologist/
Native
American
Monitor

MM TRC-3 The qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor shall attend all applicable pre-construction
meetings with the General Contractor and/or
associated subcontractors to explain and coordinate
the requirements of the monitoring program.

Prior to Grading Project
Applicant/
Native
American
Monitor

MM TRC-4 During the initial grubbing, site grading, excavation or disturbance of the ground surface (including both on-
and off -site improvement areas), the qualified
archaeologist and the Native American monitor shall
be present full-time. If the full-time monitoring reveals that the top soil throughout the Project impact area
(both on and off -site) has been previously removed
during the development of the roads and buildings
within the Project area, then a decrease of monitoring
During
Construction
Project
Archaeologist/
Native
American
Monitor

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "F"

Page 12 of 18 ends

128
Item6.

Exhibit “F” - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 13 ends

November 2022
to part -time monitoring or the term ination of
monitoring can be implemented, as deemed
appropriate by the qualified archaeologist in
consultation with the Native American monitor. The
frequency of subsequent monitoring shall depend on
the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and
any discoveries of tribal cultural resources as defined in California Public Resources Code Section 21074.

The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the
Native American monitor, shall be responsible for
determining the duration and frequency of
monitoring considering these factors. Archaeological
and Native American monitoring would be
discontinued when the depth of grading and soil
conditions no longer retain the potential to contain
cultural deposits (i.e., soil conditions are comprised
solely of fill or granitic bedrock).

MM TRC-5 In the event that previously unidentified tribal cultural resources are discovered, all work must halt within a
100-foot radius of the discovery. The qualified
archaeologist and the Native American monitor shall
evaluate the significance of the find and shall have the authority to modify the no-work radius as appropriate,
using professional judgment. The qualified
archaeologist and Native American Monit or shall
consider the criteria identified by California Public
Resources Code sections 21083.2(g) and 21074, and
CEQA Guidelines sections 15064 and 15064.5(c) in
determining the significance of a discovered
resource. If the professional archaeologist and Native American monitor determine that the find does not
During Grading Project
Applicant/
Project
Archaeologist/
Native
American
Monitor

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "F"

Page 13 of 18 ends

129
Item6.

Exhibit “F” - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 14 ends

November 2022
represent a culturally significant resource, work may
resume immediately, and no agency notifications are
required. Isolates and clearly non-significant deposits shall be documented in the field and collected, and
monitored grading can immediately proceed. All
unearthed archaeological resources or tribal cultural
resources shall be collected, temporarily stored in a
secure location, and repatriated for later reburial on
the project site, pursuant to t he terms of the Pre -
Excavation Agreement.

MM TRC-6 If the qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor determine that the find does represent a
potentially significant tribal cultural resource,
considering the criteria identified by California Public Resources Code sections 21083.2(g) and 21074, and
CEQA Guidelines sections 15064 and 15064.5(c), the
archaeologist shall immediately notify the City of said discovery. The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the City, the consulting TCA Tribe(s), and the
Native American monitor, shall determine the
significance of the discovered resource. A
recommendation for the tribal cultural resource’s
treatment and disposition shall be made by the
qualified archaeologist in consultation with the TCA
Tribe(s) and be submitted to the City for review and
approval. If the find is determined to be a Tribal
Cultural Resource under CEQA, as defined in
California Public Resources Code Section 21074(a)
though (c), appropriate treatment measures would be
implemented. Work may not resume within the no -
work radius until the City, through consultation as set forth herein, determines either that: 1) the discovery
does not constitute a Tribal Cultural Resource under
During Grading Project
Archaeologist/
Native
American
Monitor

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "F"

Page 14 of 18 ends

130
Item6.

Exhibit “F” - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 15 ends

November 2022
CEQA, as defined in California Public Resources
Code Section 21074(a) through (c); or 2) the
approved treatment and disposition measures have
been completed.

MM TRC-7 All sacred sites, significant tribal cultural resources, and unique archaeological resources encountered
within the Project area shall be avoided and
preserved as the preferred mitigation. The avoidance
and preservation of the significant tribal cultural
resource or unique archaeological resource must first
be considered and evaluated in consultation with the
TCA Tribe(s) as required by CEQA and in compliance
with all relevant mitigation measures for the Project. If any significant tribal cultural resource or unique
archaeological resource has been discovered and
such avoidance or preservation measure has been
deemed to be infeasible by the City’s Director of
Development Services Department ( after a
recommendation is provided by the qualified
archaeologist, in consultation with the TCA Tribe(s),
making a determination of infeasibility that takes into account the factors listed in California Public
Resources Code sections 21061.1, 21081(a)(3), and
CEQA Guidelines section 15091, and in accordance
with all relevant mitigation measures for the Project), then culturally appropriate treatment of those
resources, including but not limited to funding an
ethnographic or ethnohistoric study of the
resource(s), and/or developing a research design and
data recovery program to mitigate impacts shall be
prepared by the qualified archaeologist (using
During Grading Project
Archaeologist/
Native
American
Monitor

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "F"

Page 15 of 18 ends

131
Item6.

Exhibit “F” - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 16 ends

November 2022
professional archaeological methods), in consultation
with the TCA Tribe and the Native American monitor,
and s hall be subject to approval by the City. No
artifact sampling for analysis is allowed, unless
requested and approved by the consulting TCA
Tribe(s). Before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the research design and
data recovery program activities must be concluded
to the satisfaction of the City.

MM TRC-8 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 im mediately notify the San Diego County
Coroner’s office. Determination of whether the
remains are human shall be conducted on site and in
situ where they were discovered by a forensic
anthropologist, unless the forensic anthropologist
and the Native American monitor agree to remove the
remains to a temporary off -site location for
examination. No further excavation or disturbance of
the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to
overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the Coroner
has made the necessar y findings as to origin and
disposition. A temporary construction exclusion zone
shall be established surrounding the area of the
discovery so that the area would be protected, and
consultation and treatment could occur as prescribed
by law. If the Coroner determines the remains are
During Grading Project
Applicant/
Project
Archaeologist/
Native
American
Monitor/
County
Coroner

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "F"

Page 16 of 18 ends

132
Item6.

Exhibit “F” - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 17 ends

November 2022
Native American and not the result of a crime scene,
the Coroner would notify the NAHC, which then will
designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant
(MLD) for the project (California Public Resources
Code § 5097.98) for proper treatment and disposition
in accordance with California Public Resources Code
section 5097.98. The designated MLD will have 48
hours from the time access to the property is granted
to make recommendations concerning treatment of
the remains. If the Ci ty does not agree with the
recommendations of the MLD, the NAHC can
mediate (California Public Resources Code §
5097.94). If no agreement is reached, the remains
shall be kept in situ, or reburied in a secure location in close proximity to where they were found and where
they will not be further disturbed (California Public
Resources Code § 5097.98). Work may not resume
within the no work radius until the lead agency,
through consultation as appropriate, determines that
the treatment measures have been completed to their
satisfaction. The analysis of the remains shall only
occur on site in the presence of the MLD, unless the
forensic anthropologist and the MLD agree to remove
the remains to an off-site location for examination.

MM TRC-9 If the qualified archaeologist elects to collect any tribal cultural resources, the Native American monitor must
be present during any cataloging of those resources.

Moreover, if the qualified archaeologist does not
collect the cultural resources that are unearthed
during the ground -disturbing activities, the Native
American monitor may, at their discretion, collect said During Grading Project
Archaeologist/
Native
American
Monitor

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "F"

Page 17 of 18 ends

133
Item6.

Exhibit “F” - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 18 ends

November 2022

resources for later reburial on the Project site or
storage at a local curation facility. Any tribal cultural resources collected by the q ualified archaeologist
shall be repatriated to the TCA Tribe for reburial on
the Project site. Should the TCA Tribe(s) decline the
collection, the collection shall be curated at the San
Diego Archaeological Center. All other resources
determined by the qua lified archaeologist, in
consultation with the Native American monitor, to not
be tribal cultural resources, shall be curated at the San Diego Archaeological Center.

MM TRC-10 Prior to the release of the grading bond, a monitoring report and/or evaluation report, if appropriate, that
describes the results, analysis, and conclusions of the archaeological monitoring program and any data
recovery program on the Project site, shall be
submitted by the qualified archaeologist to the City.

The Native American monitor shall be responsible for
providing any notes or comments to the qualified
archaeologist in a timely manner to be submitted with
the report. The report will include California
Department of Parks and Recreation Primary and
Archaeological Site Forms for any newly discovered
resources. A copy of the final report will be submitted to the South Coastal Information Center after
approval by the City.

Post- Grading Project
Applicant/
Project
Archaeologist/
Native
American
Monitor

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "F"

Page 18 of 18 ends

134
Item6.

Page 1 of 6 ends

EXHIBIT “G”

FINDINGS OF FACT
PL21-0269, PL21-0278, PL22-0586
Environmental Determination(s)

1. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code section 21000 et. seq.) (“CEQA”), and its implementing regulations (14 C.C.R. § 15000 et seq.) (“CEQA Guidelines”), the City of Escondido (“City”) is the Lead Agency for the project (“Project”), as the public agency with the principal responsibility for approving the Project.

2. An Initial Study/M itigated Negative Declaration ( “IS/MND”) for the Project was prepared, published, circulated and reviewed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the local environ mental procedures. The decision-making body of the Lead Agency shall adopt the proposed IS/MND only if:
- It finds on the basis of the whole record before it that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment, and - The IS/MND reflects the Lead Agency's independent judgment and analysis.

3. The Final IS/MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ( “MMRP”), collectively constitute the environmental documentation under and pursuant to CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and local environmental procedures relating to the project, and shall be referred to herein collectively as the "CEQA Documents."

4. The Planning Commi ssion has received the material record supporting all of the CEQA documents for the project. The Planning Commission, finds the following:
- The Final IS/MND reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis. - That there is no substantial evidence that the Project or any of its aspects could result in significant adverse impacts, or that cannot be fully mitigated. All previously identified impacts have been mitigated to less than a significant level. - The Planning Commission also finds that the mitigation measures listed in the MMRP will not cause any potentially significant effects.
- The Final IS/MND has been completed in compliance with CEQA and it constitutes a complete, accurate, adequate and good faith effort at full disclosure under CEQA.

5. Mitigation measures are recommended to be incorporated as part of the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The recommended approval of the Project also includes the adoption of the MMRP, attached hereto this Resolution.

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "G"

Page 1 of 6 ends

135
Item6.

Page 2 of 6 ends

6. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(e), all documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings are located at the City of Escondido, City Hall. The City Clerk, whose office is located at 201 North Broadway, E scondido CA 92025, is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission’s decision is based, which documents and materials shall be available for public ins pection and copying in accordance with the provisions of the California Public Records Act.

Tentative Subdivision Map Determination(s)

1. The location, design, and residential density of the proposed 47-lot residential subdivision is consistent with the goals and policies of the Escondido General Plan because residential development is permitted and encouraged within the Suburban and Estate II land-use designation. As a result of a concession requested pursuant to State Density Bonus Law and the Escondido Zoning Code, the inclusion of multi-family dwelling on property with an Estate II land use designation does not necessitate an amendment to the General Plan, nor does the increase in density beyond what would otherwise be allowed in the Suburban and Estate II General Plan land use designations. Further, the proposed map would be in conformance with goals and policies in the Housing Element of the General Plan which detail the need to plan for quality, managed, and sustainable growth, and provide a range of housing opportunities for all income groups and populations with special needs. The provision of 10 units for low-income households assists the City in meeting its affordable housing goals established by the Regional Housing Needs Assessment.

2. The proposed subdivision as designed encourages a compact, efficient residential form that promotes a variety of mobility forms, supports nearby commercial establishments and takes advantage of infrastructure improvements.

3. The Project site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development because the property is within the urban fringe area developed with a mixture of similar single-family residential subdivisions. The Suburban land use designation allows up to 3.3 dwelling units per acre and the Estate II land use designation allows up to 2.0 dwelling units per acre. While the subdivision would be developed at a net density of approximately 4.43 dwelling units per net acre, it is consistent with State Density Bonus Law and applicable provisions of the Escondido Zoning Code. Additionally, the subdivision has been designed to provide residential uses in a suburban setting, consistent with the surrounding area. Any deviations from zoning standards are consistent with State Density Bonus Law and the Escondido Zoning Code and are required to accommodate the affordable housing development.

4. The approval of the proposed Project would be based on sound principles of land use and is well integrated with its surroundings near similar residentially developed properties because adequate access, utilities, stormwater detention and landscaping would be provided, as Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "G"

Page 2 of 6 ends

136
Item6.

Page 3 of 6 ends

detailed in the staff report. The Project also would not be out of character for the area, which contains other suburban residential development. All vehicular traffic generated by the Project will be accommodated safely, enhanced with public improvements and without degrading the level of service on the adjoining streets or intersections.

5. The Project would not result in the destruction of desirable natural features, nor be visually obstructive or disharmonious with surrounding areas because the site is not located on a skyline or intermediate ridge . The proposed map has been designed to minimi ze impacts associated with grading, and findings required to allow exemptions from slope provisions of the Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance of the Escondido Zoning Code have been made.

6. The Project site is physically suitable for this proposed type of residential development and density of development. Approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map would not violate the requirements, goals, policies, or spirit of the General Plan. The site is suitable for this residential type of development and density as detail in the Planning Commission staff report dated December 13, 2022, and noted in the above sections.

7. The Project would be compatible with the surrounding uses because the subject site is within a suburban residential area developed with a variety of residential developments of varying density, lot sizes and design. All utilities will be installed underground, with water and sewer service provided by the City of Escondido. All vehicular traffic generated by the Project will be accommodated safely and without degrading the level of service on the adjoining streets or intersections. The proposed Project also would not result in a significant impact to biological or natural resources.

8. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The Project’s proposed street alignments, grades and widths; drainage and sanitary facilities and utilities, including alignments and grades thereof; location and size of all required easements and rights-of-way; lot configuration; traffic and emergency access; and grading; were all reviewed for compliance with relevant City policies and codes.

The Project would not cause substantial environmental damage, would avoid injury to fish or wildlife, or their habi tat due to the site’s location. In addition, the site does not contain any sensitive or protected biological or natural resources.

9. The design of the Tentative Subdivision Map and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements of record, or easements established through court judgments, or acquired by the population at large, for access through, or use of property within the proposed map because any existing easements and improvem ents will either be accommodated within the project design; be quitclaimed prior to recordation of the map; or alternate provisions provided.

10. The design of the Tentative Subdivision Ma p has provided, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural h eating or cooling opp ortunities in the subdivision. The lot sizes and the subdivision configuration provide opportunities for passive/solar heating.

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "G"

Page 3 of 6 ends

137
Item6.

Page 4 of 6 ends

11. All permits and approvals applicable to the proposed map pursuant to the Escondido Zoning Code and the Conditions of Approval, included as Exhibit “E” to this resolution, will have been obtained prior to the recordation of the Final Map.

12. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map and associated permits will not conflict with regional or local housing goals and the proposed Project would be in conformance with General Plan Housing Goals and Policies to expand the stock of all housing; increase homeownership; plan for quality managed and sustainable growth; and encourage a compact, efficient urban form that promotes transit, supports nearby commercial establishments and takes advantage of infrastructure improvements . The proposed Project would not diminish the Quality -of-Life Standards of the General Plan as the Project would not materially degrade the level of service on adjacent streets or public facilities, create excessive noise, and adequate on-site parking, circulation and public services will be provided to the site.

13. In consideration of the above, the Project meets all of the requirements of section 66474 of the California Government Code , and the proposed map meets all of the requirements or conditions imposed by the Subdivision Map Act and the Escondido Municipal Code, including the Escondido Zoning Code, as detailed in the staff reports, the Escondido General Plan, and above findings.

No Net Loss

1. The purpose of Government Code section 65863 (“No Net Loss Law”), is to ensure development opportunities remain available throughout the planning period to accommodate a jurisdiction’s regional housing need allocation (“RHNA”), especially for lower- and moderate- income households. Jurisdictions also cannot approve new housing at significantly lower densities or at different income categories than was projected in the Housing Element without making specific findings and identifying other sites that could accommodate these units and affordability levels “lost” as a result of the approval.

2. The Project site contains seven parcels, three of which are identified in the Housing Element’s suitable sites inventory. Thos e sites contain nine existing dwelling units and are capable of accommodating an additional six units. While the Project would demolish the nine existing units, as well as four additional units on parcels not identified in the suitable sites inventory, it would construct 54 new units for a net increase of 41 units. Geographically, at least 31 of the new units, including the 10 affordable units, will be on the three suitable sites inventory parcels. Therefore, the Project would result in no net loss pursuant to the Government Code.

3. The Project would assist the City in meeting its RHNA by providing more units than identified for the Project site in the suitable sites inventory, including 10 affordable housing units where none are identified.

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "G"

Page 4 of 6 ends

138
Item6.

Page 5 of 6 ends

Grading Exemption

1. The Project includes a request for a Grading Exemption for two fill slopes greater than 10 feet in height which are closer than 50 feet to a property line, as well as a cut -slope greater than 2:1 which has been determined by the Director to hav e a potential impact on adjacent properties. Because the Project includes a request for various waivers, as permitted by Density Bonus Law and the Escondido Zoning Code, the only finding that must be made is related to health and safety considerations due to slope stability. The preliminary geotechnical report prepared for the Project has indicated that the slopes do not pose a health and safety risk. Detailed plans and technical reports will be reviewed by the City as part of the grading plan submittal to ensure that the information contained in the preliminary geotechnical report is adequately incorporated into the final design, and all slopes would be landscaped in accordance with the zoning code.

Annexation Determinations:

1. The proposed annexation conforms to the annexation policies established in the Escondido General Plan Land Use and Community Form Element that are intended to guide development to meet present and future needs, achieve a vibrant community, and enhance the character of Escondido.

2. The one parcel proposed to be annexed into the City of Escondido is located within the Escondido Sphere of Influence and Escondido Planning Area.

3. The reorganization includes annexation to the City of Escondido and detachment from County Service Area No. 135 (Regional Communications). The parcels also will be excluded from the Rincon Municipal Water District, Improvement District “E” for fire services.

4. The City of Escondido will provide fire and emergency response to the proposed annexation territory. City sewer service would be available to the subject parcel. The City of Escondido Police Department, which already patrols the general area and works coo peratively with the San Diego County Sheriff, would assume responsibility for law enforcement. The annexation would not introduce new service providers to the area or become a departure from the existing pattern of service delivery in this portion of Escondido.

5. The proposed annexation will not conflict with any specific development plans for the properties. Development will be subject to the provisions of the Escondido General Plan and Zoning Code upon annexation.

6. The public health, safety and welfare will not be adversely affected by the proposed change because the parcel has already been pre -zoned as RE-20, consistent with its General Plan land use designation.

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "G"

Page 5 of 6 ends

139
Item6.

Page 6 of 6 ends

7. The requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been met because it was determined the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment because mitigation measures and project design features will avoid or reduce potential impacts to less than a significant level, as demonstrated in the Final IS/MND prepared for the project.

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "G"

Page 6 of 6 ends

140
Item6.

EXHIBIT “H”

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PL21-0269, PL21-0278, PL22-0584
This Project is conditionally approved as set forth on the application received by the City of Escondido on July 16, 2021, and the Project drawings consisting of Site Plans, Floor Plans, Sections, Architectural Elevations, Civil Sheets/Grading, Landscape Plans and Colored Elevations; all designated as approved on January 11, 2023, and shall not be altered without express authorization by the Development Service Department.

For the purpose of these conditions, the term “Applicant” shall also include the Project proponent, owner, permittee, or its successors in interest, as may be applicable.

A. General:

1. Acceptance of Permit. Should the Applicant fail to file a timely and valid appeal of this Permit within the applicable appeal period, such inaction by the Applicant shall be deemed to constitute all of the following on behalf of the Applicant:
a. Acceptance of the Permit by the Applicant; and
b. Agreement by the Applicant to be bound by, to comply with, and to do all things required of or by the Applicant pursuant to all of the terms, provisions, and conditions of this Project Permit or other approval and the provisions of the Escondido Municipal Code or Zoning Code applicable to such Permit.

2. Permit Expiration. If the Permit was filed as or concurrent wit h a Tentative Map or Planned Development application, the Permit shall expire 36 months from the effective date of approval, unless additional time is granted pursuant to the Map Act or to the Escondido Municipal Code. If not filed as concurrent with a Tentative Map or Planned Development application, the Permit shall automatically expire after one year from the date of this approval, or the expiration date of any extension granted in accordance with the Escondido Municipal Code and Zoning Code.

The Permit shall be deemed expired if a building permit has not been obtained or work has been discontinued in the reliance of that building permit. If no building permits are required, the City may require a noticed hearing to be scheduled before the authorized agency to determine if there has been demonstrated a good faith intent to proceed, pursuant to and in accordance with the provision of this Permit.

3. Certification. The Director of Development Services, or his/her designee, is authorized and directed to make, or require the Applicant to make, all corrections and modifications to the Project drawings and any other relevant document comprising the Project in its entirety, as necessary to Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "H"

Page 1 of 26 ends

141
Item6.

make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the Project. This includes amending the Project drawings as necessary to incorporate revisions made by the decision - making body and/or reflecting any modifications identified in these conditions of approval. Three copies of final Approved Plan set, shall be submitted to the Planning Division for certification. Said plans must be certified by the Planning Division prior to submittal of any post-entitlement permit, including grading, public improvement, landscape, or building plans for the Project.

4. Conformance to Approved Plans.

a. The operation and/or use of the subject property shall be consistent with the Project Description and Details of Request, designated with the Approved Plan set.

b. Nothing in this Permit shall authorize the Applicant to intensify the authorized activity beyond that which is specifically described in this Permit.

c. Once a permit has been issued, the Applicant may request Permit modifications. “Minor" modifications may be granted if found by the Director of D evelopment Services to be in substantial conformity with the Approved Plan set, including all exhibits and Permit conditions attached hereto. Modifications beyond the scope described in the Approved Plan set may require submittal of an amendment to the Pe rmit and approval by the authorized agency.

5. Limitations on Use. Prior to any use of the Project site pursuant to this Permit, all Conditions of Approval contained herein shall be completed or secured to the satisfaction of the Development Services Department.

6. Certificate of Occupancy.

a. No change in the character of occupancy or change to a different group of occupancies as described by the Building Code shall be made without first obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Official, as required, and any such change in occupancy must comply with all other applicable local and state laws.

b. Prior to final occupancy, a Planning Final Inspection shall be completed to ensure that the property is in full compliance with the Permit terms and conditions. The findings of the inspection shall be documented on a form and content satisfacto ry to the Director of Development Services.

7. Availability of Permit Conditions.

a. Prior to building/grading permit issuance, the Applicant shall cause a covenant regarding real property to be recorded that sets forth the terms and conditions of this Permit approval and shall be of a form and content satisfactory to the Director of Development Services.

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "H"

Page 2 of 26 ends

142
Item6.

b. The Applicant shall make a copy of the terms conditions of this Permit readily available to any member of the public or City staff upon request. Said terms and conditions shall be printed on any construction plans that are submitted to the Building Division for plan check processing.

8. Right to Entry. The holder of this Permit shall make the premises available for inspection by City staff during construction or operating hours and allow the investigations of property necessary to ensure that minimum codes, regulations, local ordinances and safety requirements are properly followed. The Applicant shall provide such business records, licenses, and other materials necessary upon request to provide evidence of compliance with the conditions of approval , as well as federal, state, or laws.

9. Compliance with Federal, State, and Local Laws. Nothing in this Permit shall relieve the Applicant from complying with conditions , performance standards, and regulations generally imposed upon activities similar in nature to the activit y authorized by this permit. (Permits from other agencies may be required as specified in the Permit’s Details of Request.) This Permit does not relieve the Applicant of the obligation to comply with all applicable statutes, regulations, and procedures in effect at the time that any engineering permits or building permits are issued unless specifically waived herein.

No part of this Permit’s approval shall be construed to permit a violation of any part of the Escondido Municipal or Zoning Code. During Project construction and after Project completion, the Applicant shall ensure the subject land use activit ies covered by this Permit is conducted in full compliance with all local and state laws.

10. Fees. The appropriate development fees and Citywide Facility fees shall be paid in accordance with the prevailing fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services. Through plan check processing, the Applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but not be limited to: Permit and Plan Checking Fees, Water and Sewer Service Fees, School Fees, Traffic Mitigation Fees, Flood Control Mitigation Fees, Park M itigation Fees, Fire Mitigation/Cost Recovery Fees, and other fees listed in the Fee Schedule, which may be amended. Arrangements to pay these fees shall be made prior to building permit issuance to the satisfaction of the Development Services Department.

Approval of this development project is conditioned upon payment of all applicable development fees and connection fees in the manner provided in Chapter 6 of the Escondido Municipal Code.

11. Costs of Municipal Services. In accordance with the General Plan, the Developer shall fund all on-going operational costs of providing municipal services required for the Project, the amount of such funding shall be in accordance with the special tax levy adopted annually by the City Council based on the project density, unless another amount is approved by the City Council at the time of Project approval. Such funding shall occur through either an agreement to form or annex into a Community Facilities District (“CFD”) or the establishment of another lawful funding mechanism reasonably acceptable to the City (“Public Services Funding Agreement”). Projects that elect to Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "H"

Page 3 of 26 ends

143
Item6.

annex into the Services CFD shall submit consent forms prior to the first permit issuance if they have not done so already. The provisions of the Public Services Funding Agreement shall specify any terms and limitations necessary to implement the CFD or other funding mechanism to offset the impacts to public services associated with the project. The City Manager, or City Manager’s designee, shall be au thorized to approve and execute the Public Services Funding Agreement, and the Public Services Funding Agreement shall be finalized prior to the City’s issuance of any permit for the Project.

12. Public Art Partnership Program. All requirements of the Public Art Partnership Program, Ordinance No. 86 -70 shall be satisfied prior to any building permit issuance. The ordinance requires that a public art fee be added at the time of the building permit issuance for the purpose of participating in the City Public Art Program.

13. Clerk Recording.

a. State Law (SB 1535), effective January 1, 2007, requires certain projects to pay fees for purposes of funding the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. If the Project is found to have a significant impact to wildlife resources and/or sensitive habit at, in accordance with State law, or if the Project was analyzed through a negative declaration or environmental impact report, the Applicant shall remit to the City of Escondido Planning Division, within two working days of the effective date of the adoption of the environmental document, a check payable to the “San Diego County Clerk,” in the amount that is published by the County Clerk’s Office. Failure to remit the required fees in full within the specified time noted above will result in County notifi cation to the State that a fee was required but not paid, and could result in State imposed penalties and recovery under the provisions of the Revenue and Taxation code. In addition, Section 21089(b) of the Public Resources Code, and Section 711.4(c) of the Fish and Game Code provide that no project shall be operative, vested, or final until all the required filing fees are paid. The County Clerk’s Office filing fees for other environmental review documents are adjusted annually by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. If the fee increase after the date of this approval, the Applicant shall be responsible for the increase.

b. For more information on filing fees, please refer to the County Clerk’s Office and/or the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 753.5.

14. Legal Description Adequacy. The legal description attached to the application has been provided by the Applicant and neither the City of Escondido nor any of its employees assume responsibility for the accuracy of said legal description.

15. Application Accuracy. The information contained in the application and all attached materials are assumed to be correct, true, and complete. The City of Escondido is relying on the accuracy of this information and Project-related representations in order to process this application . Any permits issued by the City may be rescinded if it is determined that the information and materials submitted are not true and cor rect. The Applicant may be liable for any costs associated with rescission of such permits.

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "H"

Page 4 of 26 ends

144
Item6.

16. Enforcement. If any of the terms, covenants, or conditions contained herein shall fail to occur or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, the City of Escondido shall have the right to deny or withh old subsequent permit approvals or permit inspections that are derived from the application entitlements herein granted; issue stop work orders; pursue abatement orders, penalties, or other administrative remedies as set forth in state and local laws; or i nstitute and prosecute litigation to compel compliance with such terms, covenants, or conditions or seek damages for their violation. The Applicant shall be notified in advance prior to any of the above actions being taken by the City and shall be given the opportunity to remedy any deficiencies identified by the City.

17. Indemnification, Hold Harmless, Duty to Defend.

a. The Applicant shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend (with counsel reasonably acceptable to the City) the City, its Councilmembers, Planning Commissioners, boards, commissions, departments, officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers (collectively, “Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, proceedings (including but not limited to legal and administrative proceedings of any kind), suits, fines, penalties, judgments, orders, levies, costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages, or injuries, at law or in equity, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages and attorney’s fees and other related litigation costs and expenses (collectively, “Claims”), of every nature ca used by, arising out of, or in connection with (i) any business, work, conduct, act, omission, or negligence of the Applicant or the owner of the Property (including the Applicant’s or the owner of the Property’s contractors, subcontractors, licensees, sub lessees, invitees, agents, consultants, employees, or volunteers), or such activity of any other person that is permitted by the Applicant or owner of the Property, occurring in, on, about, or adjacent to the Property; (ii) any use of the Property, or any accident, injury, death, or damage to any person or property occurring in, on, or about the Property; or (iii) any default in the performance of any obligation of the Applicant or the owner of the Property to be performed pursuant to any condition of appro val for the Project or agreement related to the Project, or any such claim, action, or proceeding brought thereon. Provided, however, that the Applicant shall have no obligation to indemnify, hold harmless, or defend the City as to any Claims that arise f rom the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. In the event any such Claims are brought against the City, the Applicant, upon receiving notice from the City, shall defend the same at its sole expense by counsel reasonably acceptable to the Cit y and shall indemnify the City for any and all administrative and litigation costs incurred by the City itself, the costs for staff time expended, and reasonable attorney’s fees (including the full reimbursement of any such fees incurred by the City’s outside counsel, who may be selected by the City at its sole and absolute discretion and who may defend the City against any Claims in the manner the City deems to be in the best interests of the City).

b. The Applicant further and separately agrees to and sha ll indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City (including all Indemnified Parties) from and against any and all Claims Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "H"

Page 5 of 26 ends

145
Item6.

brought by any third party to challenge the Project or its approval by the City, including but not limited to any Claims related to the Project’s environmental determinations or environmental review documents, or any other action taken by the City regarding environmental clearance for the Project or any of the Project approvals. Such indemnification shall include the Applicant’s payment for any and all administrative and litigation costs and expenses incurred by the City in defending against any such Claims, including payment for all administrative and litigation costs incurred by the City itself, the costs for staff time expended, and re asonable attorney's fees (including the full reimbursement of any such fees incurred by the City’s outside counsel, who may be selected by the City at its sole and absolute discretion and who may defend the City against any Claims in the manner the City de ems to be in the best interests of the City and the Project).

c. The City, in its sole discretion and upon providing notice to the Applicant, may require the Applicant to deposit with the City an amount estimated to cover costs, expenses, and fees (including attorney’s fees) required to be paid by the Applicant in relation to any Claims referenced herein, which shall be placed into a deposit account from which the City may draw as such costs, expenses, and fees are incurred. Within 14 days after receiving written notice from the City, the Applicant shall replenish the deposit account in the amount the City determines is necessary in the context of the further defense of such Claims. To the extent such deposit is required by the City, the amount of such depos it and related terms and obligations shall be expressed in a written Deposit Account Agreement, subject to the City Attorney’s approval as to form. The City, in its sole and reasonable discretion, shall determine the amount of any initial deposits or subs equent deposits of funds, and the Applicant may provide documentation or information for the City to consider in making its determinations. Nothing within this subsection shall be construed as to relieve the Applicant’s obligations to indemnify, hold harmless, or defend the City as otherwise stated herein.

B. Construction, Maintenance, and Operation Obligations:

1. Code Requirements. All construction shall comply with the applicable requirements of the Escondido Municipal Code, Escondido Zoning Code, California Building Code; and the requirements of the Planning Division, Engineering Services Department, Director of Development Services, Building Official, City Engineer, and the Fire Chief in carrying out the administration of said codes. Approval of this Permit request shall not waive compliance with any City regulations in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance unless specifically waived herein.

As a condition of receiving the land use approvals specified herein, Applicant shall maintain the property subject to the approvals in compliance with all applicable city codes governing the condition or appearance of property. In addition to compliance with such basic standards, the property subject to these approvals shall also be maintained free of trash, plant debris, weeds, and concrete (other than existing foundations and permanent structures). Any signs placed on the property advertising such property for sale or rent shall be in accordance with applicable laws, Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "H"

Page 6 of 26 ends

146
Item6.

and be kept clean, in like -new condition, and free from fading and graffiti at all times. This condition shall be applicable from the date the land use is approved. The failure to comply with this condition shall subject the approvals specified herein to revocation for failure to comply.

2. Agency License and Permitting. In order to make certain on - or off -site improvements associated with the Approved Plan set, the Permit request may require review and clearance from other agencies. Nothing in these Conditions of Approval shall be construed as to waive compliance with other government agency regulations or to obtain permits from other agencies to make certain on - or off -site improvements p rior to Final Map recordation, grading permit issuance, building permit issuance, or certificate of occupancy as required. This review may result in conditions determined by the reviewing agency.

At all times during the effective period of this Permit, the Applicant and any affiliated responsible party shall obtain and maintain in valid force and effect, each and every license and permit required by a governmental agency for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the authorized activity.

3. Utilities. All new utilities and utility runs shall be underground , or fee payment in-lieu subject to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

4. Signage. All proposed signage associated with the Project must comply with Article 66 ( Sign Ordinance) of the Escondido Zoning Code. Separate sign permits will be required for Project signage. All non -conforming signs shall be removed. The Applicant shall submit with any sign permit graphic/list of all signs to be removed and retained, along with any new signage proposed.

5. Noise. All Project generated noise shall conform to the City’s Noise Ordinance (Ordinance 90 - 08).

6. Lighting. All exterior lighting shall conform to the requirements of Article 35 (Outdoor Lighting Ordinance) of the Escondido Zoning Code.

7. General Property Maintenance. The property owner or management company shall maintain the property in good visual and functional condition. This shall include, but not be limited to, all exterior elements of the buildings such as paint, roof, paving, signs, lighting and landscaping. The Applicant shall paint and re -paint all building exteriors, accessory equipment, and utility boxes servicing the Project, as necessary to maintain clean, safe, and efficient appearances.

8. Anti-Graffiti. The Applicant shall remove all graffiti from buildings and wall surfaces within 48 hours of defacement, including all areas of the job site for when the Project is under construction.

9. Anti-Litter. The site and surrounding area shall be maintained free of litter, refu se, and debris.

Cleaning shall include keeping all publicly used areas free of litter, trash, and garbage.

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "H"

Page 7 of 26 ends

147
Item6.

10. Roof, Wall, and Ground Level Equipment. All mechanical equipment shall be screened and concealed from view in accordance with Section 33-1085 of the Escondido Zoning Code.

11. Trash Enclosures. Appropriate trash enclosure(s) with roof or other approved trash system shall be approved by the Plan ning and Engineering Division. The property owner or management company shall be responsible for ensuring that enclosures are easily assessable for garbage and recyclables collection; and that the area is managed in a clean, safe, and efficient manner. Trash enclosure covers shall be closed when not in use. Trash enclosures shall be regularly emptied.

There shall be the prompt removal of visible signs of overflow of garbage, smells emanating from enclosure, graffiti, pests, and vermin.

12. Staging Construction Areas. All staging areas shall be conducted on the subject property, subject to approval of the Enginee ring Department. Off-site staging areas, if any, shall be approved through the issuance of an off-site staging area permit/agreement.

13. Disturbance Coordinator. The Applicant shall designate and provide a point -of-contact whose responsibilities shall inclu de overseeing the implementation of Project, compliance with Permit terms and conditions, and responding to neighborhood concerns.

14. Construction Waste Reduction, Disposal, and Recycling. Applicant shall recycle or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65% of the non -hazardous construction and demolition waste for residential projects or portions thereof in accordance with either Section 4.408.2, 4.408.3, or

4.408.4 of the California Green Buildin g Standards Code; and/or for non -residential projects or portions thereof in accordance with either Section 5.408.1.1, 5.408.1.2, or 5.408.1.3 of the California Green Building Standards Code. In order to ensure compliance with the waste diversion goals fo r all residential and non -residential construction projects, the Applicant must submit appropriate documentation as described in Section 4.408.5 of the California Green Building Standards Code for residential projects or portions thereof, or Section 5.408.1.4 for non- residential projects or portions thereof, demonstrating compliance with the California Green Building Standards Code sections cited above.

15. Construction Equipment Emissions. Applicant shall incorporate measures that reduce construction and operational emissions. Prior to the City’s issuance of the demolition and grading permits for the Project, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Division that its construction contractor will use a construction fleet wherein all 50-horsepower or greater diesel-powered equipment is powered with California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) certified Tier 4 Interim engines or equipment outfitted with CARB -verified diesel particulate filters. An exemption from this requirement may be gran ted if (i) the Applicant provides documentation demonstrating that equipment with Tier 4 Interim engines are not reasonably available, and (ii) functionally equivalent diesel PM emission totals can be achieved for the Project from other combinations of construction equipment. Before an exemption may be granted, the Applicant’s construction contractor shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services that (i) at least two construction fleet owners/operators in San Diego County wer e contacted and those owners/operators confirmed Tier 4 Interim equipment could not be located within San Diego County during the desired construction schedule, and (ii) the proposed Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "H"

Page 8 of 26 ends

148
Item6.

replacement equipment has been evaluated using the California Emissions E stimator Model (“CalEEMod”) or other industry standard emission estimation method, and documentation provided to the Planning Division confirms that necessary project -generated functional equivalencies in the diesel PM emissions level are achieved.

16. Phasing. A phasing plan shall be submitted for all projects which include more than one building.

The phasing plan shall identify the order in which all on - and off -site improvements will be installed, including triggers for improvements resulting from mitigat ion measures placed on the project through the environmental review process or required for General Plan conformance. The plan shall also identify the order in which structures will be built and occupied, the location of construction fencing at each phase of construction, and any other means necessary to prevent conflicts between construction traffic and users of the occupied buildings. The phasing plan shall be approved by the City Planner, Building Official, City Engineer and Fire Marshal prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project. The phasing plan shall not be modified without written consent from the City of Escondido.

C. Parking and Loading/Unloading

1. Each residential unit shall be provided with two covered parking spaces.

2. Parking spaces provided by the Applicant, and any additional parking spaces provided above the required minimum amount, shall be dimensioned per City standards and be maintained in a clean, well-marked condition . The striping shall be drawn on the plans or a note shall be included indicating double-striping per City standards.

3. Parking for disabled persons (including “Van Accessible” spaces) and electric vehicle parking shall be provided in full compliance with the State Building Code.

4. No contractor or employe e may store, or permit to be stored, a commercial or construction vehicle/truck; or personal vehicle, truck, or other personal property on public-right-of-way or other public property without permission of the City Engineer.

5. No parking shall be permitted on cul-de-sacs on Streets “F,” “G,” and “H,” and parking shall only be permitted on one side of Street “G,” as shown on the Project plans.

6. Driveways shall be placed in a manner that allows for the largest number of on -street parking spaces to be provided.

D. Landscaping
The property owner or owners’ association assumes all responsibility for maintaining all on -site landscaping; any landscaping in the public right -of-way adjacent to the property, including potted plants; and any retaining and freestanding walls in a manner that satisfies the conditions contained herein.

1. Landscaped areas shall be maintained in a flourishing manner. Appropriate irrigation shall be provided for all landscape areas and be maintained in a fully operational condition.

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "H"

Page 9 of 26 ends

149
Item6.

2. All existing planting and planter areas, including areas within the public right -of-way, shall be repaired and landscaping brought into compliance with current standards. All dead plant material shall be removed and replaced by the property owner or management company.

3. If at the time of planning final inspection that it is determined that sufficient screening is not provided, the Applicant shall be required to provide additional landscaping improvements to the satisfaction of the Planning Division.

4. The landscaped areas shall be free of all foreign matter, weeds and plant material not approved as part of the landscape plan.

5. Failure to maintain landscaping and the site in general may result in the setting of a public hearing to revoke or modify the Permit approval.

6. Landscaping Plans. Applicant shall install all required improvements including retaining walls, stormwater improvements, right of way enhance and landscaping in substantial conformance to the planting and irrigation schedule as shown on the final Approved Plan set.

a. A final landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval, if meeting any of the criteria listed under Section 33 -1323 of the Zoning Code. Five copies of detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Engineering Services Department with the second submittal lf the grading plan. The initial submittal of the landscape plans shall inclu de the required plan check fees, paid in accordance with the prevailing fee schedule in effect at the time of submittal. De tails of Project fencing and walls, including materials and colors, shall be p rovided on the landscape plans. (Building permits may also be required.) The landscape and irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division and Engineering Services Department prior to issuance of grading permits, and shall be equivalent or superior to the conceptual landscape plans included as part of the Approved Plan set, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. The required landscape (mixture of native, fire resistant & drought tolerant plants and trees) and irrigation plans(s) shall comply with the provisions, requirements and standards outlined in Article 62 (Landscape Standards) of the Escondido Zoning Code and the Fire Protection Plan ( Undesirable Plant Materials List), except where stricter requirements are imposed by the State of California.

b. Screen fencing, retaining walls, storm water basin improvements, and landscaping (i.e. planting and irrigation) is to be provided prior to final occupancy.

c. The installation of the landscaping and irrigation shall be inspected by the Project landscape architect upon completion. He/she shall complete a Certificate of Landscape Compliance certifying that the installation is in substan tial compliance with the approved landscape and irriga tion plans and City standards. The Applicant shall submit the Certificate of Compliance to the Planning Division and request a final inspection.

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "H"

Page 10 of 26 ends

150
Item6.

d. Any new freestanding walls and/or retaining walls shall incorporate decorative materials or finishes, and shall be indicated on the landscaping plans. (Building permits may also be required.) All freestanding walls visible from points beyond the Project site shall be treated with a protective sealant coating to facilitate graffiti removal. The sealant shall be a type satisfactory to the Director of Development Services.

e. New or retrofitted trash enclosures shall accommodate vertical climbing plants, vines with support trellis panels, clinging non -deciduous or fast growing shrubbery that will screen the enclosures wall surface. T he Director of Development Services shall find that the proposed landscaping design, material, or method provides approximate equivalence to the specific requirements of this condition or is otherwise satisfactory and complies with the intent of these provisions.

E. Specific Planning Division Conditions

1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, included as Exhibit “C” to this resolution, are implemented.

2. The Project shall be managed by a professional management company. A self-managed Home Owners Association (“HOA”) shall not be allowed. This prohibition against a self-managed HOA must be reflected in the Project Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (“CC&Rs”).

3. The Project will be required to obtain a Vegetation /Tree Removal Permit from the Planning Division for any removal not undertaken in conjunction with a grading permit.

4. The Project will be required to obtain a demolition permit for the existing structures , and shall comply with construction waste management requirements.

5. Prior to issuance of building permit s, the Project will be subject to the design review by the Planning Commission for the single-family residences on Lots 1 – 12, 14 – 24, and 27 – 47.

6. Prior to issuance of a precise grading plan for Lot 13, the Applicant shall submit and obtain approval for Plot Plan application for the proposed duplexes on that lot.

7. The Project shall be consistent with the approved design waivers included in Attachment 2 to the Planning Commission staff report, dated December 13, 2022.

8. The design and appearance of the target units shall be consistent or compatible with the design of the total housing development in terms of appearance, materials, and finished quality.

9. The market-rate developer shall provide assurances through inclusion of notes on the Final Map that the all affordable housing units are constructed prior to construction of market-rate units in a quantity which exceeds that which would otherwise be permitted on the Property, inclusive of the Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "H"

Page 11 of 26 ends

151
Item6.

two existing units to remain . Certificates of occupancy shall be issued for all of the affordable housing units prior to issuance of the building permit for the 39th market-rate unit.

10. The Applicant shall prepare a Vector Management Plan (VMP) . The VMP shall include the following measures:

a. Trash and debris collection and removal shall occur continuously during all construction activities.

b. Temporary ponds or depressions shall be maintained by the routine removal of depressions, vegetation, sediment, trash, standing water and debris.

c. Application of standard BMPs in accordance with requirements of the City of Escondido.

d. The Applicant shall implement an active management plan to control mosquitos and vectors as described below:

1. During the wet season (Octob er through March) any biofiltration basins shall be visually inspected monthly by the Homeowner Association for the presence of vectors. If necessary, corrective measures shall be initiated, including more frequent inspectio ns if vector issues are identified by the public and/or routine inspections.

2. In the dry season (July through September) biofiltration basins shall be visually inspected weekly by the Homeowner Association for the presence of vectors, including more frequent inspections if vector issues are identified by the public and/or routine inspections.

e. Corrective Measures may include but not limited to:

1. The removal of emergent vegetation (e.g., cattails, sedges, etc.).

2. Emergent vegetation shall be controlled by hand labor, mechanical means or by frequent clear cutting, as the Proposed Project site is a recharge area for the groundwater aquifer.

3. Vegetation clearing is intended to prevent habitat for mosquito larvae.

4. Removal of the vege tation by hand shall be the preferred method in order to lessen the re-growth frequency and density.

F. Specific Building Division Conditions

1. Approval and subsequent development are subject to all conditions and requirements of the California Building Code and Building Division.

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "H"

Page 12 of 26 ends

152
Item6.

G. Housing and Neighborhood Services Conditions:

1. The Project shall provide a minimum of 10 affordable dwelling units for low income households (those earning less than 80% of the Area Median Income for the San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos MSA). Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall sign a binding affordable housing agreement with the City, which will set forth the conditions and guidelines to be met in the implementation of Density Bonus Law requirements and any other applicable requirements, and notes shall be added to the Final Map to this effect. It is anticipated that the affordable dwelling units will be for -sale units, however if they are rented, the affordable housing agreement shall require that the developer will be responsible for annual recertification of household income qualifications and compliance with rent limits. If the affordable dwelling units are rented, t he agreement will also establish specific compliance standards and rem edies available to the City upon failure by the developer to restrict units to target households for the prescribed time period (55 years for all target units as described in Government Code section 65915(c)). Income - qualified households will be monitored by the City of Escondido Housing and Neighborhood Services Division for the duration of the affordability period. Monitoring fees will be applied per the affordable housing agreement.

If the affordable dwelling units are for-sale units, the affordable housing agreement shall ensure that the initial occupants are persons and families of low income (as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code), and will enter into an equity sharing agreement in compliance with Government Code Section 65915(c)(2).

2. All affordability agreements shall run with the land and be binding on the applicant and its heirs, transferees, assigns, successors, administrators, executors, and other representatives, and recorded on the applicable property for the requisite period of time.

H. Specific Engineering Conditions of Approval

GENERAL

1. The applicant shall provide the City Engineer with a Subdivision Guarantee and Title Report covering all subject properties.

2. The location of all existing on-site and adjacent utilities and drainage facilities shall be determined by the Developer’s engineer. If a conflict occurs with the proposed project or improvements, arrangements for relocation of the conflicting utilities/facilities shall be made with the owner of the utility/facility prior to approval of the Grading and Improvement plans, and Final Map. This utility/facility relocation work shall be completed prior to issuance of Building Permits.

3. As surety for the construction of required off -site and/or on -site improveme nts, bonds and agreements in a form acceptable to the City Attorney shall be posted by the developer with the City of Escondido prior to the approval of the Grading Plan or Final Map.

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "H"

Page 13 of 26 ends

153
Item6.

4. The Developer shall post securities in accordance with the City prepare d Bond and Fee Letter based on a final Engineer’s Estimate of Grading and Improvements Cost prepared by the project engineer. The Developer is required to provide a Cash Clean Up deposit for all grading, landscaping, private Improvements and onsite drainag e improvements prior to approval of Grading Plans and issuance of Grading Permit. This Cash Clean Up Deposit amount shall be 10% of the total cost of the project private improvements, drainage and landscaping. The Developer is required to provide Performance (100% of total public improvement cost estimate), Labor and Material (50% of total public improvement cost estimate) and Guarantee and Warrantee (10 % of total public improvement cost estimate) bonds for all public improvements prior to approval of the Grading and Improvement Plans and issuance of Building Permits. All improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

5. Improvement plans prepared by a Civil Engineer, required for all public street, utility, and storm drain i mprovements, and Grading/Private Improvement plans prepared by Civil Engineer, required for all grading, drainage and private onsite improvement design, shall be submitted for review through the virtual plan review portal as a single package containing all items on the Engineering Initial Submittal Checklists. Landscaping Plans shall be prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect.

6. The Developer shall submit to the Planning Division a copy of the tentative map as presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council. The tentative map will be certified by the Planning Department that it is an accurate reproduction of the approved tentative map and must be uploaded with the first final engineering submittal to the Engineering Department.

7. This subdivision is contiguous to the facilities of the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) and the SDCWA may be required to review and/or sign the improvement plans. It will be the responsibility of the developer to pay all SDCWA fees for plan checking and permit approval. All agency approvals shall be submitted to the City Engineer and verified prior to issuance of construction permits or map recordation.

8. No Building Permits shall be issued for any construction within this Subdivision until the Final Map is recorded and either:

a) All conditions of the Tentative Map have been fulfilled: or

b) Those conditions unfulfilled at the time of an application for Building Permits shall be secured and agreements executed in a form and manner satisfactory to the City Attorney and City Engineer.

9. If site conditions change adjacent to the proposed development prior to completion of the project, the developer will be responsible to modify his/her improvemen ts to accommodate these changes. The determination and extent of the modification shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "H"

Page 14 of 26 ends

154
Item6.

10. All public improvements shall be constructed in a manner that does not damage existing public improvements. Any damage shall be determined by and corrected to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "H"

Page 15 of 26 ends

155
Item6.

STREET IMPROVEMENTS and TRAFFIC

1. Public street and drainage improvements shall be constructed to City Standards as required by the Subdivision Ordinance to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to first occupancy. Specific details, including final street improvement widths, right-of-way widths, concrete curb and gutters, drainage, lighting, etc. shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

2. Improvement plans prepared by a Civil Engineer are required for all public street and utility improvements.

3. Prior to first occupancy, the Developer shall construct street improvements, including but not limited to, concrete curb, gutter, street lights, street trees, paving and base on the following streets within and adjoining the project boundary:

STREET CLASSIFICATION
Conway Drive Local Collector (42’ curb to curb)
Stanley Avenue Local Collector (42’ curb to curb)
Lehner Avenue Residential Street (18’ CL to curb)
Streets F and H Residential Street (36’ curb to curb) Street G Rural Residential (28’ curb to curb)
Lots 9, 10, 23, 24 Access Private Alley (25’ wide)
Lot 13 (10 condo. units) Access Private Alley (24’ min. wide)

See appropriate typical sections in the current Escondido Design Standards for additional details.

4. Sidewalk construction shall be contiguous to the curb in accordance with current Escondido Design Standards. The sidewalk will be allowed to be noncontiguous in the segments designated and constructed as “Green Street” storm water treatment areas.

5. All cul-de-sacs shall have a 38’ curb face radius and shall conform to the current City of Escondido Design Standards.

6. Driveway access to the 10 condominium units on Lot 13 shall be imp roved with alley -type driveway apron in accordance with Escondido Standard Drawing No. G-5-E with a minimum throat width of 24 feet.

7. To mitigate the project’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) impacts, the Developer has identified and shall design and construc t prior to first occupancy, the following mobility improvements at their sole expense:
• Intersection of N . Ash Street and Vista Avenue: Install high visibility crosswalks and accessible pedestrian signals on all four legs.
• Intersection of N. Broadway and Rincon Avenue: Install high visibility crosswalks on the north, south and east legs, and install accessible pedestrian signals on all four legs. • Intersection of Stanley Avenue and Conway Drive: Install high visibility crosswalks on the west leg and curb ramps on the northwest and southwest corner.

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "H"

Page 16 of 26 ends

156
Item6.

• Intersection of Lehner Avenue and Conway Drive: Install high visibility crosswalks on the west and south legs, and curb ramps on the northwest corner.

For these VMT mitigation improvements, the Developer shall submit separate traffic signal and signing and striping modification improvement plans prepared by a Traffic Engineer for review and approval by the City Engineer. Traffic signal modifications shall be per current City, Caltrans, and CaMUTCD Standards and shall include all necessary equipment, hardware, and software.

The Developer’s Traffic Engineer will also be responsible for all new timing plans and coordinating the traffic signal modification and signing and striping work with the Developer’s contractor(s) and equipment suppliers and City staff.

8. The Developer’s engineer shall prepare and submit for approval by the City Engineer a complete final Signing and Striping plan for all improved roadways including those within the adjacent school zone. The Developer will be responsible for removal of all existing and construction of all new signing and striping in compliance with the new CaMUTCD standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

9. The address of each dwelling unit shall either be painted on the curb or, where curbs are not available, posted in such a manner that the address is visible from the street. In both cases, the address shall be placed in a manner and location approved by the City Engineer and Fire Marshal.

10. The Developer will be required to provide a detailed “Detour and Traffic Control P lan”, for all construction within existing rights-of-way, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This plan shall be approved prior the issuance of an Encroachment Permit for construction within the public right- of-way.

11. Construction in the public rights -of-ways may be restricted during s chool peak hours (typically 7:00 to 8:30 am and 2:00 to 3:30 pm), unless a traffic management plan that proposes no conflict between construction and school traffic is approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit.

12. The Developer may be responsible for additional overlay of Conway Drive, Lehner Avenue, and Stanley Avenue due to t he many utility trenches ne cessary to serve this project. The determination of the extent of the overlay shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

13. Adequate horizontal sight distance shall be provided at all street intersections. Increased parkway widths, open space easements, and restrictions on landscaping shall be provided for adequate sight distance and subject to approval of the City Engineer.

14. The Developer is required to design, furnish and install LED street lighting per Escondido Standard Drawing E-1-E and in accordance with the City Design Standards and the requirements of the City Engineer.

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "H"

Page 17 of 26 ends

157
Item6.

15. Street lighting is required on all on -site private drives serving 3 or more lots or units. It shall be the responsibility of the Homeo wner’s Association to adequately maintain the street lighting system and such maintenance responsibility shall be clearly stated in the CC&Rs.

GRADING

1. A “Site Grading and Erosion Control P lan” prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be approved by the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. The first submittal of the grading plan shall be accompanied by a copy of the preliminary soils and geotechnical report. The Soils Engineer will be required to indicate in the soils report that he/she has reviewed the grading design and found it to be in conformance with his/her recommendations.

2. Any proposed retaining walls not a part of the building foundations or stem walls shall be shown on and permitted as part of the site grading plan. Profiles and structural details shall be shown on the site grading plan and the Soils Engineer shall state on the plans that the proposed retaining wall design is in conformance with the recomme ndations and specifications as outlined in the Geotechnical report. Structural calculations shall be submitted for review by a Consulting Engineer for all walls not covered by Regional or City Standard Drawings. The Developer will be required to pay for al l required third party structural engineering review of these struct ural calculations and details. Stem walls, foundation structures, or deepened footings that are to be constructed as part of a building structure will be permitted as part of the Building Department plan review and Building Permit process.

3. Erosion control, including riprap, interim slope planting, sandbags, or other erosion control measures shall be provided to control sediment and silt from the project. The Developer shall be responsible for maintaining all erosion control facilities throughout the project.

4. Slope setbacks shall be of sufficient width to allow for construction of all necessary screen walls fencers, and/or brow ditches.

5. Increased cut slope setbacks may be required along the project boundary to avoid disrupting any existing septic systems in the adjoining residential areas and may be required to avoid encountering ground water proble ms. Actual setbacks to be used will be based on recommendations of the soils engineer. The re quirements of the San Diego County Health Department should be consulted in this regard. In lieu of these requirements, or if the County Health Department requirements cannot be met, the Developer must arrange to connect adjoining existing dwelling units, now on private septic systems, to the public sewer system. In this regard, the developer will be required to make necessary arrangements for all main extensions, easements, and payment of all connection and permit fees. Any dwellings in the unincorporated areas must have special approval of the City Council before being connected to the City sewer system. This requirement shall also apply to off -site road and utility improvements where existing septic systems are jeopardized as a result of these improvements.

6. It shall be the responsibility of the Developer to pay all plan check and inspection fees required by the San Diego County Health Department.

Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "H"

Page 18 of 26 ends

158
Item6.

7. The Developer shall be responsible for the recycling of all excavated materials designated as Industrial Recyclables (soil, asphalt, sand, concrete, land clearing brush and rock) at a recycling center or other location(s) approved by the City Engineer.

8. A Construction General Permit is required from the State Water Resources Control Board for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading, and excavation results in a land disturbance of one or more acres.

9. All blasting operations performed in connection with the improvement of the project shall conform to the City of Escondido Blasting Operations Ordinance.

10. The Developer will be required to obtain permission from adjoining property owners for any off - site grading and slopes necessary to construct the project and/or the required improvements.

11. All lot lines shall be located at the top of slope unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.

12. All private driveways and parking areas shall be paved with a minimum of 3” asphalt concrete over 6” of aggregate base or 7” Portland cement concrete over 6” aggregate base. All paved areas exceeding 15% slope or less than 1.0% shall be paved with Portland cement concrete.

13. All driveway grades shall conform to current Escondido Design Standards and Escondido Standard Drawings.

DRAINAGE

1. Final on-site and off-site storm drain improvements shall be determined to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall be based on a Drainage Study to be prepared by the Engineer of W ork.

The drainage study shall be in conformance with the City of Escondido Design Standards.

2. Lot drainage shall meet the requirements of current Escondido Design Standards and the City Engineer and shall include the construction of necessary brow ditches.

3. The project shall limit peak drainage flows to their pre-construction rates. Details and calculations for this retention and attenuation shall be submitted and approved as part of the Drainage Study submittal and review.

4. A Final Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) in compliance with the City’s latest adopted Storm Water Design Manual shall be prepar ed for all newly created or replaced onsite impervious areas, impervious frontage, and required offsite improvements. The SWQMP shall be submitted for approval with the final improvement and grading plans. The SWQMP shall include calculations for treatme nt, hydromodification, and storage volumes. The SWQMP shall include detailed maintenance requirements and responsibilities for all onsite conveyance, diversion, treatment, and bio -retention facilities. The SWQMP shall demonstrate how any Resolution No. 2023-06
Exhibit "H"

Page 19 of 26 ends

Escondido City CouncilJanuary 11, 2023

Escondido City Council
January 11, 2023