CITY of ESCONDIDO
Council Meeting Agenda
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 08, 2023
4:00 PM - Closed Session (Parkview Conference Room)
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)
Christian Garcia (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, February 08, 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, February 08, 2023
CLOSED SESSION
4:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
1. Roll Call: Garcia, Garcia, Martinez, Morasco, White
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.
CLOSED SESSION
I. CONFERENCE W ITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Government Code § 54956.8) Property: 272 E. Via Rancho Pkwy, Escondido
City Negotiators: Sean McGlynn, City Manager, Michael McGuinness, City Attorney, or designees Negotiating Parties: (i) Larry Green, L. Green Investment & Development, LLC; (ii) Kimberly Brewer, Unibail-Rodamco-Westfield; (iii) D. Scott Carr, Transformco; (iv) Maura Brancaccio, Costco Wholesale Corporation Under Negotiation: Terms of lease and REA
II. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – PENDING LITIGATION (Government Code § 54956(d)(1)) a. In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation
United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Div.
Case No. 1:17-MD-2804
b. City of Escondido v. All Interested Persons in the Matter of the Issuance and Sale of Pension Obligation Bonds etc. (Validation Action)
San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2022-00025425-CU-PT-NC c. Touchstone MF Fund I, LLC v. City of Escondido, et. al.
San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2020-00020856-CU-BC-NC
ADJOURNMENT
3 Wednesday, February 08, 2023
REGULAR SESSION
5:00 PM Regular Session
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 remar ks 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
Ceremonial Swearing In: Christian Garcia, City Council District 3 Roll Call: Garcia, Garcia, Martinez, Morasco, White
PROCLAMATIONS
Black History Month
CLOSED SESSION REPORT
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) - 4 Wednesday, February 08, 2023
2. APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER (COUNCIL) -
Request the City Council approve the City Council and Housing Successor Agency warrant numbers:
370143 – 370365 dated January 18, 2023
370366 – 370571 dated January 25, 2023
Staff Recommendation: Approval (Finance Department: Christina Holmes)
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Special Meetings of January 25, 2023 and January 30, 2023
4. WAIVER OF READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS –
5. APPROVAL TO ANNEX PROPERTY TO CITYWIDE SERVICES COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT (CFD) 2020-1, ZONE 8
Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-15 annexing seven (7) projects containing 16 units into the Citywide Services CFD 2020-1. Each property owner has provided a signed form consenting to annexation as a streamlined method for offsetting the cost of ongoing municipal services.
Staff Recommendation: Approval (Development Services Department: Andrew Firestine, Director of Development Services)
Presenter: Andrew Firestine
a) Resolution No. 2023-15
6. AMENDMENT AND READOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL RULES AND PROCEDURES Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-19, amending the City Council Rules of Procedure for City Council meetings and City Council Policies to change Section A.7 to allow for a council member motion and second before further consideration of an agenda item.
Staff Recommendation: Approval (City Attorney's Office: Michael R. McGuinness, City Attorney) Presenter: Michael R. McGuinness
a) Resolution No. 2023-19
5 Wednesday, February 08, 2023
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.)
7. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
PREZONE TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL AND MASTER AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 102-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT
Approved on January 11, 2023 with a vote of 4/0
a) Ordinance No. 2023-03 (Second Reading and Adoption)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
8. CONWAY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (CONTINUED)
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
6 Wednesday, February 08, 2023
CURRENT BUSINESS
9. TRUNK SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT: BID AWARD, CONSULTING AGREEMENTS, AND BUDGET
ADJUSTMENT
Request the City Council take the following actions: Adopt Resolution No. 2023-12, authorizing the Mayor to execute a Public Improvement Agreement in the amount of $8,482,904.64 with Southland Paving, Inc., the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, for construction of the Trunk Sewer Replacement Project (“Project”); Adopt Resolution No. 2023-13, authorizing the Mayor to execute a Consulting Agreement in the amount of $1,402,240 with Arcadis U.S., Inc. for construction management services for the Project; Adopt Resolution No. 2023-14, authorizing the City Manager to execute a Consulting Agreement in the amount of $155,560 with Infrastructure Engineering Corporation for engineering services during construction of the Project; and approve a Budget Adjustment in the amount of $9,400,000.
Staff Recommendation: Approval (Utilities Department: Christopher W. McKinney, Deputy City Manager/Director of Utilities)
Presenter: Angela Morrow, Deputy Director of Utilities/Construction and Engineering a) Resolution No. 2023-12
b) Resolution No. 2023-13
c) Resolution No. 2023-14
FUTURE AGENDA
10. 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
7 Wednesday, February 08, 2023
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.
ADJOURNMENT
UPCOMING MEETING SCHEDULE
Wednesday, February 15, 2023 4:00 & 5:00 PM Regular Meeting, Council Chambers Wednesday, March 08, 2023 4:00 & 5:00 PM Regular Meeting, Council Chambers
SUCCESSOR AGENCY
Members of the Escondido City Co uncil 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 February 8, 2023
A F F I D A V I T S
OF
I T E M
P O S T I N G –
Public Hearing Notice – Master Plan and Precise Development Plan – PL22- 0325/PL22-0326
9 Item1.
Published in THE ESCONDIDO TIMES-ADVOCATE: 1/26/23
10 Item1.
STAFF REPORT
February 8, 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:
370143 – 370365 dated January 18, 2023
370366 – 370571 dated January 25, 2023
Staff Recommendation: Approval (Finance Department: Christina Holmes)
FISCAL ANALYSIS
The total amount of the warrants for the following periods are as follows:
January 12 – January 18, 2023, is $4,573,800.40
January 19 – January 25, 2023, is $13,576,086.99
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.
11 Item2.
January 25, 2023 Escondido City Council Minutes Page 1 of 5
SPECIAL MEETING
4:00 PM SPECIAL MEETING
January 25, 2023
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
RECOGNITION
Classical Academy High School’s Caiman Football Team (Won the Division 6 AA State Championship)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Kevin Stevenson – Expressed opposition to Mayor White’s position at SANDAG.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion: Morasco; Second: Martinez; Approved: 4-0.
1. AFFIDAVITS OF PUBLICATION, MAILING, AND POSTING (COUNCIL/RRB) –
12 Item3.
January 25, 2023 Escondido City Council Minutes Page 2 of 5
2. APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER (COUNCIL)
Request approval for City Council and Housing Successor Agency warrant numbers:
369824 – 369979 dated January 4, 2023
369980 – 370142 dated January 11, 2023
Staff Recommendation: Approval (Finance Department: Christina Holmes)
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meeting of January 11, 2023
4. WAIVER OF READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
5. NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE PURCHASE
Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-16, authorizing the Mayor to execute, on behalf of the City of Escondido (“City”), a Public Services Agreement with The Drala Project Inc., dba The [RE]DESIGN Group in the amount of $788,049.05 for the purchase of equipment and installation services. (File Number 0600-10;A-3440) Staff Recommendation: Approval (Information Systems Department: Rob Van De Hey, Chief Information Officer)
Presenter: Rob Van De Hey
a) Resolution No. 2023-16
6. EMERGENCY DECLARATION FOR REPAIR OF THE SEWER PIPELINE IN CASA GRANDE MOBILE
ESTATES AND LANDSLIDE AT LAKE WOHLFORD ROAD
Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-17, declaring that pursuant to the terms of 22050 of the California Public Contract Code, the City Council affirms that it was appropriate for City of Escondido (“City”) staff to forego normal bidding procedures and to award contracts for emergency repairs of a sewer main section in Casa Grande Mobile Estates and landslide at Lake Wohlford Road. The resolution, which must be passed by four-fifths vote, also declares that public interest and necessity demand the immediate expenditure to safeguard life, health, or property. (File Number 0600-10;A-3441)
Staff Recommendation: Approval (Utilities Department: Christopher W. McKinney, Deputy City Manager/ Director of Utilities; Development Services Department: Andrew Firestine, Director of Development Services; Engineering Services: Julie Procopio, City Engineer) Presenters: Angela Morrow, Deputy Director of Utilities Construction & Engineering, and Julie Procopio, City Engineer
a) Resolution No. 2023-17
13 Item3.
January 25, 2023 Escondido City Council Minutes Page 3 of 5
CURRENT BUSINESS
7. CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 3 VACANCY INTERVIEWS
Request the City Council conduct interviews of applicants to fill the City Council District 3 vacancy, discuss and consider applicant qualifications, and take action on the vacancy, including appointment of a City Council District 3 representative. (File Number 0610-70) Staff Recommendation: None (City Clerk: Zack Beck)
Presenter: Zack Beck
James Cassidy – Requested a special election be held for District 3.
Georgine Tomasi – Requested the Council delay the appointment to a later date.
Chris Nava – Requested the Council delay the appointment to a later date.
Martha Tucker – Requested the Council delay the appointment to a later date.
Ana Marie Velasco – Requested the Council delay the appointment to a later date.
Lori Pfeiler – Requested the Council select a candidate that supports the development of housing.
Elias Velazquez – Requested a special election be held for District 3.
Ed Gallo – Requested the Council appoint a qualified candidate.
Chavez Harmes – Expressed support for Christian Garcia.
Delia Dominguez Cervantes – Expressed support for Christian Garcia.
Jagjivan S Kehal – Expressed support for Christian Garcia.
Jim Bowen – Requested a special election be held for District 3.
Joanne Tenney – Requested a special election be held for District 3.
John Williams – Requested a special election be held for District 3.
Karem Elhams – Requested a special election be held for District 3. 14 Item3.
January 25, 2023 Escondido City Council Minutes Page 4 of 5
Karen Anderson – Requested a special election be held for District 3.
Pam Albergo – Requested a special election be held for District 3.
Tom Albergo – Requested a special election be held for District 3.
Vihn An Lee – Requested a special election be held for District 3.
Motion to delay the appointment at the next meeting to January 30, 2023 at 4:00 p.m.: Garcia; Second: Martinez; Failed: 2-2 (White, Morasaco – No)
Motion to appoint Christian Garcia: White; Second: Mora sco; Failed: 2 -1-1 (Martinez – No, Garcia – Abstain)
Motion to delay the appointment at the next meeting to January 30, 2023 at 5:00 p.m.:
Morasco; Second: Martinez; Approved: 4-0
FUTURE AGENDA
8. 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 Economi c Development, Capital Improvement Projects, Public Safety, and Community Development. This report is also available on the City’s website, www.escondido.org.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Gloria Conejo – Expressed concern regarding the recent mudslides in Escondido.
15 Item3.
January 25, 2023 Escondido City Council Minutes Page 5 of 5
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor White adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
______________________________ _______________________________
MAYOR CITY CLERK
16 Item3.
January 30, 2023 Escondido City Council Minutes Page 1 of 3
SPECIAL MEETING
5:00 PM SPECIAL MEETING
January 30, 2023
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
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
CURRENT BUSINESS
1. CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 3 VACANCY APPOINTMENT
Request the City Council discuss and consider applicant qualifications, and take action on the vacancy, including appointment of a City Council District 3 representative. (File Number 0610- 70)
Staff Recommendation: None (City Clerk: Zack Beck)
Presenter: Zack Beck
James Cassidy – Requested a Special Election.
Karen Marie Warner Spann – Requested a swift appointment to the District 3 vacancy.
Martha Tucker – Requested an appointment of a candidate that represents the majority party in District 3.
17 Item3.
January 30, 2023 Escondido City Council Minutes Page 2 of 3
Georgine Tomasi – Requested an appointment of an candidate that represents District 3.
Joanne Tenney – Requested a Special Election.
John Williams – Requested a Special Election.
Katharine Barba – Requested the Council appoint David Barber.
Pam Albergo – Requested a Special Election or that the Council appoint Virginia Segarra Bunnell or Christine Spencer.
Tom Albergo – Requested a Special Election of that the Council appoint Christine Spencer.
Derek Escobar – Requested the City Council appoint Christine Spencer.
Patricia Borchmann – Requested the City Council appoint David Barber, Juan Vargas or Karen Marie Warner Spann.
Motion to appoint Christian Garcia: Garcia; Second: White; Approved: 3-1 (Martinez – No)
FUTURE AGENDA
2. 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 c urrent 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.
18 Item3.
January 30, 2023 Escondido City Council Minutes Page 3 of 3
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor White adjourned the meeting at 5:45 p.m.
______________________________ _______________________________
MAYOR CITY CLERK
19 Item3.
20 Item4.
STAFF REPORT
February 8, 2023
File Number 0580-20
SUBJECT
APPROVAL TO ANNEX PROPERTY TO CITYWIDE SERVICES COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT (CFD) 2020-1, ZONE 8
DEPARTMENT
Development Services
RECOMMENDATION
Request that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 202 3-15 annexing seven (7) projects containing 16 units into the Citywide Services CFD 2020-1. Each property owner has provided a signed form consenting to annexation as a streamlined method for offsetting the cost of ongoing municipal services.
Staff Recommendation: Approval and File (Development Services, Andrew Firestine) Presenter: Andrew Firestine, Director of Development Services
FISCAL ANALYSIS
Including the parcels proposed for annexation, the Citywide Services CFD will provide a convenient method for 31 projects totaling 769 units to offset the ongoing costs to provide municipal services. It is estimated that $554,000.00 in annual costs are nec essary to provide these residential units with future municipal services.
PREVIOUS ACTION
On June 12, 2019, the City Council directed staff to investigate all options to address the structural budget deficit to ensure the budget deficit does not grow as the City develops, including evaluating the feasibility of a Citywide Services CFD as a streamlined means for projects to offset their ongoing impact to the general fund.
On May 13, 2020, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and adopted Resolution No. 2020- 44 (Resolution of Formation) establishing CFD 2020-1, the Citywide Services CFD.
On September 16, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020 -115 annexing five projects with 66 units into CFD 2020-1 creating the second (2nd) zone of the Services CFD (Zone 2020-2). 21 Item5.
On October 21, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020 -147 annexing a 42 -unit project located at 2608 S. Escondido Blvd. into CFD 2020 -1 and creating the third (3rd) zone of the Services CFD (Zone 2020-03).
On November 18, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020 -160 annexing two (2) projects containing 21 units into CFD 2020-1 creating the fourth (4th) zone of the Services CFD (Zone 2020-04).
On July 21, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-77 approving the special tax rate for CFD 2020-1 (Public Services).
On September 15, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021 -130 annexing three (3) projects containing 65 units into CFD 2020-1 creating the fifth (5th) zone of the Services CFD (Zone 2020-5).
On March 2, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022-14 annexing two (2) projects containing 44 units into CFD 2020-1 creating the sixth (6th) zone of the Services CFD (Zone 2020-6).
On December 7, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022 -183 annexing one (1) project containing 32 units into CFD 2020-1 creating the seventh (7th) zone of the Services CFD (Zone 2020-7).
BACKGROUND
The goal of the Citywide Services CFD is to provide a streamlined way to make new development revenue neutral such that existing residents do not subsidize development. Annexing into the Services CFD, after approval by the City Council, is an efficient way to allow property owners to fund the costs of providing ongoing public services to their project and avoids widening of the structural budget deficit as a result of new development.
Zone 2020-8 will be the eighth (8th) zone of the Citywide Services CFD that is comprised of seven (7) projects totaling 16 units. The following projects have provi ded forms consenting to the annexation of the property into the Citywide Services CFD to offset the project’s ongoing cost of municipal services.
Zone 2020-8 Annexation Table Detailing Special Tax Rates Applicable for FY 2022/23:
Annexation Table Detailing Special Tax Rates Applicable for FY 2022/23:
Zone Density
(DU/Acre)
Location Assessor
Parcel
No(s).
Unit
Annual
Special
Tax Per
Unit*
Annual
Special Tax
Total
2020-8 Less than 5.5
1500 Gamble
Lane 235-202-59 1 DU $575.19 $575.19
22 Item5.
2020-8 Less than 5.5
1123 Orange
Blossom Way 224-143-50 1 DU $575.19 $575.19
2020-8 Less than 5.5
2350 Miller
Ave 238-110-35 5 DU $575.19 $2,875.95
2020-8 Less than 5.5 1600 N. Broadway 227-180-27 6 DU $575.19 $3,451.14 2020-8 Less than 5.5 1998 Rohn Road 236-335-53 1 DU $575.19 $575.19 2020-8 Less than 5.5
633 Tulip Street
232-333-16 1 DU $575.19 $575.19
2020-8 Less than 5.5
422 S. Spruce
Street 233-111-16 1 DU $575.19 $575.19
* For FY 2022/23 in accordance with the RMA for CFD 2020-1 (Services) Annual Levy: Prior to July 30th of each year, the special tax levy will be set by the City Council for all properties within CFD 2020 -1. The maximum special tax rate for CFD 2020 -1 will escalate at th e maximum rate of inflation as determined by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and at a minimum rate of 2% per year.
Staff has contacted each property owner to inform them that the annexation is scheduled for February 8, 2023 and that the City Council expects to evaluate potential changes to the services CFD that may result in a levy reduction; the property owners were encouraged to contact staff with any questions they may have on the annexation.
Staff is also in the process of contracting with a firm to perform a fiscal impact analysis for the services CFD in support of the direction received from City Council in November 2022. Staff intends to present the results of this analysis with the budget sub-committee before a full presentation to the City Council. The current timeline has not yet been determined, although it is staff’s goal to complete the analysis and presentations to the budget sub -committee and the City Council in a timeframe that allows it to inform the annual special levy rate setting process for the services CFD in July 2023.
RESOLUTIONS
a) Resolution No. 2023-15, Annexing Territory to CFD 2020-1 (Services), Zone 2020-8 b) Exhibit A: Unanimous Approvals of Property Owners to Annex into CFD 2020-1 c) Exhibit B: Notice of Special Tax Lien CFD 2020-1, Zone 2020-8 d) Exhibit C: Boundary Map for CFD 2020-1, Zone 2020-8 e) Exhibit D: Legal Descriptions
23 Item5.
24 Item5.
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-15
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ESCONDIDO, ACTING AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2020 -1 OF THE
CITY OF ESCONDIDO (SERVICES), ANNEXING
TERRITORY TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.
2020-1 OF THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO (SERVICES) , ZONE
8 WHEREAS, on April 8, 2020, the City Council (the “City Council”) of the City of Escondido adopted Resolution No. 2020 -24 (the “Resolution of Intention”), declaring its intention to establish Community F acilities District No. 2020 -1 of the City of Escondido (Services) (“Community Facilities District No. 2020-1” or the “District”) pursuant to the Mello -Roost Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, being Chapter 2.5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (the “Act”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 53339.3 of the Act, the Resolution of Intention included a description of the future annexation area of the District (the “Future Annexation Area”), wherein property owners may be annexed into the District only with the unanimous approval of the owner or owners of each parcel or parcels at the time that parcel or those parcels are annexed into the District; and
WHEREAS, the Resolution of Intention described (i) the services that may be provided by the District; (ii) the levy of special taxes pursuant to the rate and method of apportionment of the special tax, as set forth in Exhibit “B” attached to the Resolution of Intention (the “Rate and Method”); and (iii) the Future Annexation Area; and
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2020, after a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020 -44 (the “Resolution of Formation”) establishing Community Facilities District No. 2020-1 and calling a special election therein to authorize (i) the levy of special taxes pursuant to the 25 Item5.
Rate and Method, and (ii) the establishment of an appropriations limit for Community Facilities District No. 2020-1; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to a Unanimous Approval executed by Steven L. Salas on behalf of MFG
GAMBLE LANE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, (“Owner 1”), dated April 19, 2022, attached
hereto as Exhibit “A” (the “Owner 1 Unanimous Approval”), Owner 1 s tated its intention to annex the territory described in Exhibit “C” and Exhibit “D” to the Owner 1 Unanimous Approval to the District (the “Owner 1 Annexation Territory”) with no further hearings or procedures required with respect to such annexation to the District; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to a Unanimous Approval executed by Robert S. Sadler and Beverly J.
Sadler, (“Owner 2”), dated July 21, 2021, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” (the “Owner 2 Unanimous
Approval”), Owner 2 stated its intention to annex the territory described in Exhibit “C” and Exhibit “D” to the Owner 2 Unanimous Approval to the District (the “Owner 2 Annexation Territory”) with no further hearings or procedures required with respect to such annexation to the District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to a Unanimous Approval executed by Mark Marquez on behalf of
HAMILTON DEVELOPMENT 5, LLC, a California limited liability company, (“Owner 3”), dated September
29, 2021, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” (the “Owner 3 Unanimous Approval”), Owner 3 stated its
intention to annex the territory described in Exhibit “C” and Exhibit “D” to the Owner 3 Unanimous Approval to the District (the “Owner 3 Annexation Territory”) with no further hearings or procedures required with respect to such annexation to the District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to a Unanimous Approval executed by Scot Sandstrom on behalf of NEW
POINTE INVESTMENT 51, LLC, a California limited liability company, (“Owner 4”), dated May 4, 2022,
attached hereto as Exhibit “A” (the “Owner 4 Unanimous Approval”), Owner 4 stated its intention to annex the territory described in Exhibit “C” and Exhibit “D” to the Owner 4 Unanimous Approval to the 26 Item5.
District (the “Owner 4 Annexation Territory”) with no further hearings or procedures required with respect to such annexation to the District; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to a Unanimous Approval executed by Stan Stark, (“Owner 5”), dated May
5, 2022 on behalf of Stan Stark and Kimberly Stark, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” (the “Owner 5
Unanimous Approval”), Owner 5 stated its intention to annex the territory described in Exhibit “C” and Exhibit “D” to the Owner 5 Unanimous Approval to the District (the “Owner 5 Annexation Territory”) with no further hearings or procedures required with respect to such annexation to the District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to a Unanimous Approval executed by Ryan Nestman on behalf of GASSER
NESTMAN PROPERTIES, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, (“Owner 6”), dated January 4, 2022,
attached hereto as Exhibit “A” (th e “Owner 6 Unanimous Approval”), Owner 6 stated its intention to annex the territory described in Exhibit “C” and Exhibit “D” to the Owner 6 Unanimous Approval to the District (the “Owner 6 Annexation Territory”) with no further hearings or procedures requ ired with respect to such annexation to the District; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to a Unanimous Approval executed by Susana Velasco, (“Owner 7”), dated
February 17, 2022, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” (the “Owner 7 Unanimous Approval”), Owner 7
stated its intention to annex the territory described in Exhibit “C” and Exhibit “D” to the Owner 7 Unanimous Approval to the District (the “Owner 7 Annexation Territory”) with no further hearings or procedures required with respect to such annexation to the District; and WHEREAS, the Annexation Territory is within the Future Annexation Area of the District; and
WHEREAS, on the basis of all of the foregoing, the City Council has determined at this time to proceed with the annexation of the Annexation Territory to the District.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Escondido, California as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true.
27 Item5.
2. The City Council hereby finds and determines that all prior proceedings taken with respect to the establishment of the District and the proposed annexation of the Annexation Territory to the District were valid and in conformity with the requirements of law, including the Act, and the annexation of the Annexation Territory to the District in accord ance with the Unanimous Approval is hereby approved.
3. The map showing the original boundaries of the District designated as “Boundary Map of Community Facilities District No. 2020 -1 (Services) City of Escondido, County of San Diego, State of California”, which map is on file in the office of the City Clerk and was recorded pursuant to Sections 3111 and 3113 of the Streets and Highways Code in the County Book of Maps of Assessment and Community Facilities Districts in the Assessor -County Clerk-Recorder’s office of the County of San Diego in Book No. 48 Page Nos. 79-80 on April 13, 2020, as Instrument No. 2020-7000088.
4. The City Council hereby authorizes a map showing the Annexation Territory to be annexed to the District and be made subject to taxation in the form attached hereto as Exhibit “B” be recorded pursuant to Sections 3111 and 3113 of the Streets and Highways Code in the County Book of Maps of Assessment and Community Facilities Districts in the Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder’s office of the County of San Diego.
5. The City Council hereby adopts the Rate and Method attached as Exhibit “B” to the Resolution of Intention as the applicable rate and method for the Annexation Territory. Except where funds are otherwise available, it is the intention of the Cit y Council to levy the proposed special taxes at the rates within the Annexation Territory set forth in the Rate and Method on all non -exempt property within the Annexation Territory sufficient to pay for (i) the Services (as defined in the Rate and Method), and (ii) Incidental Expenses (as defined in the Rate and Method). The District expects to incur, and in certain cases has already incurred, Incidental Expenses in connection with the annexation of the 28 Item5.
Annexation Territory to the District. The rate and method of apportionment of the special tax applicable to the Annexation Territory is described in detail in Exhibit “B” to the Resolution of Intention which is incorporated herein by this reference, and the City Council hereby finds that Exhibit “C” to the Resolution of Intention contains sufficient detail to allow each landowner within the Annexation Territory to estimate the maximum amount that may be levied against each parcel. The special tax is apportioned to each parcel on the foregoing base s pursuant to Section 53325.3 of the Act and such special tax is not on or based upon the ownership of real property.
6. Upon recordation of a notice of special tax lien pursuant to Section 3114.5 of the Streets and Highways Code, a continuing lien to secure each levy of the special tax shall attach to all non - exempt real property in the Annexation Territory and this lien shall continue in force and effect until the levy of the special tax by the District ceases in accordance with the Rate and Method.
7. Consistent with Section 53325.6 of the Act, the City Council finds and determines that the land within the Annexation Territory, if any, devoted primarily to agricultural, timber or livestock uses and being used for the commercial production of agricultural, timbe r or livestock products is contiguous to other land within the Annexation Territory and will be benefited by the Services proposed to be provided within Community Facilities District No. 2020-1 and the Annexation Territory.
8. It is hereby further determined that there is no ad valorem property tax currently being levied on property within the Annexation Territory for the exclusive purpose of paying for the same services as are proposed to be provided by Community Facilities District No. 2020-1.
29 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
30 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
31 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
32 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
33 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
34 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
35 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
36 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
37 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
38 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
39 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
40 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
41 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
42 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
43 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
44 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
45 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
46 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
47 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
48 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
49 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
50 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
51 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
52 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
53 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
54 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
55 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
56 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
57 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
58 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
59 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
60 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
61 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
62 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
63 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
64 Item5.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "A"
65 Item5.
1 4889-5604-3834v2/022009-0050
Recording Requested By and
When Recorded Mail To:
City of Escondido
201 North Broadway
Escondido, California 92025
Attn: Julie Procopio
This document is exempt from the
payment of a recording fee pursuant to
Government Code Section 6103.
NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX LIEN
FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2020-1
OF THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO (SERVICES)
(ANNEXATION NO. 8)
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 3114.5 of the Streets and Highways Code and Section 53328.3 of the Government Code, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Escondido (the “City”), acting on behalf of Community Facilities District No. 2020-1 of the City of Escondido (Services) (the “District”), State of California, h ereby gives notice th at a lien to secure payment of special taxes is hereby imposed by the City Council of the City of Escondido, San Diego County, State of California, sitting as the legislative body of the District (the “City Council ”). The special taxes secured by this lien are authorized to be levied for the purpose of financing certain services, including (i) maintenance of parks, parkways, park lighting, sidewalks, signage, landscaping in public areas, easements or right of way and open space; (ii) flood and storm protection services; (iii) the operation of storm drainage systems; (iv) maintenance of streets and roadways, traffic signals and street lighting; (v) graffiti and debris removal from public improvements; (vi) public safety services including police, fire protection and fire suppression; and (vii) maintenance and operation of any real property or other tangible property with an estimated useful life of five or more years that is owned by the City of Escondido. In addition to payment of the cost and expense of the forgoin g
s
ervices, proceeds of the special tax may be expended to pay “Administrative Expenses” as said term is defined in the Rate and Method of Apportionment attached hereto as Appendix A (the “Rate and Method”) and to establish an operating reserve for the costs of services as determined by the CFD Administrator (as defined in the Rate and Method).
The Assessor’s Parcel Number and the ownership information described on Exhibit B hereto is referred to as “Annexation No. 8.” The property within Annexation No. 8 has been newly-annexed to Zone 8 of the District, thereby necessitating the recordation of this notice of special tax. The lien of the special taxes for the District is a continuing lien which shall secure each annual levy of the special taxes within the District, including Annexation No. 8 therein. The special tax is not subject to prepayment.
The rate, method of apportionment and manner of collection of the authorized special tax is as set forth in the Rate and Method attached as Appendix A hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "B"
66 Item5.
2 4889-5604-3834v2/022009-0050
Notice is further given that upon the recording of this notice in the office of the County Recorder, the obligation to pay the special tax levy shall become a lien upon all nonexempt real property within Annexation No. 8 in accordance with Section 3115.5 of the Streets and Highway Code.
The names of the owners and the assessor’s tax parcel numbers of the real property included within Annexation No. 8 and not exempt from the special tax are as set forth in Appendix B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Reference is made to the boundary map of Annexation No. 8 recorded at Book No. __ of Maps of Assessment and Community Facilities Districts at Page No s. ____, in the office of the County Recorder for the County of San Diego , State of California, which map is now the final boundary map of Annexation No. 8 to the District.
For further information concerning the current and estimated future tax liability of owners or purchasers of real property subject to this special tax lien, interested persons should contact the Michelle Collette, Revenue Manager , City of Escondido, 201 North Broadway , Escondido, California 92025, (760) 839-4334.
City Clerk of the City o f Escondido, acting on behalf
of Community Facilities District No. 2020-1 of the
City of Escondido (Services)
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "B"
67 Item5.
City of Escondido
March 23, 2020
Community Facilities District No. 2020-1 1
Appendix A
RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAXES
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2020-1
(Services)
CITY OF ESCONDIDO
A Special Tax (as hereinafter defined) shall be levied on all Assessor’s Parcels within Community Facilities District No. 2020-1 (“CFD No. 2020-1”) of the City of Escondido (“City”) and collected each Fiscal Year commencing in Fiscal Year 2020-2021, in an amount determined by the City Council, through the application of this Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Taxes as described below. All of the real property within the boundaries of CFD No. 2020-1, unless exempted by law or by the provisions hereof, shall be subject to the Special Tax for the purposes, to the extent and in the manner herein provided.
A. DEFINITIONS
The terms hereina
fter set forth have the following meanings:
“Acre” or “Acreage” means the acreage of an Assessor’s Parcel as shown on an Assessor’s Parcel Map. If the acreage is not shown on an Assessor’s Parcel Map, the acreage shown on the applicable Final Map, parcel map, condominium plan, or other recorded County map shall be used. If the acreage information supplied by these alternative sources is not available, or in conflict, the acreage used shall be determined by the CFD Administrator or a designee. “Act” means the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, being Chapter
2.5, Part 1, Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California. “Administrative Expenses” means the following actual or reasonably estimated costs directly related to the formation, annexation and administration of CFD No. 2020-1, including but not limited to the following: (i) the costs of computing the Special Taxes and preparing and presenting to City Council the Special Tax collection schedules (whether by the City or designee thereof or both); (2) the costs of collecting the Special Taxes (whether by the County or otherwise); (3) the costs to the City, CFD No. 2020-1 or any designee thereof in responding to property owner and public inquiries regarding CFD No. 2020-1, including its Special Taxes; (4) the costs of the City, CFD No. 2020-1 or any designee related to an appeal of the Special Tax; (5) the costs of the City, CFD No. 2020-1 or any designee related to preparing required reporting obligations; (6) the City’s annual administration fees and third party expenses; (7) the costs of City staff time and reasonable overhead relating to CFD No. 2020-1; and (8) amounts estimated or advanced by the City or CFD No. 2020-1 for any other administrative purposes of CFD No. 2020-1, including attorney’s fees and other costs related to commencing and pursuing to completion any foreclosure of delinquent Special Taxes. “Assessor” means the County Assessor.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "B"
68 Item5.
City of Escondido
March 23, 2020
Community Facilities District No. 2020-1 2
“Assessor’s Parcel” means a lot or parcel shown on an Assessor’s Parcel Map with an assigned Assessor’s parcel number located within the boundaries of CFD No. 2020-1. “Assessor’s Parcel Map” means an official map of the Assessor of the County designating parcels by Assessor’s parcel number.
“Building Permit” means the first legal document issued by the City giving official permission for the construction of a building on an Assessor’s Parcel. For purposes of this definition and application of the Special Tax, “Building Permit” may or may not include any subsequent building permits issued or changed after the first issuance, as determined by the CFD Administrator.
“CFD Administrator” means the Finance Director or other official of the City responsible for determining the Special Tax Requirement, providing for the levy and collection of the Special Taxes and performing the other duties provided herein. “CFD No. 2020-1” means Community Facilities District No. 2020-1 of the City of Escondido. “City” means the City of Escondido, California.
“City Council” means the City Council of the City, acting as the Legislative Body of CFD No. 2020-1, or its designee.
“County” means the County of San Diego, California.
“Density” means the maximum number of dwelling units permitted per acre, including streets within the development, excluding all ultimate circulation element street rights-of- way, adjustments for floodways as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or the City, slope categories, and other environmental factors as designated in each land use ca
tegory and/or open space/ conservation element. All as further defined within the City’s General Plan
adopted May 2012 per Resolution 2012-52, as amended from time-to- time. Density shall be determine
d by the CFD Administrator prior to annexation.
“Developed Property” means, for each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property for which a Building Permit for new construction was issued prior to March 1st of the prior Fisc al Year.
“Dwelling Unit” or “DU” means, as defined in the City of Escondido Municipal Code 32.102 and amended from time to time, each residential unit, without regard to the square footage of the Dwelling Unit, including but not limited to an individual single-family detached Dwelling Unit, small lot single-family Dwelling Unit, townhome, condominium, apartment, or other such residential dwelling unit, including each separate living area within a half-plex, duplex, triplex, fourplex, or other residential structure that comprises an independent facility capable of conveyance or rental separate from the primary Dwelling Unit(s). Dwelling Unit does not include an
attached or detached accessory dwelling unit, as defined in the Section 33-8 of the Escondido Zoning Code, as a
mended from time-to-time.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "B"
69 Item5.
City of Escondido
March 23, 2020
Community Facilities District No. 2020-1 3
“Exempt Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels designated as being exempt from Special Taxes pursuant to Section D.
“Fiscal Year” means the period starting July 1 and ending on the following June 30. “Index” means the Consumer Price Index as published by the United State Department of Labor, titled “CPI for All Urban Consumers.” Further defined with the Series Title, “All items in San Diego – Carlsbad, CA, all urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted”. If this Index is no longer available, an alternative comparable Index will be chosen by the CFD Administrator. “Land Use Category” means any of the categories listed in Section C, Table 1 which resulted from the initial analysis of the impacts from new Dwelling Units for providing Services and Appendix A, as to the initial property within CFD No. 2020-1, which may be updated from time to time as annexations occur.
“Maximum Special Tax” means for each Assessor’s Parcel and each Fiscal Year, the Maximum Special Tax, determined in accordance with Section C, below, that may be levied on such Assessor’s Parcel in such Fiscal Year.
“Non-Residential Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property for which a Building Permit was issued for any type of non-residential use. “Proportionately” means for Taxable Property, that the ratio of actual Special Tax levy to the Maximum Special Tax rate is equal for all applicable Assessor’s Parcels within the Zone. “Rate and Method of Apportionment” means the “Rate and Method of Appointment of Special Taxes for Community Facilities District No. 2020-1 of the City of Escondido.” “Residential Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property for which a Building Permit has been issued for purposes of constructing one or more Dwelling Units. “Services” means services authorized to be funded by CFD No. 2020-1. “Special Tax(es)” means the Special Tax authorized to be levied in each Fiscal Year on each Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property within the boundaries of CFD No. 2020-1 in accordance with this Rate and Method of Apportionment.
“Special Tax Requirement” means, subject to the Maximum Special Tax, that amount to be collected in any Fiscal Year to pay for the Services as otherwise required to meet the needs of CFD No. 2020-1. The Special Tax Requirement include the costs for (1) the Services, and (2) Administrative Expenses, less (3) a credit for funds available to reduce the Special Tax levy, if any, as determined by the CFD Administrator.
“State” means the State of California.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "B"
70 Item5.
City of Escondido
March 23, 2020
Community Facilities District No. 2020-1 4
“Taxable Property” means all of the Assessor’s Parcels within the boundaries of CFD No. 2020-1 which are not exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to law or Section D below. “Undeveloped Property” means, for each Fiscal Year, all Assessor’s Parcels, or portions thereof, of Taxable Property not classified as Developed Property. “Zone” means a mutually exclusive geographic area or areas, within which particular Special Tax rates may be levied pursuant to this Rate and Method of Apportionment. The initial Zone of CFD No. 2020-1 is identified as Zone 2020-1. Additional Zones may be created when property is annexed into CFD No. 2020-1.
B. ASSIGNMENT TO LAND USE CATEGORIES
Each Fisca
l Year, beginning with Fiscal Year 2020-21, all property within CFD No. 2020-1 shall be classified as Taxable Property or Exempt Property. Each Assessor Parcel of Taxable Property shall be further classified as Developed Property or Undeveloped Property and shall be subject to Special Taxes in accordance with this Rate and Method of Apportionment determined pursuant to Section C below. Assessor’s Parcels of Taxable Developed Property shall further be classified into Land Use Categories.
C. MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX
An Assessor’s Parcel
may contain more than one Land Use Category. The Maximum Special Tax which may be levied on an Assessor’s Parcel shall be the sum of the Maximum Special Tax that can be imposed based on each Land Use Category applicable to such Assessor’s Parcel.
1. Developed Property
a. Maximum Special Tax
Each Fiscal
Year, each Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Property shall be subject to the Maximum Special Tax. The Maximum Special Tax applicable for Developed Taxable Property within Zone 2020-1 was determined through the application of Table 1, and is as shown in Appendix A. Appendix A will be updated at the time of each annexation to reflect the Land Use Categories and applicable Maximum Special Taxes for each annexed Zone or by areas within each annexed Zone.
The Maximum Special Tax for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 applicable to an Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Property shall be determined using Table 1 below.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "B"
71 Item5.
City of Escondido
March 23, 2020
Community Facilities District No. 2020-1 5
TABLE 1
Maximum Special Tax Rates
for Developed Residential Property per Dwelling Unit*
Fiscal Year 2020-2021
Land Use
Category Density Unit
Special Tax
Per Unit
1 Less than 5.5 DU/Acre DU $536.00
2 5.5 to less than 18 DU/Acre DU $743.00
3 18.0 to less than 30 DU/Ac
re DU $725.00
4 30 DU/Acre or Greater DU $783.00
* The analysis
performed to establish the Special Tax per DU shown above only considered the impacts from property within the current City boundary.
b. Escalation
Each July 1st, commencing
July 1, 2021, the Maximum Special Taxes shall increase
annually by the greater of the annual percentage change in the Index or two percent (2%) from the amount established in the prior Fiscal Year.
2. Undeveloped Property
No Special Tax shall be levied on Undeveloped Property.
D. EXEMPT PROPERTY
The CFD Administra
tor shall classify as Exempt Property within the boundaries of CFD No. 2020-1: (1) Any Assessor’s Parcel that is owned or irrevocably dedicated to the State of California, Federal or other local governments, including school districts, (2) Assessor’s Parcels which are owned by or irrevocably dedicated to a homeowners association, or (3) Assessor’s Parcels with other types of public uses determined by the CFD Administrator.
E. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX
Commencing with Fiscal
Year 2020-2021 and for each following Fiscal Year, the CFD Administrator shall determine the Special Tax Requirement for such Fiscal Year and shall levy the Special Tax Proportionately on each Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property up to 100% of the applicable Maximum Special Tax to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement.
F. PREPAYMENT OF SPECIAL TAX
No prepayments of the Spec
ial Tax are permitted.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "B"
72 Item5.
City of Escondido
March 23, 2020
Community Facilities District No. 2020-1 6
G. APPEALS AND INTERPRETATIONS
Any property owne
r claiming that the amount or application of the Special Tax is not correct may file a written notice of appeal with the CFD Administrator. The written notice of appeal must be filed within the same Fiscal Year as having paid the first installment of the Special Tax that is disputed and the property owner must be current and remain current in the payment of all Special Tax levied on or before the payment date.
The CFD Administrator shall promptly review the appeal, and if necessary, meet with the property owner, consider written and oral evidence regarding the amount of the Special Tax, and rule on the appeal. If the CFD Administrator’s decision requires that the Special Tax for an Assessor’s Parcel be modified or changed in favor of the property owner, an adjustment shall be made to the Annual Special Tax on that Assessor’s Parcel in the subsequent Fiscal Year(s) and a refund, as described, shall be made representing the amount of the adjustment for only the most recent Fiscal Year. The CFD Administrator shall determine if funds are available to provide such refund or, if funds are not available in the sole discretion of the CFD Administrator to provide a cash refund, a credit to the levy of Special Tax in one or more subsequent Fiscal Years shall be made in the same amount. This procedure shall be exclusive and its exhaustion by any property owner shall be a condition precedent to filing any legal actions by such property owner.
The CFD Administrator may interpret this Rate and Method of Apportionment for purposes of clarifying ambiguity and make determinations relative to the amount of Administrative Expenses.
H. MANNER OF COLLECTION
The Special Tax will
be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem property taxes; provided, however, that CFD No. 2020-1 may directly bill the Special Tax, may collect Special Taxes at a different time or in a different manner if necessary to meet its financial obligations, and may covenant to foreclose and may actually foreclose on delinquent Assessor’s Parcels as permitted by the Act.
I. TERM OF THE SPECIAL TAX
For each Fisc
al Year, the Special Tax shall be levied in perpetuity as long as the Services are being provided.
J. FUTURE ANNEXATIONS
It is anticipate
d that additional properties will be annexed into CFD No. 2020-1 from time to time. For Land Use Categories not included in the initial boundaries of CFD No. 2020-1, a study and report describing the Services to be provided to such properties and the estimated
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "B"
73 Item5.
City of Escondido
March 23, 2020
Community Facilities District No. 2020-1 7
cost of such Services shall be provided to the City Council as the legislative body of the CFD No. 2020-1 in accordance with Section 53321.5 of the Mello-Roos Act. Based on this analysis, the property to be annexed, pursuant to California Government Code section 53339 et. seq. will be assigned an appropriate Maximum Special Tax rate for the Zone or areas within the Zone by Land Use Category as provided herein or as defined and detailed when annexed and included in Appendix A.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "B"
Item5.
FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DIST RICT NO. 2020-1
OF THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO (SERVICES)
(ANNEXATION NO. 8 ZONE 2020-8)
MAXI
MUM SPECIAL TAXES ASSIGNED
Maximum Special Tax Rates
For Developed Residential Property per Dwelling Unit
Fiscal Year 2022-2023
Zone
Land Use
Category Density
Assessor Parcel
No(s). Unit
Annual
Special Tax
Per Unit*
Annual
Special Tax
Total
2020-7 1
Less than 5.5
DU/Acre 235-202-59-00 1 DU $575.19 $575.19
2020-7 1
Less than 5.5
DU/Acre 224-143-50-00 1 DU $575.19 $575.19
2020-7 1
Less than 5.5
DU/Acre 238-110-35-00 5 DU $575.19 $2,875.95
2020-7 1
Less than 5.5
DU/Acre 227-180-27-00 6 DU $575.19 $3,451.14
2020-7 1
Less than 5.5
DU/Acre 236-335-53-00 1 DU $575.19 $575.19
2020-7 1
Less than 5.5
DU/Acre 232-333-16-00 1 DU $575.19 $575.19
2020-7 1
Less than 5.5
DU/Acre 233-111-16-00 1 DU $575.19 $575.19
Increases in the Maximum Special Tax:
On each July 1, commencing July 1, 2022, the Maximum Special Tax shall be increased by the greater of the annual percentage change in the Index or 2%.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "B"
75 Item5.
B-1
4889-5604-3834v2/022009-0050
APPENDIX B
NAME OF OWNER AND PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
(ANNEXATION NO. 8)
Property Owner 1: MFG GAMBLE LANE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company Property Description: Assessor Parcel Number (as set forth in the County of San Diego Assessor’s Fiscal Year 2022-23 Roll):
235-202-59-00
Property Owner 2: ROBERT S. SADLER and BEVERLY J. SADLER Property Description: Assessor Parcel Number (as set forth in the County of San Diego Assessor’s Fiscal Year 2022-23 Roll):
224-143-50-00
Property Owner 3: HAMILTON DEVELOPMENT 5, LLC, a California limited liability company Property Description: Assessor Parcel Number (as set forth in the County of San Diego Assessor’s Fiscal Year 2022-23 Roll):
238-110-35-00
Property Owner 4: NEW POINTE INVESTMENT 51, LLC, a California limited liability company Property Description: Assessor Parcel Number (as set forth in the County of San Diego Assessor’s Fiscal Year 2022-23 Roll):
227-180-27-00
Property Owner 5: STAN STARK and KIMBERLY M. STARK
Property Description: Assessor Parcel Number (as set forth in the County of San Diego Assessor’s Fiscal Year 2022-23 Roll):
236-335-53-00
Property Owner 6: GASSER NESTMAN PROPERTIES, LLC, a Utah limited liability company Property Description: Assessor Parcel Number (as set forth in the County of San Diego Assessor’s Fiscal Year 2022-23 Roll):
232-333-16-00
Property Owner 7: SUSANA VELASCO
Property Description: Assessor Parcel Number (as set forth in the County of San Diego Assessor’s Fiscal Year 2022-23 Roll:
233-111-16-00
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "B"
76 Item5.
CJTY of fSCO/IJDJ 1 0
�
E�CONDIDO
CityofCh�•
201 N. Broadway
Escondido, Ca. 92025
\
CJTY of fSCO/IJDJDO
-----
COUNTY
\
\
\
BOUNDARY MAP OF
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2020-1
(SERVICES)
ANNEXATION ZONE 2020-8
OF THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
��
-----------COUNTY
'1,-
�
��
'G-YA
;;:; <"'
S' ,.>; S'
I I
LESLIE LANE
-----
�
0 7/
LEGEND
-
c--
CD LOT NUMBER
ANNEXATION BOUNDARY
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO, THIS DAY OF , 20 __
BY, _________ _
C I TY CLERK
CITY OF ESCONDIDO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE WITHIN MAP SHOWIN0 THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ANNEXATION OF ZONE 202 - TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2020-1 OF THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO, COUNTY OF SAN DIE00, STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO AT A RE0ULAR MEETIN0 THEREOF, HELD ON THE DAY OF , 20 , BY ITS RESOLUTION NO. _____ _
BY, _________ _
C I TY CLERK
CITY OF ESCONDIDO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FILED THIS DAY OF , 20 , AT THE HOUR
OF O'CLOCK .M. AS DOCUMENT NO. IN BOOK
PA0E(S) OF MAPS OF ASSESSMENTS AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES
DIS TR IC TS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIE00, CALIFORNIA,
BY, _________ _
DEPUTY RECORDER
COUNTY RECORDER, ERNEST J. DRONENBUR0, JR.
COUNTY OF SAN DIE00
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LOT DESIGNATION
LOT NO. APN. SHEET
CD 235-202-59-00 I
@ 224 -143-50-00 I
0 238-110-35-00 I
0 227 -180-27 -00 I
® 236 -335 -53 -00 2
@ 232-333-16-00 2
(]) 233-111-16-00 2
CITY OF ESCONDIDO / COUNTY OF SAN DIE00 BOUNDARY LINE
SHEET I OF 2
DATE FEBR UARY 2023
JOB NO. CFD2020 - 8
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "C"
77 Item5.
C!TY o! ESCO lD!DO
�
E�CONDIDO
CityofCh�•
201 N. Broadway
Escondido, Ca. 92025
BOUNDARY MAP OF
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2020-1
(SERVICES)
ANNEXATION ZONE 2020-8
OF THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LEGEND
CD LOT NUMBER
ANNEXATION BOUNDARY
CITY OF ESCONDIDO / COUNTY OF SAN DIE00 BOUNDARY LINE
SHEET 2 OF 2
DATE FEBRUARY 2023
JOB NO. CFD2020 - 8
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "C"
78 Item5.
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS FOR ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS ANNEXING INTO COMMUNITY FACILITES DISTRICT 2020-1
1500 GAMBLE LANE, ESCONDIDO CA 92029
PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9303, IN THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO, OCTOVER 25, 1979.
EXCEPT THEREFROM ALL OIL, GAS, MINERALS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES, LYING BELOW A DEPTH OF 500 FEET, WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY.
APN: 235-202-59-00
1123 ORANGE BLOSSOM WAY, ESCONDIDO CA 92026
PARCEL 1:
THAT CERTAIN “REMAINDER PARCEL (NOT A PART OF THIS SUBDIVISION)” SHOWN AND DELINEATED ON ESCONDIDO TRACT NO. 703-A, IN THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 13555, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, APRIL 2, 1998.
PARCEL 2:
AN EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR ROAD, SEWER, WATER, GAS, POWER AND TELEPHONE
LINES AND APPURTENANCES THERETO OVER, UNDER, ALONG AND ACROSS THE SOUTHEASTERLY 20.00 FEET OF LOT 1 IN BLOCK 416 OF RANCHO RINCON DEL DIABLO, IN THE
CITY OF ESCONDIDO, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 723, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, AUGUST 13, 1892.
APN: 224-143-50-00
2350 MILLER ROAD, ESCONDIDO CA 92029
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
T
HE FOLLOWING LAND DESCRIBED PURSUANT TO THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE RECORDED FEBRUARY 5, 2021 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2021-0091283, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS:
THAT PORTION OF LOT THREE IN BLOCK TWENTY-FIVE OF HOMELAND ACRES ADDITION TO ESCONDIDO NO. 2, IN THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1241, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 11, 1910, LYING SOUTH OF A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND
DISTANT TWO HUNDRED SIXTY-FOUR FEET SOUTHERLY FROM THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT THREE, EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "D"
79 Item5.
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, NORTH 12° 01' EAST, 121.3 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE NORTH 12° 01" EAST, 259.7 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 77° 59' EAST, 258.2 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 56° 51' WEST, 366.2 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
TOGETHER WITH THE NORTHERLY HALF OF THE UN-NAMED STREET ADJOINING SAID LOT 3 ON THE SOUTH AS VACATED BY THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BY RESOLUTION RECORDED JUNE 3, 1981, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 81-172660, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 3, 1970 AS FILE NO. 221136, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3;
THENCE (1) ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, NORTH 12° 35' 46" EAST, 121.29 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT LAND GRANTED TO C.G. BASSET AND SALLY S. BASSET PER DEED RECORDED MARCH23, 1973 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 73-076918, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS;
THENCE (2) ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE NORTH 57° 24' 50" EAST, 75.69 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE (3) LEAVING SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE SOUTH 77° 24' 01" EAST, 387.45 FEET;
THENCE (4) ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, WITH A RADIUS OF 458.00 FEET; THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 25° 45' 36", A DISTANCE OF 205.92 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3;
THENCE (5) ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE NORTH 12° 37' 04" EAST, 251.93 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID BASSETT LAND;
THENCE (6) ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE NORTH 77° 26' 22" WEST, 196.96 FEET;
THENCE (7) LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE SOUTH 31° 53' 10" EAST, 141.58 FEET;
THENCE (8) SOUTH 22° 48' 07" WEST, 46.00 FEET;
THENCE (9) NORTH 77° 24' 01" WEST, 421.08 FEET TO SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE;
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "D"
80 Item5.
THENCE (10) ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE SOUTH 57° 24' 50" WEST, 84.58 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM, ANY PORTIONS LYING NORTHERLY OF COURSES 3 AND 4 DESCRIBED ABOVE.
PARCEL C:
THAT PORTION OF LOT 3 IN BLOCK 25 OF HOMELAND ACRES ADDITION TO ESCONDIDO NO. 2, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1241, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 11, 1910, SAID PORTION HEREBY CONVEYED DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, DISTANT ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE NORTH 12° 35' 46" EAST, 121.29 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3;
THENCE ALONG THE FOLLOWING NUMBERED COURSES:
(1) NORTH 57° 24' 50" EAST, 75.69 FEET, TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF FRONTAGE ROAD "FA-L" OF STATE FREEWAY 11-SD-15 28.5, SAID FRONTAGE ROAD BEING
60.00 FEET IN WIDTH;
(2) ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 77° 24' 01" WEST, 53.35 FEET, TO SAID WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3;
(3) ALONG LAST SAID LINE SOUTH 12° 35' 48" WEST, 53.69 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
APN: 238-110-35-00
1600 N. BROADWAY, ESCONDIDO CA 92026
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL 1:
ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT 4 IN BLOCK 422 OF RANCHO RINCON DEL DIABLO, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP NO. 723, MADE BY J. M. GRAHAM, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, AUGUST 13, 1892, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 4 IN BLOCK 422; RUNNING THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 4, A DISTANCE OF 240 FEET; THENCE Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "D"
81 Item5.
EASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 4, A DISTANCE OF 380 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT, A DISTANCE OF 240 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 4; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 380 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 2:
AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD PURPOSES OVER AND ACROSS THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 4 IN BLOCK 422; THENCE RUNNING NORTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 4, A DISTANCE OF 240 FEET, WHICH IS THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE A DISTANCE OF 15 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 4 A DISTANCE OF 326 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY PARALLEL WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 4, A DISTANCE OF 15 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY PARALLEL WITH SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 4, A DISTANCE OF 326 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
APN: 227-180-27-00
1998 ROHN ROAD, ESCONDIDO CA 92025
PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13588, IN THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, DECEMBER 12, 1984 AS FILE NO. 84-462999 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OIL, GAS ASPHALTUM AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES
AND OTHER MINERALS, WITHIN OR UNDERLYING OR THAT MAY BE PRODUCED FROM SAID
PROPERTY, TOGETHER WITH THE FULL RIGHT TO EXPLORE FOR, DEVELOP, DRILL, REMOVE AND
RECOVER THE SAME FROM SAID PROPERTY AND THE RIGHT TO USE THAT PORTION OF THE SUBSURFACE OF SAID PROPERTY LYING BELOW A DEPTH OF 500 FEET FROM THE SURFACE OF
SAID PROPERTY FOR ALL PURPOSES PERTAINING TO INCIDENT TO THE FOREGOING BUT NOT
INCLUDING WITHIN THIS EXCEPTION ANY RIGHT TO USE THE SURFACE OF SAID PROPERTY OR THAT PORTION OF THE SUBSURFACE THEREOF LYING ABOVE A DEPTH OF 500 FEET BELOW THE SURFACE FOR THE AFORESAID PURPOSES, AS RESERVED BY S. ALBERT MOLLE AND GLADYS MOLLE IN DEED RECORDED MARCH 3, 1972, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 52072, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
APN: 236-335-53-00
663 S. TULIP STREET, ESCONDIDO CA 92025
THAT PORTION OF LOT 15 BLOCK 306 OF RANCHO RINCON DEL DIABLO, IN THE CITY OF Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "D"
82 Item5.
ESCONDIDO; COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO.349 BY O. N. SANFORD, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, JULY 10, 1886, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTER LINE OF TULIP STREET WITH THE EASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 14 AND 15 OF SAID BLOCK 306; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID PROLONGATION AND ALONG THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 14 AND 15 A DISTANCE OF 160.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY PARALLEL WITH THE WESTERLY LINE TULIP STREET A DISTANCE OF 300.00 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY PARALLEL WITH THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 14 AND 15; A DISTANCE OF 160.00 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF TULIP STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CENTER LINE A DISTANCE OF 300.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE NORTHWESTERLY 252.00 FEET.
APN: 232-333-16-00
422 S. SPRUCE STREET, ESCONDIDO CA 92025
LOT 1 IN BLOCK 108 OF ESCONDIDO, IN THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 336, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, JULY 10, 1886, EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTHERLY 70 FEET THEREOF.
APN: 233-11-16-00
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit "D"
83 Item5.
STAFF REPORT
February 8, 2023
File Number 0610-90
SUBJECT
AMENDMENT AND READOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL RULES AND PROCEDURES
DEPARTMENT
City Attorney
RECOMMENDATION
Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023 -19, amending the City Council Rules of Procedure for City Council meetings and City Council Policies to change Section A.7 to allow for a council member motion and second before further consideration of an agenda item.
Staff Recommendation: Approval (Department Name: City Attorney) Presenter: Michael R. McGuinness, City Attorney
FISCAL ANALYSIS
There is no anticipated fiscal impact resulting from this change to the Council Rules.
PREVIOUS ACTION
The Council Rules of Procedure for City Council Meetings and City Council Policies (“Rules of Procedure”) was last amended on September 29, 2021 with the adoption of Resolution No. 2021-156. The amendment modified and clarified the rules with regard to th e ability of City Councilmembers to participate in the issuance of proclamations and certificates of recognition by less than the full City Council.
BACKGROUND
The City Council has had in place for many years a set of Rules of Procedure for council meeti ngs and related policies governing the manner in which the City Council conduct s its internal business and the relationship among the councilmembers on such matters as correspondence, proclamations and certificates of recognition , requests for agenda items, and council meeting conduct (“Rules of Procedure”). It has been amended , restated and readopted on several occasions. The City Council adopted these rules and amendments thereto pursuant to resolution.
84 Item6.
Section A.7 of the current Rules of Procedure provide as follows:
Council Action on Agenda Matters.
Prior to the request for a motion and second by any Council member on an agenda matter, Council shall be allowed to hear any presentation by staff or member of the public, ask questions and discuss among themselves the matter to be decided. At the conclusion of the presentation, questions and discussion by Council members a request for a motion and second may be made and a roll call vote shall be taken. A motion that fails to obtain a second or a majority vote shall die.
On January 11, 2023, at the request of Mayor Dane White, the City Council discussed and considered an amendment to the Rules of Procedure to provide for the request for a motion and second from the council before undertaking discussion of the agenda item. The order of council discussion and the request for council action by way of motion is entirely up to the council and not controlled by the Brown Act or other state law. The City Council unanimously agreed to direct a change to the Rules of Procedure as requested.
Resolution No. 2023-19 amends Section A.7 to now provide that prior to any vote or discussion by the Council, City staff shall provide a presentation and/or answer questions, and thereafter, any councilmember shall call f or a motion. If that motion is seconded, the matter may be debated and discussed before putting the motion to a vote of the Council. No other changes are made to the underlying Rules of Procedure.
RESOLUTIONS
a. Resolution No. 2023 -19 – Resolution Amending and Readopting Rules of Procedure for City Council Meetings and City Council Policies
ATTACHMENTS
a. Attachment “1” – Redline of Resolution No. 2021-156 – City Council Rules and Procedures
85 Item6.
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-19
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING AND
READOPTING RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR CITY COUNCIL
MEETINGS AND CITY COUNCIL POLICIES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Escondido, State of California, has previously adopted resolutions which provide Rules of Order and Procedure for City Council meetings and certain written policies governing Council procedures, methods of operation and ethics which are amended from time to time; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to re-adopt its Rules and Policies for the purpose of including certain amendments and clarifications.
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 following Rules shall govern the City Council:
Section A: Rules of Order and Procedure
1. Time of Regular Meetings.
Unless the City Council schedules otherwise or cancels a meeting, the City Council shall hold regular m eetings at 4:00 p.m. commencing with closed ses sion items and thereafter at 5:00 p.m. commencing with a public session on each of the first four (4) Wednesdays of each calendar month at the City Hall.
2. Matters Covered.
For the purpose of efficiently focusing only on matters affecting the City of Escondido, t he Council should consider those resolutions, motion s or matter s which affect the conduct of the business of the City of Escondido or its corporate powers or duties as a municipal corporation , or such resolutions or motion s supporting or 86 Item6.
2 disapproving legislation or action s pending in the Legislature of the State of Cal ifornia, the Congress of the United States or before any officer or agency of said State or nation where such proposed legislation or action, if adopted, will affect the conduct of the municipal business or the powers and duties of the City of Escondido or its officers or employees as such.
3. Order of Business. Regular business of the Council at the 5:00 p.m. public session shall be taken up for consideration in substantially the following order, except as may be otherwise ordered by the Mayor or Council:
a. Moment of Reflection
b. Flag Salute
c. Roll Call
d. Closed Session Report
e. Proclamations/Presentations
f. Oral Communications (up to 15 minutes or as directed by the Mayor) g. Consent Calendar, including Affidavits of Publications, Mailing, Posting , Warrant Register & Minutes Approval
h. Public Hearings
i. Current Business Matters
j. Future Agenda Items
k. Council Members Subcommittee Reports
l. Council Member Reports
m. City Manager’s Weekly Activity Report Highlights
n. Oral Communications
o. Adjournment
4. Consent Calendar Defined.
Those items on the Council agenda which are generally considered routine matter of business such as the approval of minutes, approval of the warrant register, Notices of Project Completion, Treasurer's Quarterly Investment Report, certain contract and grant 87 Item6.
3 awards, resolutions setting hearings, final maps , and various leases and agreements are listed on the “Consent Calendar" and shall be adopted by one motion unless Council, staff or a member of the public requests specific items to be discussed and/or removed for separate action. Those items so approved under the heading “Consent Calendar" will appear in the Council minutes in their proper form, i.e., resolution accepting grant deed or easement, approval of minutes, award of bid, etc.
From time to time, the Council may schedule a “workshop” style meetin g. Such workshops shall comply with all applicable noticing laws and shall be dedicated primarily to general information gathering and sharing, discussion and possible direction to staff.
Final actions of the Council shall not take place at workshop sessions.
5. Oral Communications.
Time has been reserved near the beginning and end of each regular meeting agenda to provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the Council on items of interest to the public. The Mayor as the presiding officer may set a limit on the time at the beginning of the meeting devoted to oral communications and may at his or her discretion extend the time for a speaker or speaker representative to address the Council. Comments on an item already appearing on th e agenda shall only be taken at the time reserved for discussion of that agenda item. No action will be taken by the Council on items discussed under Oral Communications, except to refer the matter to staff or schedule for future action.
6. Council Member Reports.
The Council Member Report agenda item provides members of the Council an opportunity to report matters of general interest to the public a nd their fellow Council Members. No actions, votes or further discussions shall occur on any such matter(s).
7. Council Action on Agenda Matters.
88 Item6.
4 Prior to any vote or discussion by the Council on a matter to be decided on the agenda, City staff shall provide a presentation and/or answer questions, if requested, and thereafter, any Council member may seek recognition by the presiding officer and make a motion to adopt such item, and thereafter, the presiding officer shall determine if another Council member, including the presiding officer, seconds the motion . If the motion receives a second, the matter may be debated before putting the motion to a vote of the Council. A motion that fails to obtain a second or a majority vote shall die.
8. Manner of Addressing Council - Time Limit.
a. Each person addressing the Council shall step up to the microphone, shall state their name and city of residence in an audible tone of voice for the record and, unless further time is granted by the presiding officer, shall limit their address to three (3) minutes. If significant numbers of persons desire to speak on a given item, the presiding officer has the discretion to limit speaking times and/or alter the sequence of hearing matters on the agenda . Longer time limits may be permitted for an applicant, appellant, or spokesperson for a larger group, at the discretion of the presiding officer.
b. Whenever any group of persons wishes to address the Council on the same subject matter, it shall be proper for the presiding officer to request that a spokesperson be chosen by the group to address the Council and, in case additional matters are to be presented at the time by any other member of the said group, to limit the number of persons so addressing the Council so as to avoid unnecessary repetitions before the Council.
89 Item6.
5 c. City staff presentations and responses to Council questions are not governed by this time limit.
9. Posting of Agenda.
At least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the agenda specifying the time and location of the regular meeting in a place accessible so as to be available for review by members of the public.
10. Content of Agenda.
Under state law, the City Council is limited to consideration of items which are on a posted agenda. Items may be placed on an agenda by city staff, by the Mayor, or upon the request of an individual Council member in coordination with the City Manager. The City Manager shall be in charge of preparing the Council agenda and all items shall be coordinated with the City Manager. To the fullest extent practicable, any items placed on the agenda by the Mayor, any Council member or City staff should also be listed under "Future Agenda Items" as early as possible to assure the best possible advance notice of the nature of items and discussion which are upcoming.
11. Proclamations and Presentations.
The City of Escondido recognizes members of the public, groups, or other entities in different ways. Individual Councilmembers may request the preparation of a Certificate of Achievement, Acknowledgment, or Recognition (depending on the circumstances) to be presented in their individual capacity as a member of the City Council. Such certificates shall be prepared by the City Manager’s office in a manner such as to preserve co nsistency in design and form of the City. Such certificates shall be requested directly from the City Manager’s office, with ample advance notice to the City Manager’s office to enable preparation and delivery. Each Council member requesting a certificate shall be solely responsible for providing the content and verifying the accuracy 90 Item6.
6 of the document. Multiple Councilmembers may sign and present such certificates subject to coordination among themselves.
The Mayor and any Councilmember may also recommend the public acknowledgement of any member of the public, group, entity or matter of public interest through the issuance and presentation of a formal proclamation on behalf of the City of Escondido. Such recommendations shall be made in coordination with the City Manager’s office. Upon approval by the Mayor, such proclamations shall then be prepared by the City Manager’s office in a manner such as to preserve consistency in design and form of the City. Proclamations will normally be signed on be half of the City by the Mayor.
However, if some or all City Councilmembers also wish to sign a proclamation, and signatures can be obtained in a timely maner, proclamations may be signed by the full City Council or by those members wishing to sign the document. Proclamations shall normally be presented by the Mayor at the commencement of a meeting of the City Council, unless circumstances dictate the presentation of the proclamation elsewhere. Any disagreement with whether or not such a proclamation sha ll be issued shall be resolved by a majority vote of the City Council.
The Mayor or any Councilmember may request that a presentation to the City Council at a regular meeting be made by members of the public, other public entities, or other groups, on is sues of interest to the City Council or members of the public. Such presentations shall be coordinated with the Mayor and the City Manager’s office and shall be subject to scheduling in a manner that does not interfere with the need to conduct normal City business. Any disagreement with whether or not such a presentation is to be scheduled shall be resolved by a majority vote of the City Council.
12. Closing Time of Council Meetings.
91 Item6.
7 No agenda item may be introduced after the hour of 10: 00 p.m.; however, the meeting may be extended beyond 10: 00 p.m. upon a majority vote of the Council members.
13. Processing of Motions.
a. When a motion is made, it shall be stated clearly and concisely by its mover. After a motion is made and seconded, it may be stated by the presiding officer before debate. A motion may be withdrawn by the mover without consent of the Council members.
b. The presiding officer shall at any time by majority consent of the Council members, permit a Council member to propose the reordering of agenda items.
c. If a question contains two or more divisible propositions, the presiding officer may, and upon request of a Council member shall, divide the same.
14. Precedence of Motions.
a. When a motion is before the Council, no motion shall be entertained except (precedence in order indicated):
(1) To adjourn
(2) To fix hour of adjournment
(3) To lay on the table
(4) For the previous question
(5) To postpone to a certain day
(6) To refer
(7) To amend
(8) To postpone indefinitely
b. A motion to adjourn shall be in order any time, except as follows:
92 Item6.
8 (1) When repeated without intervening business or discussion (2) When made as an interruption of a Council member while speaking
(3) When the previous question has been ordered
(4) While a vote is being taken
c. A motion to adjourn “to another time" is debatable only as to the time to which the meeting is adjourned.
d. A motion to table or lay on the table is not debatable and shall preclude all amend ments or debate of the subject under consideration. If the motion shall prevail, the matter may be “taken from the table" only by adding it to the agenda of the next regular meeting, to be discussed at the following regular meeting.
e. A motion for pr evious question shall close debate on the main motion and shall be undebatable. The statement by a Council member of “question" does not accomplish the same purpose. If a motion fails, debate is reopened; if motion passes, then vote shall be taken on the main motion.
f. A motion to amend shall be in order and is debatable only as to amendment. A motion to amend an amendment shall not be in order.
An amendment modifying the intention of a motion shall be in order but an amendment relating to a differ ent matter shall not be in order. A substitute motion on the same subject shall be acceptable and amendments are to be voted first, then the main motion is amended. g. A motion to postpone indefinitely shall be fully debatable and if the same is adopted, the principal motion shall be declared lost. A motion to 93 Item6.
9 postpone to a definite time shall be amendable and debatable as to propriety of postponement and time set.
h. A motion to refer shall not be debatable except for the propriety of referring.
15. Administrative Mandamus.
Persons who are dissatisfied with a decision of the City Council may have the right to seek review of that decision by a court. In addition, the City has adopted Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure which generally limits to ninety (90) days the time within which the decision of City boards and agencies may be judicially challenged.
16. Appeals; Continuances.
Any person appealing an action of a City Board or Commission or City Staff to the City Council has a right to two two-week postponements of the initial hearing scheduled on the appeal. After exhaustion of this right, the appeal shall be considered withdrawn.
This procedure shall not limit the ability of the City Counci l to continue a hearing which has commenced to a subsequent meeting to receive additional public testimony or information from City Staff.
17. Reconsideration.
Any member of the Council, voting in the majority on any action of the Council, may at the sa me meeting, or at a subsequent time, request the Council reconsider an action. A reconsideration request made by a member of the Council voting in the minority shall not be allowed, except when made more than one (1) year after the date of the original action.
All r equests for reconsideration of a Council action shall be provided to each Council member, and the City Manager in writing or via electronic mail, and the request shall be placed on the next available agenda. In the event an item to be reconsi dered 94 Item6.
10 requires public notice, it shall be calendared and noticed after Council determines when reconsideration shall occur.
18. Personal Privilege.
The right of any Council member to address the Council on a question of personal privilege shall be limited to cases in which his/her integrity, character or motives are questioned.
19. Council Conduct.
Each member of the Council shall act in a courteous and respectful manner to all members of the Council , including providing each member the full opportunity to ask questions, voice opinions and make statements without interruption during closed and open sessions of the Council.
20. Parliamentarian.
A majority vote of th e Council shall generally control matters of procedure not addressed by this Resolution. The City Attorney shall decide all other questions of interpretations of these rules and any other questions of a parliamentary nature which may arise at a City Council meeting.
21. Voting and Non-Profit Entity Membership.
It shall be the policy of this Council that a council member who serves on the governing board of a private non-profit entity shall not participate in the discussion or voting process to determine whether or not that entity receives City funds. In the event the request of a non-profit entity with a council member on its governing board is part of a larger request involving several items, or is part of the budget process, a separate vote shall be taken to allow the necessary abstention.
22. Selection of Chairperson.
95 Item6.
11 In the event that the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor are absent from a City Council meeting, the three remaining Council members present shall promptly determine which Council member will conduct and serve as the chairperson of the meeting.
23. Decorum and Security.
a. While the City Council is in session, the Council members, staff, and members of the public are expected to act in a manner to preserve order and decorum for the meeting. No person shall engage in disorderly or disruptive behavior during the meeting. No pe rson shall, either by conversation, applause, shouting, or any other conduct, interrupt or delay the proceedings. b. The City Manager, in coordination with the Mayor and/or Deputy Mayor, are authorized to and shall designate and post signs specifying those areas of the Chamber for the media wishing to record the meeting, areas for staff presentations, and areas which are restricted to City employees and elected officials.
c. Signs, placards, posters, or similar objects which are large r than 8.5 by 11 inches and w hich disrupt the proceedings shall not be displayed during Council proceedings by members of the public.
Section B: City Council Policies.
1. Correspondence with Members of the City Council.
The purpose of this policy is to provide for a coordinated response to correspondence (i.e. letters, emails, and similar items) which is sent to the City generally, or in which the same correspondence is sent in identical fashion to all Council members.
In su ch circumstances, the Council directs that the Mayor (or as appropriate the City Manager or City Attorney) shall answer such correspondence on behalf of the City, according to the procedure set forth below.
96 Item6.
12 In addition to individual e -mail addresses, the City Manager’s Office shall also establish a shared email address by which citizens may direct emails to all Council members at the same time. The shared email address shall be featured on the City’s website and in other publications in such a manner as to allow citizens to use the address and thereby communicate with all Council member s at the same time. All Council members shall have access to review items in the mailbox at all times. All responses to such emails shall also be sent from the shared mailbox, such that all Council members may review such responses.
With respect to other communications, such as those involving other governmental entities, organizations , and related entities where such communication occurs between the entities rather than specific individuals, the Mayor shall respond on behalf of the City, with copies to all Council members. Matters involving routine city administrative issues shall generally be responded to by either the City Manager or City Attorney, as appropriat e, on behalf of the City. With respect to correspondence that consists of invitations to events, the Mayor and Council shall coordinate such invitations with the City Manager's support staff.
Because substantial portions of City Council communication, whether electronic or written, is subject to California's Public Records laws, all City Council communications shall be coordinated with the City Manager for the purpose of compliance with various laws governing public records. All Council members using city computers shall be subject to the City's Administrative Directives regarding computer use.
2. Press Releases.
All press releases on behalf of the City shall be issued on City letterhead and only on behalf of the City generally or the entire City Council. Press releases shall be prepared and coordinated by the City Manager’s Office.
97 Item6.
13 3. Council Calendar.
The responsibility for managing the calendars of the City Council and the City Council members shall be delegated to the City Manager's secretary.
4. Audits.
Staff shall informally assist the City Council in a periodic accounting of individual expenditures for travel, phone use, etc.
5. Council Travel Policy.
Council members shall be bound by all City policies, as expressed in Administrative Directives or otherwise, regarding travel on City business.
The City Council shall fix an amount in the City Council budget which each Council member may use for business-related education and travel expenses, including attendance at seminars, conferences and other related educational opportunities. These funds will be separate from any budget e stablished for Council member par ticipation in committees associated with other public agencies and entities. If these funds are not used during the fiscal year appropriated, they shall be returned to the General Fund.
Elected officials shall provide brief reports on meetings attended at the City’s expense at the next regular City Council meeting. If multiple elected officials attended, a joint report may be made. Reports may be provided in writing as part of the Agenda packet distribution.
6. Council Communication with Staff.
The Council members shall request information or give direction only to the City Manager or City Attorney , or those persons designated by the City Manager or City Attorney to assist the Council members in such inquiries or requests . Requests for information should be directed to the City Manager , although incidental or minor requests (not involving analysis or significant time) may be requested directly from 98 Item6.
14 department heads, with a copy to the City Manager . Requests which involve change of policy, expenditure of funds, or use of significant staff time shall be submitted to the full Council for approval.
7. Review of Reimbursements.
The Director of Finan ce or a designee shall review all City Council requests for reimbursement of expenses for consistency with City policy on such expenses.
In all cases, Council members shall be bound by the same policies and procedures adopted and applicable for all City emp loyees on a citywide basis. To the extent such policies provide for per diem reimbursements, auto allowances, and related forms of reimbursement rather than receipt-specific reimbursement, it is hereby determined that such per diem or fixed amount reimbu rsements, so long as applicable to all city employees, are the best and most efficient method of reimbursing expenses on an actual and necessary basis.
9. Council Salary.
To assure attention to the Council compensation allowable under state law , the City Council shall have an agenda item during a meeting in December of odd number ed years for the purpose of determining whether or not to take action regarding Council compensation.
10. Campaign Activity Funding.
The City Council shall not direct or authorize the expenditure of public funds to prepare or distribute a publication or communication when the style, tenor, and timing of the publication or communication demonstrates that it constitutes traditional campaign activity or that it supports or opposes the approval or rejection of a ballot measure.
11. Council Use of City Staff for Public Events.
99 Item6.
15 The Council believes that making opportunities available for Council members to interact with the public outside of regular public meetings is a benefit to the Council and residents of the City. The ability to communicate to the public the availability of the Councilmembers for such events is critical to their success.
Council members may request through the City Manager’s Office the services of City staff to assist in the hosting of public events related to City business including, but not limited to , the electronic posting o f notices of public events involving the Council members on the City’s social media platforms . To the great est extent possible, t he amount of staff resources devoted to such efforts shall be equal among all Council members.
To the extent any such staff efforts require time beyond the posting of notices on the City’s or related website, the City Manager shall be responsible for determining whether such personnel resources are available, whether there is a sufficient budget to cover the costs related to such efforts, and ensuring that all council members may obtain like and equal services during the course of any fiscal year . Council members shall not use any city staff or resources as part of, or in coordination with, any campaign for public office.
Section C: City Council Ethics Policy.
1. Declaration of Policy.
The res pected operation of democratic government emphasizes that elected officials be independent, impartial, and responsible to the people. It requires that they conduct themselves in a manner above reproach.
This Ethics Policy provides the following general guidelines and specific prohibitions to which elected Escondido City Officials must conform in pursuit of their assigned duties and responsibilities. This policy is in addition to all applicable provisions 100
Item6.
16 of state law, including the Brown Act, the Politi cal Reform Act and implementing regulations, and all other laws governing the conduct of elected officials.
2. Disclosure of Closed Session Matter.
No member of the City Council shall disclose to any person, other than members of the Council, the City Attorney, the City Manager, or other City staff designated by the City Manager to handle such matters of confidential City business, the content or substance of any information presented or discussed during a closed session meeting unless the City Council first authorizes such disclosure by the affirmative vote of three members.
3. Disclosure of Confidential Communications.
Except when disclosure is mandated by state or federal law, no member of the City Council shall disclose t o any person, other than members of the Council, the City Attorney, or the City Manager, or other City staff designated by the City Manager to handle such matters of confidential City business, the content or substance of any confidential or privileged com munication relating to matters of City business, received under circumstances where the confidential or privileged nature of the communication is reasonably conveyed, unless the City Council first authorizes such disclosure by the affirmative vote of three members of the City Council.
4. Conduct During Negotiations/Litigation.
The City Council is authorized to provide direction to specifically
identified negotiators in a legally constituted closed session on matters involving pending litigation, real estate negotiations, and labor negotiations. If the City Council in closed session provides such direction to its negotiators, all contact with the negotiating party or the party's representative , shall be limited to, and made by , those individuals designated to handle the negotiations.
101
Item6.
17 During a pending labor negotiation, no member of the City Council shall communicate any negotiating position on behalf of the City or engage in any negotiations for employee salary, benefits or working conditions. In addition, during pending litigation or real estate negotiations, no member of the City Council (unless they have been designated as a negotiator) shall have any contact or discussion with the litigating or negotiating party or the party's representative re garding the subject matter of the pending litigation or real estate negotiations.
No member of the City Council shall communicate or disclose to any person, other than members of the Council, the City Attorney, the City Manager, or other City staff designated by the City Manager to handle such matters of confidential City business, any discussion or information received in closed session regarding the negotiation or litigation.
Nothing in this section shall prohibit Council member s from receiving written communications provided they are made available to all Council member s, the City Manager, the City Attorney, and the City's designated negotiators on an equal basis.
5. Ex Parte Communications.
The purpose of this provision is to guarantee that all interested parties to any adjudicatory matter before the City Council have equal opportunity to express and represent their interests. Ex parte communications are those communications members of the C ity Council have with representatives of only one side of a matter outside the presence of other interested parties on a matter relevant to an adjudicatory proceeding.
A communication concerning only the status of a pending matter shall not be regarded as an ex parte communication.
102
Item6.
18 Any written or oral ex parte communication received by a member of the City Council in matters where all interested parties are entitled to an equal opportunity for a hearing shall be made a part of the record by the recipient.
6. Violations and Penalties.
Any violation of this Ethics Policy by a member of the City Council shall constitute official misconduct if determined by an affirmative vote of three members of the City Council in an open and public meeting. In addition to any criminal or civil penalties provided for by federal, state or other local law, any violation of this Ethics Policy shall constitute a cause for censure by City Council adoption of a Resolution of Censure. 103
Item6.
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2021-156
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING AND
READOPTING RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR CITY COUNCIL
MEETINGS AND CITY COUNCIL POLICIES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Escondido, State of Ca lifornia, has previously adopted resolutions which provide Rules of Order and Procedure for City Council meetings and certain written policies governing Council procedures , methods of operation and ethics which are amended from time to time; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to re-adopt its Rules and Policies for the purpose of including certain amendments and clarifications.
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 following Rules shall govern the City Council:
Section A: Rules of Order and Procedure
1. Time of Regular Meetings.
Unless the City Council schedules otherwise or cancels a meeting, the City Council shall hold regular mee tings at 4:00 p.m. commencing with closed ses sion items and thereafter at 5:00 p.m. commencing with a public session on each of the first four (4) Wednesdays of each calendar month at the City Hall.
2. Matters Covered.
For the purpose of efficiently focusing only on matters affecting the City of Escondido, t he Council should consider those resolutions, motion s or matter s which affect the conduct of the business of the City of Escondido or its corporate powers or duties as a municipal corporation , or such resolutions or motion s supporting or Attachment "1"
104
Item6.
2 disapproving legislation or action s pending in the Legislature of the State of California, the Congress of the United States or before any officer or agency of said State or nation where such proposed legislation o r action, if adopted, will affect the conduct of the municipal business or the powers and duties of the City of Escondido or its officers or employees as such.
3. Order of Business. Regular
business of the Council at the 5:00 p.m. public session shall be taken up for consideration in substantially the following order, except as may be otherwise ordered by the Mayor or Council:
a. Moment of Reflection
b. Flag Salute
c. Roll Call
d. Closed Session Report
e. Proclamations/Presentations
f. Oral Communications (up to 15 minutes or as directed by the Mayor) g. Consent Calendar, including Affidavits of Publications, Mailing, Posting , Warrant Register & Minutes Approval
h. Public Hearings
i. Current Business Matters
j. Future Agenda Items
k. Council Members Subcommittee Reports
l. Council Member Reports
m. City Manager’s Weekly Activity Report Highlights
n. Oral Communications
o. Adjournment
4. Consent Calendar Defined.
Those items on the Council agenda which are generally considered routine matter o f business such as the approval of minutes, approval of the warrant register, Attachment "1"
105
Item6.
3 Notices of Project Completion, Treasurer's Quarterly Investment Report, certain contract and grant awards, resolutions setting hearings, final maps , and various leases and agreem ents are listed on the “Consent Calendar" and shall be adopted by one motion unless Council, staff or a member of the public requests specific items to be discussed and/or removed for separate action. Those items so approved under the heading “Consent Calendar" will appear in the Council minutes in their proper form, i.e., resolution accepting grant deed or easement, approval of minutes, award of bid, etc.
From time to time, the Council may schedule a “workshop” style meeting. Such workshops shall comply with all applicable noticing laws and shall be dedicated primarily to general information gathering and sharing, discussion and possible direction to staff. Final actions of the Council shall not take place at workshop sessions.
5. Oral Communications.
Time has been reserved near the beginning and end of each regular meeting agenda to provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the Council on items of interest to the public. The Mayor as the presiding officer may set a limit on the time at the beginning of the meeting devoted to oral communications and may at his or her discretion extend the time for a speaker or speaker representative to address the Council. Comments on an item already appearing on the agenda shall only be taken a t the time reserved for discussion of that agenda item. No a ction will be taken by the Council on items discussed under Oral Communications , except to refer the matter to staff or schedule for future action.
6. Council Member Reports.
Attachment "1"
106
Item6.
4 The Council Member Report agenda item provides members of the Council an opportunity to report matters of general interest to the public a nd their fellow Council Members. No actions, votes or further discussions shall occur on any such matter(s).
7. Council Action on Agenda Matters.
Prior to the request for a motion and second by any Council member on an agenda matter, Council shall be allowed to hear any presentation by staff or member of the public, ask questions and discuss among themselves the matter to be decided . At the conclusion of the presentation , questions and discussion by Council members a request for a motion and second may be made and a roll call vote shall be taken. Prior to any vote or discussion by the Council on a matter to be decided on the agenda, City staff shall provide a presentation and/or answer questions, if requested, and thereafter, any Council member may seek recognition by the presiding officer and make a motion to adopt such item, and thereafter , the presiding officer shall determine if another Council member, includ ing the presiding officer, seconds the motion . If the motion receives a second, the matter may be debated before putting the motion to a vote of the Council. A motion that fails to obtain a second or a majority vote shall die.
8. Manner of Addressing Council - Time Limit.
a. Each person addressing the Council shall step up to the microphone, shall state their name and city of residence in an audible tone of voice for the record and, unless further time is granted by the presiding officer, shall limit their address to three (3) minutes. If significant numbers of persons desire to speak on a given item, the presiding officer has the discretion to limit speaking times and/or alter the sequence of hearing matters on the agenda . Longer time limits may be Attachment "1"
107
Item6.
5 permitted for an applicant, appellant, or spokesperson for a larger group, at the discretion of the presiding officer.
b. Whenever any group of persons wishes to address the Council on the same subject matter, it shall be proper for the presiding officer to request that a spokesperson be chosen by the group to address the Council and, in case additional matters are to be presented at the time by any other member of the said group, to limit the number of persons so addressing the Council so as to avoid unnecessary repetitions before the Council.
c. City staff presentations and responses to Council questions are not governed by this time limit.
9. Posting of Agenda.
At least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the agenda specifying the time and location of the regular meeting in a place accessible so as to be available for review by members of the public.
10. Content of Agenda.
Under state law, the City Council is limited to co nsideration of items which are on a posted agenda. Items may be placed on an agenda by city staff , by the Mayor , or upon the request of an individual Council member in coordination with the City Manager. The City Manager shall be in charge of preparing t he Council agenda and all items shall be coordinated with th e City Manager . To the fullest extent practicable, any items placed on the agenda by the Mayor, any Council member or City staff should also be listed under "Future Agenda Items" as early as po ssible to assure the best possible advance notice of the nature of items and discussion which are upcoming.
Attachment "1"
108
Item6.
6 11. Proclamations and Presentations.
The City of Escondido recognizes members of the public, groups, or other entities in different ways. Individual Councilmembers may request the preparation of a Certificate of Achievement, Acknowledgment, or Recognition (depending on the circumstances) to be presented in their individual capacity as a member of the City Council. Such certificates shall be pre pared by the City Manager’s office in a manner such as to preserve consistency in design and form of the City. Such certificates shall be requested directly from the City Manager’s office, with ample advance notice to the City Manager’s office to enable preparation and delivery. Each Council member requesting a certificate shall be solely responsible for providing the content and verifying the accuracy of the document. Multiple Councilmembers may sign and present such certificates subject to coordination among themselves.
The Mayor and any Councilmember may also recommend the public acknowledgement of any member of the public, group, entity or matter of public interest through the issuance and presentation of a formal proclamation on behalf of the City o f Escondido. Such recommendations shall be made in coordination with the City Manager’s office. Upon approval by the Mayor, such proclamations shall then be prepared by the City Manager’s office in a manner such as to preserve consistency in design and form of the City. Proclamations will normally be signed on behalf of the City by the Mayor. However, if some or all City Councilmembers also wish to sign a proclamation, and signatures can be obtained in a timely maner, proclamations may be signed by the f ull City Council or by those members wishing to sign the document.
Attachment "1"
109
Item6.
7 Proclamations shall normally be presented by the Mayor at the commencement of a meeting of the City Council, unless circumstances dictate the presentation of the proclamation elsewhere. Any disagreement with whether or not such a proclamation shall be issued shall be resolved by a majority vote of the City Council.
The Mayor or any Councilmember may request that a presentation to the City Council at a regular meeting be made by members of the public, other public entities, or other groups, on issues of interest to the City Council or members of the public. Such presentations shall be coordinated with the Mayor and the City Manager’s office and shall be subject to scheduling in a manner that does not interfere with the need to conduct normal City business. Any disagreement with whether or not such a presentation is to be scheduled shall be resolved by a majority vote of the City Council.
12. Closing Time of Council Meetings.
No agenda item may be introduced after the hour of 10: 00 p.m.; however, the meeting may be extended beyond 10: 00 p.m. upon a majority vote of the Council members.
13. Processing of Motions.
a. When a motion is made, it shall be stated clearly and conci sely by its mover. After a motion is made and seconded, it may be stated by the presiding officer before debate. A motion may be withdrawn by the mover without consent of the Council members.
b. The presiding officer shall at any time by majority consent of the Council members, permit a Council member to propose the reordering of agenda items.
Attachment "1"
110
Item6.
8 c. If a question contains two or more divisible propositions, the presiding officer may, and upon request of a Council member shall, divide the same.
14. Precedence of Motions.
a. When a motion is before the Council, no motion shall be entertained except (precedence in order indicated):
(1) To adjourn
(2) To fix hour of adjournment
(3) To lay on the table
(4) For the previous question
(5) To postpone to a certain day
(6) To refer
(7) To amend
(8) To postpone indefinitely
b. A motion to adjourn shall be in order any time, except as follows:
(1) When repeated without intervening business or discussion (2) When made as an interruption of a Council member whi le speaking
(3) When the previous question has been ordered
(4) While a vote is being taken
c. A motion to adjourn “to another time" is debatable only as to the time to which the meeting is adjourned.
d. A motion to table or lay on t he table is not debatable and shall preclude all amendments or debate of the subject under consideration. If the motion shall prevail, the matter may be “taken from the table" only by adding it to the agenda of the next regular meeting, to be discussed at the following regular meeting.
Attachment "1"
111
Item6.
9 e. A motion for previous question shall close debate on the main motion and shall be undebatable. The statement by a Council member of “question" does not accomplish the same purpose. If a motion fails, debate is reope ned; if motion passes, then vote shall be taken on the main motion.
f. A motion to amend shall be in order and is debatable only as to amendment. A motion to amend an amendment shall not be in order.
An amendment modifying the intention of a motion s hall be in order but an amendment relating to a different matter shall not be in order.
A substitute motion on the same subject shall be acceptable and amendments are to be voted first, then the main motion is amended. g. A motion to postpone indefinitely shall be fully debatable and if the same is adopted, the principal motion shall be declared lost. A motion to postpone to a definite time shall be amendable and debatable as to propriety of postponement and time set.
h. A motion to refer shall not be debatable except for the propriety of referring.
15. Administrative Mandamus.
Persons who are dissatisfied with a decision of the City Council may have the right to seek review of that decision by a court. In addition, the City has adopted Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure which generally limits to ninety (90) days the time within which the decision of City boards and agencies may be judicially challenged.
16. Appeals; Continuances.
Attachment "1"
112
Item6.
10 Any person appealing an action of a City Board or Commission or City Staff to the City Council has a right to two two -week postponements of the initial hearing scheduled on the appeal. After exhaustion of this right, the appeal shall be considered withdrawn. This procedure shall not limit the ability of the City Council to continue a hearing which has commenced to a subsequent meeting to receive additional public testimony or information from City Staff.
17. Reconsideration.
Any member of the Council, voting in the majority on any action of the Council, may at the same meeting , or at a subsequent time, request the Council reconsider an action. A reconsideration request made by a member of the Council voting in the minority shall not be allowed, except when made more than one (1) year after the date of the original action.
All r equests for reconsideration of a Council action shall be provided to each Council member, and the City Manager in writing or via electronic mail, and the request shall be placed on the next available agenda. In the event an item to b e reconsidered requires public notice, it shall be calendared and noticed after Council determines when reconsideration shall occur.
18. Personal Privilege.
The right of any Council member to address the Council on a question of personal privilege shal l be limited to cases in which his/her integrity, character or motives are questioned.
19. Council Conduct.
Each member of the Council shall act in a courteous and respectful manner to all members of the Council, including providing each member the full opportunity to ask Attachment "1"
113
Item6.
11 questions, voice opinions and make statements without interruption during closed and open sessions of the Council.
20. Parliamentarian.
A majority vote of the Council shall generally control matters of procedure not addressed by this Resol ution. The City Attorney shall decide all other questions of interpretations of these rules and any other questions of a parliamentary nature which may arise at a City Council meeting.
21. Voting and Non-Profit Entity Membership.
It shall be the policy of this Council that a council member who serves on the governing board of a private non-profit entity shall not participate in the discussion or voting process to determine whether or not that entity receives City funds. In the event the request of a non -profit entity with a council member on its governing board is part of a larger request involving several items, or is part of the budget process, a separate vote shall be taken to allow the necessary abstention.
22. Selection of Chairperson.
In the event th at the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor are absent from a City Council meeting, the three remaining Council member s present shall promptly determine which Council member will conduct and serve as the chairperson of the meeting.
23. Decorum and Security.
a. While the City Council is in session, the Council members, staff, and members of the public are expected to act in a manner to preserve order and decorum for the meeting. No person shall engage in disorderly or disruptive behavior during the meeting. No person shall, either by Attachment "1"
114
Item6.
12 conversation, applause, shouting, or any other conduct, interrupt or delay the proceedings.
b. The City Manager, in coordination with the Mayor and/or Deputy Mayor, are authorized to and shall designate and post signs specifying those areas of the Chamber for the media wishing to record the meeting, areas for staff presentations, and areas which are restricted to City employees and elected officials.
c. Signs, placards, posters, or similar objects which are large r than 8.5 by 11 inches and which disrupt the proceedings shall not be displayed during Council proceedings by members of the public.
Section B: City Council Policies.
1. Correspondence with Members of the City Council.
The purpose of this policy is to provide for a coord inated response to correspondence (i.e. letters, emails, and similar items) which is sent to the City generally, or in which the same correspondence is sent in identical fashion to all Council members. In such circumstances, the Council directs that the Mayor (or as appropriate the City Manager or City Attorney) shall answer such correspondence on behalf of the City, according to the procedure set forth below.
In addition to individual e -mail addresses, t he City Manager’s Office shall also establish a sh ared email address by which citizens may direct emails to all Council members at the same time. The shared email address shall be featured on the City’s website and in other publications in such a manner as to allow citizens to use the address and thereby communicate with all Council member s at the same time. All Council member s shall have access to review items in the mailbox at all times. All Attachment "1"
115
Item6.
13 responses to such emails shall also be sent from the shared mailbox, such that all Council members may review such responses.
With respect to other communications, such as those involving other governmental entities, organizations , and related entities where such communication occurs between the entities rather than specific individuals, the Mayor shall respond on behalf of the City, with copies to all Council member s. Matters involving routine city administrative issues shall generally be responded to by either the City Manager or City Attorney, as appropriate, on behalf of the City. With respect to correspond ence that consists of invitations to events, the Mayor and Council shall coordinate such invitations with the City Manager's support staff.
Because substantial portions of City Council communication, whether electronic or written, is subject to California's Public Records laws, all City Council communications shall be coordinated with the City Manager for the purpose of compliance with various laws governing public records. All Council members using city computers shall be subject to the City's Administrative Directives regarding computer use.
2. Press Releases.
All press releases on behalf of the City shall be issued on City letterhead and only on behalf of the City generally or the entire City Council. Press releases shall be prepared and coordinated by the City Manager’s Office.
3. Council Calendar.
The responsibility for managing the calendars of the City Council and the City Council members shall be delegated to the City Manager's secretary.
4. Audits.
Staff shall informally assist the City Council in a periodic accounting of individual Attachment "1"
116
Item6.
14 expenditures for travel, phone use, etc.
5. Council Travel Policy.
Council members shall be bound by all City policies, as expressed in Administrative Directives or otherwise, regarding travel on City business.
The City Council shall fix an amount in the City Council budget which each Council member may use for business-related education and travel expenses, including attendance at seminars, conferences and other related educational opportunities .
These funds will be separate from any budget e stablished for Council member participation in committees associated with other public agencies and entities. If these funds are not used during the fiscal year appropriate d, they shall be returned to the General Fund.
Elected officials shall provide brief reports on meetings attended at the City’s expense at the next regular City Council meeting. If multiple elected officials attended, a joint report may be made. Reports may be provided in writing as part of the Agenda packet distribution.
6. Council Communication with Staff.
The Council members shall request information or give direction only to the City Manager or City Attorney , or those persons designated b y the City Manager or City Attorney to assist the Council members in such inquiries or requests . Requests for information should be directed to the City Manager , although incidental or minor requests (not involving analysis or significant time) may be req uested directly from department heads, with a copy to the City Manager . Requests which involve change of policy, expenditure of funds, or use of significant staff time shall be submitted to the full Council for approval.
Attachment "1"
117
Item6.
15 7. Review of Reimbursements.
The Director of Finan ce or a designee shall review all City Council requests for reimbursement of expenses for consistency with City policy on such expenses.
In all cases, Council members shall be bound by the same policies and procedures adopted and applicable for all City employees on a citywide basis. To the extent such policies provide for per diem reimbursements, auto allowances, and related forms of reimbursement rather than receipt -specific reimbursement, it is hereby determined that su ch per diem or fixed amount reimbursements, so long as applicable to all city employees, are the best and most efficient method of reimbursing expenses on an actual and necessary basis.
9. Council Salary.
To assure attention to the Council compensation all owable under state law, the City Council shall have an agenda item during a meeting in December of odd number ed years for the purpose of determining whether or not to take action regarding Council compensation.
10. Campaign Activity Funding.
The City Council shall not direct or authorize the expenditure of public funds to prepare or distribute a publication or communication when the style, tenor, and timing of the publication or communication demonstrates that it constitutes traditional campaign activity or th at it supports or opposes the approval or rejection of a ballot measure.
11. Council Use of City Staff for Public Events.
The Council believes that making opportunities available for Cou ncil members to interact with the public outside of regular public meeting s is a benefit to the Council Attachment "1"
118
Item6.
16 and residents of the City. The ability to communicate to the public the availability of the Councilmembers for such events is critical to their success.
Council members may request through the City Manager’s Office the services of City staff to assist in the hosting of public events related to City business including, but not limited to , the electronic posting of notices of public events involving the Council members on the City’s social media platforms . To the greatest extent possible, t he amount of staff resources devoted to such efforts shall be equal among all Council members.
To the extent any such staff efforts require time beyond the posting of notices on the City’s or related website, the City Manager shall be respon sible for determining whether such personnel resources are available, whether there is a sufficient budget to cover the costs related to such efforts , and ensuring that all council members may obtain like and equal services during the course of any fiscal year. Council members shall not use any city staff or resources as part of , or in coordination with, any campaign for public office.
Section C: City Council Ethics Policy.
1. Declaration of Policy.
The respected operation of democratic go vernment emphasizes that elected officials be independent, impartial, and responsible to the people. It requires that they conduct themselves in a manner above reproach.
This Ethics Policy provides the following general guidelines and specific prohibitions to which elected Escondido City Officials must conform in pursuit of their assigned duties and responsibilities. This policy is in addition to all applicable provisions Attachment "1"
119
Item6.
17 of state law, including the Brown Act, the Political Reform Act and implementing regulations, and all other laws governing the conduct of elected officials.
2. Disclosure of Closed Session Matter.
No member of the City Council shall disclose to any person, other than members of the Council, the City Attorney, the City Manag er, or other City staff designated by the City Manager to handle such matters of confidential City business, the content or substance of any information presented or discussed during a closed session meeting unless the City Council first authorizes such di sclosure by the affirmative vote of three members.
3. Disclosure of Confidential Communications.
Except when disclosure is mandated by state or federal law, no member of the City Council shall disclose to any person, other than members of the Co uncil, the City Attorney, or the City Manager, or other City staff designated by the City Manager to handle such matters of confidential City business, the content or substance of any confidential or privileged communication relating to matters of City bus iness, received under circumstances where the confidential or privileged nature of the communication is reasonably conveyed, unless the City Council first authorizes such disclosure by the affirmative vote of three members of the City Council.
4. Conduct During Negotiations/Litigation.
The City Council is authorized to provide direction to specifically
identified negotiators in a legally constituted closed session on matters involving pending litigation, real estate negotiations, and labor negotiatio ns. If the City Council in closed session provides such direction to its negotiators, all contact with the negotiating Attachment "1"
120
Item6.
18 party or the party's representative , shall be limited to, and made by , those individuals designated to handle the negotiations.
During a pending labor negotiation, no member of the City Council shall communicate any negotiating position on behalf of the City or engage in any negotiations for employee salary, ben efits or working conditions . In addition, during pending litigation or real es tate negotiations, no member of the City Council (unless they have been designated as a negotiator) shall have any contact or discussion with the litigating or negotiating party or the party's representative regarding the subject matter of the pending litigation or real estate negotiations.
No member of the City Council shall communicate or disclose to any person, other than members of the Council, the City Attorney, the City Manager, or other City staff designated by the City Manager to handle such matters of confidential City business, any discussion or information received in closed session regarding the negotiation or litigation.
Nothing in this section shall prohibit Council member s from receiving written communications provided they are made available to all Council member s, the City Manager, the City Attorney, and the City's designated negotiators on an equal basis.
5. Ex Parte Communications.
The purpose of this provision is to guarantee that all interested parties to any adjudicatory matter befo re the City Council have equal opportunity to express and represent their interests. Ex parte communications are those communications members of the City Council have with representatives of only one side of a matter outside the presence of other interested parties on a matter relevant to an adjudicatory Attachment "1"
121
Item6.
19 proceeding. A communication concerning only the status of a pending matter shall not be regarded as an ex parte communication.
Any written or oral ex parte communication received by a member of the City Council in matters where all interested parties are entitled to an equal opportunity for a hearing shall be made a part of the record by the recipient.
6. Violations and Penalties.
Any violation of this Ethics Policy by a member of the City Council shal l constitute official misconduct if determined by an affirmative vote of three members of the City Council in an open and public meeting. In addition to any criminal or civil penalties provided for by federal, state or other local law, any violation of th is Ethics Policy shall constitute a cause for censure by City Council adoption of a Resolution of Censure.
Attachment "1"
122
Item6.
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-03
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PREZONE TO
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -RESIDENTIAL AND M ASTER
AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 102-UNIT
CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT
The City Council of the City of Escondido (“City”), California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council makes the following findings:
a) Hallmark Communities, Inc., (“Applicant”) filed a land use development application (Planning Case Nos. PHG20 -0032, PL20 -0738, PL20 -0739, PL21 -0126, PL21 -0127 and PL21 -0128) constituting a request for an Annexation/Reorganization, Prezone to Planned Develop ment-Residential (PD-R 14.6), General Plan Amendment from Suburban (S) to Urban III (U3), one-lot Tentative Subdivision Map, and a Planned Development Permit (Master and Precise Development Plan) for the development of 102 condominium units ("Project") on a 7.7 gross acre (6.98 net acre) site located at 2039, 2047, 2085 and 2089 N. Iris Lane (APNs 224 -310-05-00, 224-310-06-00, 224-310-07-00, 224-310-08-00 and 224-310-20- 00), as more particularly described in Exhibit “A ,” which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as though fully set forth herein (“Property”); and
b) The Application was submitted to, and processed by, the Planning Division of the Development Services Department . The Applicant seeks approval of a Prezone designation of Planned Development-Residential (PD-R 14.6) on 7.7 acres , as shown on Exhibit “ B,” along with a Master and Precise Development Plan to construct a 102-unit condominium project, as shown on Exhibits “C” (Master Development Plan), and on file in the Planning Division, and incorporated herein as though fully set forth. c) The Planning Division of the Development Services Department completed its review and scheduled a public hearing regarding the application before the Planning Commission for December 13, 2022. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2022-14, which 123
Item7.
STAFF REPORT
February 08, 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.
124
Item8.
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 125
Item8.
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.
On January 11, 2023, the City Council continued the item to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 8, 2023.
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, 20,000 square foot minimum lot size) north of Stanley Avenue. The parcel noted above subject to annexation is north of Stanley Avenue and was pr eviously pre-zoned RE-20. The project proposes parcels which are smaller than those typically allowed in the subject zones and also includes duplex units which are not typically permitted in the subject zones. Because the project includes a density bonus r equest, the lot sizes and duplex units are permitted pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law and Article 67 of the 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 Materia ls, 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 126
Item8.
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 constr uction noise; lack of architecture details or materials; street parking; demolition of existing homes; 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 hous ing units, pursuant to the State Density Bonus law. As part of the request, the applicant has identified 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 subdivision. 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 c. Attachment “3” – January 11, 2023, City Council written correspondence 127
Item8.
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"
128
Item8.
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"
129
Item8.
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"
130
Item8.
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"
131
Item8.
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"
132
Item8.
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"
133
Item8.
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"
134
Item8.
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"
135
Item8.
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"
136
Item8.
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"
137
Item8.
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"
138
Item8.
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"
139
Item8.
PL21-0269
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 2022
13 Attachment 1
Location Map, General Plan, and Zoning Map
Attachment "1"
140
Item8.
PL21-0269
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 2022
14 Attachment "1"
141
Item8.
PL21-0269
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 2022
15 Attachment "1"
142
Item8.
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"
143
Item8.
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"
144
Item8.
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"
145
Item8.
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"
146
Item8.
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"
147
Item8.
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"
148
Item8.
ATTACHMENT 3
Attachment "1"
149
Item8.
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"
150
Item8.
Agenda Item G.1
December 13, 2022
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"
151
Item8.
Kelsey E. Quist
Direct Dial: (714) 338-1864
E-mail: [email protected]
December 13, 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
18612489.1 a12/13/22
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"
152
Item8.
Honorable Chair and Commissioners
December 13, 2022
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"
153
Item8.
Honorable Chair and Commissioners
December 13, 2022
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"
154
Item8.
Honorable Chair and Commissioners
December 13, 2022
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"
155
Item8.
Honorable Chair and Commissioners
December 13, 2022
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"
156
Item8.
Honorable Chair and Commissioners
December 13, 2022
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"
157
Item8.
Honorable Chair and Commissioners
December 13, 2022
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"
158
Item8.
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"
159
Item8.
Greg Mattson, Adjunct Planner
[email protected]
November 17, 2022
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"
160
Item8.
Greg Mattson, Adjunct Planner
[email protected]
November 17, 2022
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"
161
Item8.
Greg Mattson, Adjunct Planner
[email protected]
November 17, 2022
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"
162
Item8.
Greg Mattson, Adjunct Planner
[email protected]
November 17, 2022
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"
163
Item8.
Greg Mattson, Adjunct Planner
[email protected]
November 17, 2022
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"
164
Item8.
Greg Mattson, Adjunct Planner
[email protected]
November 17, 2022
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"
165
Item8.
Greg Mattson, Adjunct Planner
[email protected]
November 17, 2022
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"
166
Item8.
Greg Mattson, Adjunct Planner
[email protected]
November 17, 2022
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"
167
Item8.
Greg Mattson, Adjunct Planner
[email protected]
November 17, 2022
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"
168
Item8.
Greg Mattson, Adjunct Planner
[email protected]
November 17, 2022
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"
169
Item8.
Greg Mattson, Adjunct Planner
[email protected]
November 17, 2022
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"
170
Item8.
Greg Mattson, Adjunct Planner
[email protected]
November 17, 2022
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"
171
Item8.
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"
172
Item8.
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"
173
Item8.
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"
174
Item8.
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"
175
Item8.
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"
176
Item8.
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"
177
Item8.
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"
178
Item8.
Figure 4c – Close-up of long-term active hawk’s nest
EXH A, p. 8
EXHIBIT A
Attachment "2"
179
Item8.
A
B
C
E
F
G
H
EXH B
EXHIBIT A
Attachment "2"
180
Item8.
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"
181
Item8.
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"
182
Item8.
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"
183
Item8.
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"
184
Item8.
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"
185
Item8.
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"
186
Item8.
Attachment "2"
187
Item8.
Attachment "2"
188
Item8.
Attachment "2"
189
Item8.
Attachment "2"
190
Item8.
Kelsey E. Quist
Direct Dial: (714) 338-1864
E-mail: [email protected]
January 10, 2023
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
18681629.2 a01/10/23
VIA E-MAIL
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Escondido
210 N. Broadway
Escondido, CA 92025
Re: January 11, 2023 City Council Agenda Item No. 6
Conway Residential Subdivision (PL21 -0269, PL21 - 0278, and PL22 - 0584) File Number 0800-10
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers:
The purpose of this letter is to urge you to deny approval of the Conway Residential Subdivision (“Project”), or at the very least, require the preparation of a full environmental impact report (“EIR”) prior to any approval. There is no reason to rush the Project through the approval process (with the legally inadequate draft mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) only having been released in late October 2022, and the final version in mid -December), and there is every reason to ensure all of the Project’s impacts are fully understood .1 Indeed, at this time, numerous critical details about the Project have not been provided, yet those details are required by law to justify the Project applicant’s request for ten waivers from otherwise applicable City development standards (including significant deviations from minimum lots sizes and maximum coverage/FAR), as well as one incentive/concession (a n unprecedented request that the City allow an unpermitted use – multifamily duplexes – in the Project site’s exclusively single family General Plan land use designations and zoning).
This office represents the longtime residents of the single family hom e located at 2166 Weiss Way, which is directly adjacent to where the northern portion of the 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 be built on the Project site, and further understand that the City’s hands are somewhat tied with respect to state law, such as Density Bonus law. However, my clients are opposed to physically and procedurally forcing a half-baked project through the City’s entitlement process without complying with applicable law – both state Density Bonus law and the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
1 The Final MND was only released on December 8, 2022, giving the public two business days to review these responses to comments on the Draft MND and other changes prior to the Planning Commission’s hearing. The City Council hearing was set in short order, just after the holidays, despite hours of comments from the public and Commissioners at that hearing.
Attachment 3
EXHIBIT A
191
Item8.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
January 10, 2023
2523/037477-0001
18681629.2 a01/10/23
It sum, this Project should either be outright denied, or sent back to pr epare a full EIR before it is considered, because : (1) the MND does not comply with the requirements of CEQA, and in particular, relies on incorrect facts to conclude that the Project’s traffic/transportation impacts can be mitigated to a less than signifi cant level, (2) the Project does not comply with 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. This letter focuses on certain critical details regarding the foregoing, without repeating the many details already set forth in our two previous letters to the City, which were attached to the City Council’s staff repor t as Attachment “2” and Exhibit A thereto (November 17, 2022 comment letter on the Draft MND & December 13, 2022 letter to the Planning Commission) , and incorporated herein by this reference rather than re-attached here.
Finally, it is important to note that when recommending approval of the project, the Planning Commission recommended imposing condition s of approval requiring at least an additional 15 foot setback from my client’s property , and additional landscaping in the area to mitigate impacts relat ing to the large elevation change. At a bare minimum, we request any Project approval impose these recommended conditions.
I. The Lack Of Detail Regarding The Project Is Legally Fatal The applicant has the burden to provide enough information to demonstrate that its Project complies with state Density Bonus law and CEQA. Yet, the MND has no information regarding what will actually be built if the Project is approved, and does not attempt to even estimate building square footages, heights, buildin g footprints, room counts, potential elevation types, or any other details.
The Final MND’s responses to this office’s previous comments regarding the total lack of information regarding the proposed housing units state 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.) When pressed at the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant admitted that none of this information has been determined, and would instead be up to whichever homebuilder buys the Project site fo llowing approval, as the applicant has no intention of actually developing the Project. Thus, the City and the public is left to evaluate only total lot/unit count, and little else. This is not a legally acceptable response, and is ultimately fatal to bo th (1) the City’s ability to grant the request waivers or concessions because it is impossible to assess whether or not they are necessary to allow the development of the Project, and (2) the legal validity of the MND, which cannot possibly adequately anal yze the Project’s impacts with the current amount of available information.
Attachment 3
EXHIBIT A
192
Item8.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
January 10, 2023
2523/037477-0001
18681629.2 a01/10/23
A. The Applicant Has Not Provided Sufficient Information To Support Its Request For Ten Waivers And One Concession
As mentioned above, the Project applicant has requested the City to grant ten waivers from existing development standards, and grant an incentive or concession in the form of allowing multifamily uses on the Project site, where they are not a permitted use . The ten waivers are not trivial, but instead request over 50% reductions in minimum lot sizes (decreasing 20,000 and 10,000 square foot minimums to 6,515 square feet) and setbacks, significant increases in allowable lot coverage and FAR, significant reductions of street and other infrastructure requirements, among other material deviations.
Pursuant to state Density Bonus law, the City may only grant waivers only if failure to do so would “physically preclude the construction” o f the Project , as correctly stated in the City’s staff report. (Gov. Code Gov. Code § 65915(e)(1).) As further explained in the City’s own local density bonus regulations set forth in the Escondido Municipal Code (“EMC”), “[a]ny waiver or reduction from the applicable development standards shall be limited to those n ecessary to implement the density and incentives/concessions to which the developer is entitled under section 33-1413.” (EMC 33-1417(h) [emph. added].)
However, it is impossible to determine if any of the requested waivers are actually necessary to ensure that an otherwise applicable development standard would physically preclude the construction of the Project, as no one – not even the applicant – knows what will be constructed. In particular, the applicant has never answered, and we respectfully request that the City Council ask, the following questions:
• Why are significantly decreased setbacks necessary to avoid physically precluding the Project when building footprints and square footage s are not known?
• Why are significantly increased lot coverage and F AR maximums necessary to avoid physically precluding the project when building footprints and square footage are not known?
• How was the precise 6,515 minimum lot size determined? For many of the waivers, including the decreased setbacks and increased allo wable lot coverage and FAR, the applicant’s Density Bonus Project Proposal (rev. 12/1) simply states “[t]he existing standards would preclude construction of the project as designed.” However, there is no project currently designed, so this statement simply cannot be true or supported by substantial evidence in the record. Surely, waivers required to develop 1,000 square foot duplex units and 4,000 square foot single family homes would be different than waivers required for 700 square foot duplex units and 2,000 square foot single family homes ; yet the public and the City Attachment 3
EXHIBIT A
193
Item8.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
January 10, 2023
2523/037477-0001
18681629.2 a01/10/23
are left to guess where in this range (if it all) the proposed Project’s residential units would fall.
Thus, at a minimum , the requested waivers must be rejected fo r the lack of the required factual/evidentiary support of the same.
With respect to the requested concession (allowing duplexes) , it must result in “identifiable and actual cost reductions” to the Project in order to be granted. (Gov. Code § 65915(d)(1)(A).) The City’s local density bonus regulations state that “ [n]othing 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 req uired 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 .” ((EMC § 33- 1414(E)(3), (emph added).) Considering that the applicant freely admits that they have no idea what type of homes will eventually be constructed, including size, elevations, finishes, etc., they likewise have no idea what construction would cost. Thus, they cannot provide legitimate “identifiable and actual cost reductions” that utilizing duplexes instead of single family homes would provide. The purported cost reductions provided by the applicant (at the last minute, just prior to the Planning Commission hearing - no doubt in response to this office’s previous correspondence) are not supported by any actual evidence, and it is not credible that these unsupported figures are somehow the only details about the Project that the applicant is able to provide. The applicant also did not submit any information supporting a showing that the proposed concession is “required to achieve the required affordable housing costs or rent,” as required by the EMC. (EMC § 33-1414(E)(3).)
In sum, the applicant cannot have it both ways – they must either prepare an EIR that fully discloses the details of the proposed Project, or withdraw their waiver and concessions requests, which cannot be legally supported by the information currently in the administrative record.
B. The MND’s Project Description Is Inadequate Under CEQA The Project applicant is required to make 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 MND does not provide these estimates, and in response to previous comments, the Final MND asserts that it is not required to do so . That assertion is not correct, and the MND’s project description is inadequate, resulting in an incomplete and ultimately legally deficient analysis of the Project’s potential impacts on the environment.
As discussed in more detail herein, t he MND a lso lacks any detail regarding the truck trips required to import 55,000 cubic yards of dirt to the Project site, and in fact, does not Attachment 3
EXHIBIT A
194
Item8.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
January 10, 2023
2523/037477-0001
18681629.2 a01/10/23
quantify or disclose the amount of trips this would generate at all, let alone analyze the resulting potentially significant impacts on the environment . These details must be provided as part of a full EIR.
II. The MND Does Not Comply With CEQA, And Because Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That The Project May Result In Significant Impacts , The City Should Require The Preparation Of A Full EIR
The preparation of an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment , even if contrary evidence exists. (CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 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 1597, 1602.) The “fair argument” standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR – which CEQA clearly prefers – rather than through issuance of negative declarations. (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.) 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 , 124 Cal.App.4th at 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 onl y the environment but also informed self -government.” (Pocket Protectors , 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.) Here, in addition to substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project will result in significant impacts, the MND is an inadequate informational document, and does not fully disclose the extent of the Project’s potential impacts, let alone fully analyze the same.
A. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That The Project’s Traffic/Transportation Impacts May Be Significant
The Project’s transportation impacts – which all parties admit are significant without mitigation – require the preparation of an EIR because substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the proposed mitigation measures will not actually reduce this significant impact to a less than significant level. Indeed, in its April 2022 notice of preparation (“NOP”), the City initially concluded the Project may have a significant impact as a result of the VMT it will generate, and an EIR would be required, before reversing course. (See, Draft MND, p. 1.) Specifically, while the MND admits that the Project -generated vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) would exceed the applicable significan ce threshold by 423 VMT , it asserts that Attachment 3