CITY of ESCONDIDO
Council Meeting Agenda
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 05, 2026
4:00 PM - Closed Session (City Attorney 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)
Judy Fitzgerald (District 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.gov 1 Wednesday, August 05, 2026
HOW TO PARTICIPATE
The City of Escondido provides three ways to communicate with the City Council during a meeting:
In Person In Writing
Fill out Speaker Slip and Submit to City Clerk escondido-ca.municodemeetings.com Online
https://publiccomment.escondido.gov/
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, August 05, 2026
CLOSED SESSION
4:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
1. Roll Call: Fitzgerald, C. Garcia, J. Garcia, Martinez, 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 WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Government Code § 54956.9(d)(2)) a. City of Escondido Claim No. 6070
AAA as subrogee of Elisa Jones
II. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Government Code § 54956.9(d)(2),(e)(1))
a. One item
III. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code § 54957.6) a. Agency Representative: Sean McGlynn, City Manager, or designee Employee Organization: Escondido Police Management Bargaining Unit b. Agency Representative: Sean McGlynn, City Manager, or designee Employee Organization: Escondido Fire Management Bargaining Unit
ADJOURNMENT
3 Wednesday, August 05, 2026
REGULAR SESSION
5:00 PM Regular Session
Mobilehome Rent Review Board
MOMENT OF REFLECTION
FLAG SALUTE
The City Council conducts the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of every City Council meeting.
CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call: Fitzgerald, C. Garcia, J. Garcia, Martinez, White
PRESENTATION
Clean Energy Alliance Presentation
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)
2. APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER
Request the City Council approve the City Council and Housing Successor Agency warrants issued between July 20, 2026 to July 26, 2026.
Staff Recommendation: Approval (Finance Department: Christina Holmes, Director of Finance) 4 Wednesday, August 05, 2026
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
4. WAIVER OF READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
5. PUBLIC SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR THE FIRE STATION
ALERTING SYSTEM UPGRADE
Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2026-126 authorizing the Mayor, on behalf of the City, to execute a Public Service Agreement with Honeywell International, Inc., for the Fire Station Alerting System Upgrade in the amount of $404,756.78.
Staff Recommendation: Approval (Fire Department: Tyler Batson, Deputy Fire Chief) Presenter: Tyler Batson, Deputy Fire Chief
a) Resolution No. 2026-126
6. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR CHANGE ORDER TWO AND AN ANTICIPATED THIRD CHANGE ORDER TO THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT WITH PALM ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. FOR
THE MOUNTAIN VIEW PARK PICKLEBALL COURTS PROJECT
Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2026-130: (1) authorizing the Mayor to execute, on behalf of the City, change order number two to the Public Improvement Agreement with Palm Engineering Construction Company, Inc. for the installation of a concrete patio area with retaining walls and sidewalks as gathering space and potential rental event space area in the amount of $131,340; and (2) authorizing the Mayor to execute, on behalf of the City, a third change order to the Public Improvement Agreement with Palm Engineering Construction Company, Inc. in an maximum amount of $45,000 should additional funds be needed for maintenance access to the site.
Staff Recommendation: Approval (Development Services Department: Kevin Snyder, Director of Development Services)
Presenter: Michael Tully, Project Manager
a) Resolution No. 2026-130
5 Wednesday, August 05, 2026
7. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE TEMPORARY LICENSE AND ACCESS
AGREEMENT FOR ESCONDIDO CREEK TRAIL PROJECT
Request the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 2026-17 authorizing the City Manager to execute a temporary license and access agreement with the owner of the Evans Tire property located at 510 N.
Broadway for the purpose of installing a gateway entry sign and rock garden as part of the Escondido Creek Trail Expansion and Renovation project.
Staff Recommendation: Approval (City Manager’s Office: Sean McGlynn, City Manager) Presenter: Joanna Axelrod, Deputy City Manager
a) Ordinance No. 2026-17 (First Reading and Introduction)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
8. SHORT-FORM RENT INCREASE APPLICATION FOR WESTWINDS MOBILEHOME PARK Request the Rent Review Board hold a Public Hearing to review and consider Westwinds Mobilehome Park Short-Form Application, located at 1415 South Pine Street, Escondido, California and adopt Resolution No. RRB 2026-127, raising all rent control space rent by 0.604 percent.
Staff Recommendation: Approval (Development Services Director: Kevin Snyder, Director of Development Services)
Presenters: Carlos Cervantes, Management Analyst and Alfredo Rubio, Code Compliance Officer II a) Resolution No. RRB 2026-127
9. PL24-0067 – AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE A TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP AND ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF ONE LOT INTO 5 RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ON HAMILTON LANE
AND BERNARDO AVENUE
Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2026-90 denying the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Tentative Subdivision Map and Addendum for the subdivision of one lot into 5 residential lots for future development on Hamilton Lane and Bernardo Avenue.
Staff Recommendation: Approval (Development Services Department: Kevin Snyder, AICP, Director of Development Services)
Presenter: Melissa DiMarzo, Assistant Planner II
a) Resolution No. 2026-90
6 Wednesday, August 05, 2026
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 REPORT
The most current information from the City Manager regarding Economic Development, Capital Improvement Projects, Public Safety, and Community Development.
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.
ADJOURNMENT
UPCOMING MEETING SCHEDULE
Wednesday, August 12, 2026 4:00 & 5:00 PM Closed Session, Regular Meeting, Council Chambers Wednesday, August 26, 2026 4:00 & 5:00 PM Closed Session, Regular Meeting, Council Chambers
SUCCESSOR AGENCY
Members of the Escondido City Council also sit as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, Escondido Joint Powers Financing Authority, and the Mobilehome Rent Review Board.
CEQA STATEMENT
Unless stated otherwise on the agenda, every item on the agenda is exempt from CEQA under Guideline Sections 15060(c), 15061(b), 15273, 15378, 15301, 15323 and/or Public Resources Code Section 21065 7 Consent Item No. 1 August 5, 2026
A F F I D A V I T S
OF
I T E M
P O S T I N G –
PL24-0067: Hamilton Lane 5-Lot Tentative Subdivision Map - Appeal 8 Item1.
CITY OF ESCONDIDO
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
201 NORTH BROADWAY
ESCONDIDO, CA 92025-2798
(760) 839-4617
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Escondido City Council will hold a public hearing in the City Council Chambers, Escondido City Hall, 201 North Broadway, Escondido, California at 5 p.m., Wednesday, August 5, 2026 to consider the item listed below:
PL24-0067: Hamilton Lane 5-Lot Tentative Subdivision Map - Appeal REQUEST: An appeal of a Planning Commission decision to approve a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide a 6.02-acre parcel into five (5) lots, with a General Plan Designation of Estate I (E1) and a Zoning Designation of Residential Estates (RE-40; 40,000 square-foot minimum lot sizes) (“Project”). The Project includes on-site improvements related to grading and stormwater, and off-site improvements including but not limited to sidewalk, curb, and gutter, and other standard frontage improvements. The request also includes consideration of the environmental document prepared for the Project.
PROPERTY SIZE AND LOCATION: The 6.02-acre site is located on the southeast corner of Bernardo Avenue and Hamilton Lane and is addressed at 0 Hamilton Lane, Escondido, CA, 92029 (Assessor’s Parcel Number: 238-360-68-00).
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164 (Addendum to a Mitigated Negative Declaration), an Addendum to an adopted 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Project as none of the requirements for preparation of a Subsequent MND under Section 15162 (Subsequent MND) have occurred.
If you challenge this item in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On April 28, 2026, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 to approve the Project.
PUBLIC COMMENT: To submit comments in writing, please do so at the following link: https://escondidoca.municodemeetings.com/bc-citycouncil/webform/public-comment. All comments received from the public will be made a part of the record of the meeting.
The City of Escondido remains committed to complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Qualified individuals with disabilities who wish to participate in City programs, services, or activities and who need accommodations are invited to present their requests to the City by filing out a Request for Accommodations Form or an Inclusion Support Request Form for Minors, or by calling 760-839-4643, preferably at least 72 hours in advance of the event or activity. Forms can be found on the City’s website at:
https://escondido.gov/820/Americans-with-Disabilities-Act.
The staff report will be available at Escondido Planning Services, 201 N. Broadway, Escondido, CA 92025; and on the City’s website at https://escondido-ca.municodemeetings.com/ after Thursday, July 30, 2026.
For additional information, please contact Melissa DiMarzo, Assistant Planner II, at 760-839-4531, or via email at [email protected] and refer to Case No. PL24-0067.
Zack Beck, City Clerk
City of Escondido
DATED: July 23, 2026
Published in THE ESCONDIDO TIMES ADVOCATE: 7/23/26
9 Item1.
STAFF REPORT
August 05, 2026
File Number 0400-40
SUBJECT
APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER
DEPARTMENT
Finance
RECOMMENDATION
Approval for City Council and Housing Successor Agency warrants issued between July 20, 2026 to July 26, 2026
Staff Recommendation: Approval (Finance Department: Christina Holmes) ESSENTIAL SERVICE – Internal requirement per Municipal Code Section 10 COUNCIL PRIORITY –
FISCAL ANALYSIS
The total amount of the warrants for the following periods are as follows:
Dates 07/20/2026 to 07/26/2026
Total $3,516,725.77
Number of Warrants 204
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. 10 Item2.
Consent Item No. 3 August 5, 2026
A P P R O V A L
O F
M I N U T E S
11 Item3.
12 Item4.
STAFF REPORT
August 5, 2026
File Number 0600-10; A-3608
SUBJECT
PUBLIC SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR THE FIRE STATION
ALERTING SYSTEM UPGRADE
DEPARTMENT
Fire Department
RECOMMENDATION
Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2026-126 authorizing the Mayor, on behalf of the City, to execute a Public Service Agreement with Honeywell International, Inc., for the Fire Station Alerting System Upgrade in the amount of $404,756.78.
Staff Recommendation: Approval (Fire Department: Tyler Batson, Deputy Fire Chief) Presenter: Tyler Batson, Deputy Fire Chief
ESSENTIAL SERVICE – Yes, Infrastructure
COUNCIL PRIORITY – Prioritize Public Safety
FISCAL ANALYSIS
Funding for the Fire Station Alerting System Upgrade (“Project”) has been appropriated through the Capital Improvement Program. The total contract amount is $404,756.78.
Due to the scope of the Project, implementation is anticipated to occur over three fiscal years, with work beginning in FY 2026-27 and continuing through FY 2028-29. Expenditures will be distributed across the Project schedule, and funding for future phases will be included in the corresponding annual Capital Improvement Program budgets.
PREVIOUS ACTION
None
13 Item5.
BACKGROUND
The City's existing fire station alerting system was originally installed by US Digital Designs (“USDD”), now a division of Honeywell International, Inc., and serves as the Fire Department's primary station alerting platform. The existing system has reached the end of its service life and is no longer supported by the manufacturer. The proposed upgrade will replace obsolete equipment while maintaining compatibility with the Fire Department's existing alerting infrastructure and dispatch integrations.
A sole-source procurement determination was approved because USDD (now a division Honeywell International, Inc.) is the original equipment manufacturer and the only vendor capable of supporting a phased system migration while maintaining interoperability between existing and upgraded components.
This approach allows the City to modernize the system over multiple fiscal years, minimize operational disruption, and maximize the use of existing infrastructure.
RESOLUTIONS
a. Resolution No. 2026-126
b. Resolution No. 2026-126— Exhibit “A” – Public Services Agreement 14 Item5.
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-126
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
TO EXECUTE, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, A PUBLIC
SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL, INC., FOR THE FIRE STATION
ALERTING SYSTEM UPGRADE
WHEREAS, the City Council has appropriated funding for the Fire Station Alerting System Upgrade through the adopted Capital Improvement Program budget; and WHEREAS, a sole-source procurement determination was approved for Honeywell International Inc. as the original equipment manufacturer and the only vendor capable of providing a phased upgrade compatible with the City's existing station alerting infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that entering into a Public Services Agreement with Honeywell International, Inc. in the amount of $404,756.78 is in the best interests of the City and will support reliable emergency response operations throughout the City's fire stations; and WHEREAS, the proposed upgrade will improve the reliability of emergency response communications and support the continued delivery of critical fire and emergency services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Escondido, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true.
2. That the City Council authorizes the Mayor to execute, on behalf of the City, a Public Services Agreement with Honeywell International, Inc., in a substantially similar form to that which is 15 Item5.
attached and incorporated to this Resolution as Exhibit “A”, and subject to final approval as to form by the City Attorney.
16 Item5.
Public Services Agreement (v2) - 1 - CAO: 04/23/2024
CITY OF ESCONDIDO
PUBLIC SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Public Services Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into as of the last signature date set forth below (“Effective Date”),
Between: CITY OF ESCONDIDO
a California municipal corporation
201 N. Broadway
Escondido, CA 92025
Attn: Kevin Beverly
760-839-5403
("CITY")
And: Honeywell International Inc.
a Delaware corporation
1150 W. Grove Parkway, Suite 110
Tempe, AZ 85283
Attn: Susheel Tenguria
602-687-1730
("CONTRACTOR").
(The CITY and CONTRACTOR each may be referred to herein as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”)
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into this Agreement for the performance of the Services described herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises, terms, and conditions set forth herein, and the mutual benefits derived therefrom, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Description of Services. CONTRACTOR shall furnish all of the Services described in the Scope of Work, which is attached to this Agreement as Attachment “A” and incorporated herein by this reference (“Services”).
2. Compensation. In exchange for CONTRACTOR’s completion of the Services, the CITY shall pay, and CONTRACTOR shall accept in full, an amount not to exceed the sum of $404,756.78.
CONTRACTOR shall be compensated only for performance of the Services described in this Agreement. No compensation shall be provided for any other work or services without the CITY’s prior written consent. If this Agreement is amended at any time, additional compensation of CONTRACTOR contained in any subsequent amendments shall not exceed a cumulative total of 25% of the maximum payment provided for in this Section 2, unless approved by resolution of the City Council.
Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
17 Item5.
Public Services Agreement (v2) - 2 - CAO: 04/23/2024
3. Performance. CONTRACTOR shall faithfully perform the Services in a proficient manner, to the satisfaction of the CITY, and in accord with the terms of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, timely completion, and coordination of all reports and other information furnished by CONTRACTOR pursuant to this Agreement, except that CONTRACTOR shall not be responsible for the accuracy of information supplied by the CITY.
4. Termination. The Parties may mutually terminate this Agreement through a writing signed by both Parties. The CITY may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon providing CONTRACTOR with 10 days’ advance written notice. CONTRACTOR agrees to cease all work under this Agreement on or before the effective date of any notice of termination. If the CITY terminates this Agreement due to no fault or failure of performance by CONTRACTOR, then CONTRACTOR shall be compensated based on the work satisfactorily performed at the time of such termination. In no event shall CONTRACTOR be entitled to receive more than the amount that would be paid to CONTRACTOR for the full performance of the Services.
5. City Property. All original documents, drawings, electronic media, and other materials prepared by CONTRACTOR pursuant to this Agreement immediately become the exclusive property of the CITY, and shall not be used by CONTRACTOR for any other purpose without the CITY’s prior written consent.
6. Insurance Requirements.
a. CONTRACTOR shall procure and maintain, at its own cost, during the entire term of this Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Services, and the results of such work, by CONTRACTOR, its agents, representatives, employees, or subcontractors. Insurance coverage shall be at least as broad as the following:
(1) Commercial General Liability. Insurance Services Office (“ISO”) Form CG 00 01 covering Commercial General Liability on an “occurrence” basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury, and personal & advertising injury, with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence and $4,000,000 general aggregate. (2) Automobile Liability. ISO Form CA 00 01 covering any auto (Code 1), or if CONTRACTOR has no owned autos, hired (Code 8) and non-owned autos (Code 9), with limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage, unless waived by the CITY and approved in writing by the CITY’s Risk and Safety Division. (3) Workers’ Compensation. Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
(4) If CONTRACTOR maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums otherwise required by this Agreement, the CITY requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or the higher limits maintained by CONTRACTOR. b. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement must be acceptable to the City Attorney and shall meet the following requirements:
(1) Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance coverage must be provided by an insurer authorized to conduct business in the state of California with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A-: FSC VII, or as approved by the CITY.
(2) Additional Insured Status. Both the Commercial General Liability and the Automobile Liability policies must name the CITY (including its officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers) specifically as an additional insured under the policy on a separate endorsement page. The Commercial General Liability additional insured endorsement shall be at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85, or if not available, through the Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
18 Item5.
Public Services Agreement (v2) - 3 - CAO: 04/23/2024
addition of both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38, and CG 20 37 if a later edition is used. The Automobile Liability endorsement shall be at least as broad as ISO Form CA 20 01.
(3) Primary Coverage. CONTRACTOR’s insurance coverage shall be primary coverage at least as broad as ISO CG 20 01 04 13 with respect to the CITY, its officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the CITY, its officials, officers, agents, employees, or volunteers shall be in excess of CONTRACTOR’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. (4) Notice of Cancellation. Each insurance policy shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except with prior written notice to the CITY. (5) Subcontractors. If applicable, CONTRACTOR shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated in this Agreement, and CONTRACTOR shall ensure that the CITY (including its officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers) is an additional insured on any insurance required from a subcontractor.
(6) Waiver of Subrogation. CONTRACTOR hereby grants to the CITY a waiver of any right to subrogation that any insurer of CONTRACTOR may acquire against the CITY by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. CONTRACTOR agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this subsection shall apply regardless of whether or not the CITY has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer. Any Workers’ Compensation policy required by this Agreement shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the CITY for all work performed by the CONTRACTOR, its agents, representatives, employees and subcontractors.
(7) Self-Insurance. CONTRACTOR may, with the CITY’s prior written consent, fulfill some or all of the insurance requirements contained in this Agreement under a plan of selfinsurance. CONTRACTOR shall only be permitted to utilize such self-insurance if, in the opinion of the CITY, CONTRACTOR’s (i) net worth and (ii) reserves for payment of claims of liability against CONTRACTOR are sufficient to adequately compensate for the lack of other insurance coverage required by this Agreement. CONTRACTOR’s utilization of selfinsurance shall not in any way limit the liabilities assumed by CONTRACTOR pursuant to this Agreement.
(8) Self-Insured Retentions. Self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the CITY.
c. Verification of Coverage. At the time CONTRACTOR executes this Agreement, CONTRACTOR shall provide the CITY with original Certificates of Insurance including all required amendatory endorsements (or copies of the applicable policy language effecting the insurance coverage required by this Agreement), which shall meet all requirements under this Agreement. The CITY reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by this Agreement, at any time. d. Special Risks or Circumstances. The CITY reserves the right, at any point during the term of this Agreement, to modify the insurance requirements in this Agreement, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances. e. No Limitation of Obligations. The insurance requirements in this Agreement, including the types and limits of insurance coverage CONTRACTOR must maintain, and any approval of such insurance by the CITY, are not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by CONTRACTOR pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to any provisions in this Agreement concerning indemnification. f. Failure to comply with any of the insurance requirements in this Agreement, including but not limited to a lapse in any required insurance coverage during the term of this Agreement, shall Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
19 Item5.
Public Services Agreement (v2) - 4 - CAO: 04/23/2024
be a material breach of this Agreement. In the event that CONTRACTOR fails to comply with any such insurance requirements in this Agreement, in addition to any other remedies the CITY may have, the CITY may, at its sole option, (i) immediately terminate this Agreement; or (ii) order CONTRACTOR to stop work under this Agreement and/or withhold any payment that becomes due to CONTRACTOR until CONTRACTOR demonstrates compliance with the insurance requirements in this Agreement.
7. Indemnification, Duty to Defend, and Hold Harmless.
a. CONTRACTOR (including CONTRACTOR’s agents, employees, and subcontractors, if any) shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the CITY, its officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, proceedings (including but not limited to legal and administrative proceedings of any kind), suits, fines, penalties, judgments, orders, levies, costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages, or injuries, in law or equity, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages and attorney’s fees and other related litigation costs and expenses (collectively, “Claims”), of every nature caused by, arising out of, or in connection with CONTRACTOR’s performance of the Services or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this Agreement, except where caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the CITY. b. CONTRACTOR (including CONTRACTOR’s agents, employees, and subcontractors, if any) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the CITY, its officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers from and against any and all Claims caused by, arising under, or resulting from any violation, or claim of violation, of the San Diego Municipal Storm Water Permit (Order No.
R9-2013-0001, as amended) of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9, San Diego, that the CITY might suffer, incur, or become subject to by reason of, or occurring as a result of, or allegedly caused by, any work performed pursuant to this Agreement. c. All terms and provisions within this Section 7 shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
8. Anti-Assignment Clause. Because the CITY has relied on the particular skills of CONTRACTOR in entering into this Agreement, CONTRACTOR shall not assign, delegate, subcontract, or otherwise transfer any duty or right under this Agreement, including as to any portion of the Services, without the CITY’s prior written consent. Any purported assignment, delegation, subcontract, or other transfer made without the CITY’s consent shall be void and ineffective. Unless CONTRACTOR assigns this entire Agreement, including all rights and duties herein, to a third party with the CITY’s prior written consent, CONTRACTOR shall be the sole payee under this Agreement. Any and all payments made pursuant to the terms of this Agreement are otherwise not assignable.
9. Attorney's Fees and Costs. In any action to enforce the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
10. Independent Contractor. CONTRACTOR is an independent contractor, and no agency or employment relationship is created by the execution of this Agreement.
11. Amendment. This Agreement shall not be amended except in a writing signed by the CITY and CONTRACTOR.
12. Merger Clause. This Agreement, together with its attachments or other documents described or incorporated herein, if any, constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the CITY and CONTRACTOR concerning the subject of this Agreement and supersedes and replaces all prior negotiations, understandings, or proposed agreements, written or oral, except as otherwise provided herein. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this Agreement and any of its attachments or related documents, if any, the provisions of this Agreement shall prevail.
Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
20 Item5.
Public Services Agreement (v2) - 5 - CAO: 04/23/2024
13. Anti-Waiver Clause. None of the provisions of this Agreement shall be waived by the CITY because of previous failure to insist upon strict performance, nor shall any provision be waived because any other provision has been waived by the CITY, in whole or in part.
14. Severability. This Agreement shall be performed and shall be enforceable to the full extent allowed by applicable law, and the illegality, invalidity, waiver, or unenforceability of any provision of this Agreement shall not affect the legality, validity, applicability, or enforceability of the remaining provisions of this Agreement.
15. Governing Law. This Agreement and all rights and obligations arising out of it shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action arising from this Agreement shall be conducted only in the state or federal courts of San Diego County, California.
16. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed on separate counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Delivery of an executed signature page of this Agreement by electronic means, including an attachment to an email, shall be effective as delivery of an executed original. The Agreement on file with the City is the copy of the Agreement that shall take precedence if any differences exist between or among copies or counterparts of the Agreement.
17. Provisions Cumulative. The foregoing provisions are cumulative to, in addition to, and not in limitation of any other rights or remedies available to the CITY.
18. Notice. Any statements, communications, or notices to be provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be sent to the attention of the persons indicated herein, and the CITY and CONTRACTOR shall promptly provide the other Party with notice of any changes to such contact information.
19. Business License. CONTRACTOR shall obtain a City of Escondido Business License prior to execution of this Agreement and shall maintain such Business License throughout the term of this Agreement.
20. Compliance with Laws, Permits, and Licenses. CONTRACTOR shall keep itself informed of and comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, statutes, codes, ordinances, regulations, rules, and other legal requirements in effect during the term of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall obtain any and all permits, licenses, and other authorizations necessary to perform the Services. Neither the CITY, nor any elected or appointed boards, officers, officials, employees, or agents of the CITY, shall be liable, at law or in equity, as a result of any failure of CONTRACTOR to comply with this section.
21. Prevailing Wages. If applicable, pursuant to California Labor Code section 1770 et seq., CONTRACTOR agrees that a prevailing rate and scale of wages, in accordance with applicable laws, shall be paid in performing this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall keep itself informed of and comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, statutes, codes, ordinances, regulations, rules, and other legal requirements pertaining to the payment of prevailing wages. The prevailing rate and scale to be paid shall be the same as the applicable “General Prevailing Wage Determination” approved by the Department of Industrial Relations as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, which are available online at http://www.dir.ca.gov/oprl/dprewagedetermination.htm and incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. Neither the CITY, nor any elected or appointed boards, officers, officials, employees, or agents of the CITY, shall be liable, at law or in equity, as a result of any failure of CONTRACTOR to comply with this section.
22. Department of Industrial Relations Compliance. This public project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. CONTRACTOR shall post all job site notices required by regulation. CONTRACTOR, as well as any subcontractors, shall be registered pursuant to California Labor Code section 1725.5 to be qualified to bid on, be listed in a Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
21 Item5.
Public Services Agreement (v2) - 6 - CAO: 04/23/2024
bid proposal (subject to the requirements of Public Contract Code section 4104), or engage in the performance of any public works contract subject to the requirements of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 of the California Labor Code. Neither the CITY, nor any elected or appointed boards, officers, officials, employees, or agents of the CITY, shall be liable, at law or in equity, as a result of any failure of CONTRACTOR to comply with this section.
23. Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. CONTRACTOR shall keep itself informed of and shall comply with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”). CONTRACTOR represents and warrants that all of its employees and the employees of any subcontractor retained by CONTRACTOR who perform any of the Services under this Agreement, are and will be authorized to perform the Services in full compliance with the IRCA. CONTRACTOR affirms that as a licensed contractor and employer in the State of California, all new employees must produce proof of eligibility to work in the United States within the first three days of employment and that only employees legally eligible to work in the United States will perform the Services. CONTRACTOR agrees to comply with the IRCA before commencing any Services, and continuously throughout the performance of the Services and the term of this Agreement.
24. Effective Date. Unless a different date is provided in this Agreement, the effective date of this Agreement shall be the latest date of execution set forth by the names of the signatories below. (SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS)
Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
22 Item5.
Public Services Agreement (v2) - 7 - CAO: 04/23/2024
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed by the Parties or their duly authorized representatives as of the Effective Date:
CITY OF ESCONDIDO
Date: __________________ ___________________________________ Dane White, Mayor
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.
Date: __________________ ___________________________________ Susheel Tenguria, General Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MICHAEL R. MCGUINNESS, CITY ATTORNEY
BY: __________________________
DATE: __________________
THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST QUALIFIED PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES.
Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
23 Item5.
Public Services Agreement (v2) - 8 - CAO: 04/23/2024
ATTACHMENT “A”
Scope of Work
A. General
Honeywell International Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Contractor”) shall provide the City of Escondido Fire Department (“City”) with procurement of additional equipment for the G2 Fire Station Alerting System. The work under this Agreement consists of furnishing specified system components, peripherals, and related equipment to support enhancements to the City’s fire station alerting system at each of the seven fire stations.
This Agreement covers a multi-year phased implementation corresponding to Fiscal Years 2026/27, 2027/28, and 2028/29, as detailed below. Equipment shall be provided in accordance with Contractor proposals CA_ESCN013 v1 (dated June 22, 2026), CA_ESCN014 v2 (dated June 25, 2026), and CA_ESCN015 v2 (dated June 25, 2026), which are incorporated herein by reference.
B. Location
No on-site services are included under this Agreement. All work consists solely of the procurement and delivery of equipment to the Escondido Fire Department, 310 N Quince Street, Escondido, CA 92025.
C. Services
1. Equipment Procurement and Delivery
• Furnish all system components, peripherals, controllers, displays, and accessories as specified in the three referenced proposals.
• Package and ship all equipment to the City-designated delivery location. • Provide manufacturer-standard warranty included with the equipment.
2. Phased Implementation by Fiscal Year
FY 2026/27 – Phase 1 (Quote CA_ESCN013 v1)
• Provide room remotes, adapter plates, and associated peripheral components for seven (7) fire stations.
• Provide associated freight/shipping.
• Provide optional system training component as specified.
FY 2027/28 – Phase 2 (Quote CA_ESCN014 v2)
• Provide station system controllers (ATX), UPS units, mounting hardware, and associated components for five (5) fire stations.
• Provide associated freight/shipping.
• Include standard configuration and project management components as included in the quote.
FY 2028/29 – Phase 3 (Quote CA_ESCN015 v2)
• Provide additional station system controllers, peripherals, LCD message signs, and accessories supporting the remaining stations.
• Provide associated freight/shipping.
• Include associated configuration and project management components as specified.
Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
24 Item5.
Public Services Agreement (v2) - 9 - CAO: 04/23/2024
3. Exclusions
• No installation services are included.
• No electrical work, permitting, or on-site labor is provided. • No communication infrastructure, conduit, or integration work is included.
D. Scheduling
Contractor to coordinate orders and shipping in advance by contacting Tyler Terich at 760-839- 5400 or [email protected].
• Equipment for each phase shall be ordered and delivered during the applicable fiscal year (FY 2026/27, FY 2027/28, and FY 2028/29).
• Delivery timelines shall be coordinated between the Contractor and the Fire Department’s designated project manager.
• Shipments may be provided in partial deliveries as required based on availability and lead times.
E. Contract Price and Payment Terms
The total contract price of this Agreement shall not exceed $404,756.78, exclusive of applicable sales or use tax. The total not-to-exceed contract amount is based on the combined value of the three quotes listed below, which are attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. In the event of a conflict between any of the three quotes and this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shal prevail.
1. CA_ESCN013 v1
2. CA_ESCN014 v2
3. CA_ESCN015 v2
Sales/use tax, if applicable, shall be paid by the City in accordance with applicable law and procurement procedures. Payment shall be made based on invoices submitted for equipment delivered under each phase, in accordance with City payment policies.
F. Term
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue through completion of all phases of the work, anticipated to extend through June 30, 2029.
G. Other
Warranty - All equipment shall be covered by the manufacturer’s standard warranty included with purchase.
Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
25 Item5.
US DIGITAL DESIGNS Author: DWK
by Honeywell Date: 6/22/2026
1150 W Grove Pkwy St #110 Expires: 9/20/2026
Tempe, AZ 85283 Proposal: CA_ESCN013 v1
Quotation to:
City of Escondido, CA
Escondido Fire Department
Project:
G2 Fire Station Alerting System
Additional Equipment for Seven (7) Stations
Pricing pursuant to the Master Price Agreement entered into between League of Oregon Cities (LOC) and USDD, and made available to members of the National Purchasing Partners, LLC, dba Public Safety GPO, dba Law Enforcement GPO, and dba NPPgov - Contract #PS20350. More information available at: https://nppgov.com/contract/honeywell/ Escondido Fire Department is a member: M-5709130
William Butler
Sr. Territory Manager
(602)-687-1733
(602)-687-1730
[email protected]
stationalerting.com
This proposal is subject to correction for errors or omissions Responsibility for identifying any errors or omissions in this quote rests with the Customer prior to order placement. *2026 Pricing*
Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
26 Item5.
US DIGITAL DESIGNS Date: 6/22/2026
by Honeywell Expires: 9/20/2026
Proposal: CA_ESCN013 v1
Quote Submitted To:
City of Escondido, CA
Escondido Fire Department
STATION 01
STATION SYSTEM PERIPHERAL COMPONENTS
Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price RR-2 G2 Room Remote 2 25 $ 2,445.45 $ 2,200.91 $ 55,022.75 RR2-AP RR2 Adapter Plate 25 $ 90.83 $ 81.74 $ 2,043.50
STATION SYSTEM SERVICES
Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price FREIGHT-CHARGES Shipping 1 $ 775.00 $ 775.00 $ 775.00
STATION SYSTEM WARRANTY & OPTIONAL RECURRING ANNUAL SUPPORT Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price RS-1YR-STD
[STANDARD] 1st Year Warranty & Support - Included with Initial Purchase
Technical phone support Monday through Friday from 08:00 to 17:30 MST, excluding USDD holidays;
Remote access support Monday through Friday from 08:00 to 17:30 MST, excluding USDD holidays;
1.0 $ 6,340.69 $ 5,706.63 No Charge
STATION 01
Equipment Only: $ 57,066.25
System: $ 57,066.25
Shipping: $ 775.00
Service & Support: $ -
Estimated Tax: $ -
Station Subtotal: $ 57,841.25
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL FS01 Page 2 of 18
Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
27 Item5.
US DIGITAL DESIGNS Date: 6/22/2026
by Honeywell Expires: 9/20/2026
Proposal: CA_ESCN013 v1
Quote Submitted To:
City of Escondido, CA
Escondido Fire Department
STATION 02
STATION SYSTEM PERIPHERAL COMPONENTS
Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price RR-2 G2 Room Remote 2 5 $ 2,445.45 $ 2,200.91 $ 11,004.55 RR2-AP RR2 Adapter Plate 5 $ 90.83 $ 81.74 $ 408.70
STATION SYSTEM SERVICES
Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price FREIGHT-CHARGES Shipping 1 $ 155.00 $ 155.00 $ 155.00
STATION SYSTEM WARRANTY & OPTIONAL RECURRING ANNUAL SUPPORT Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price RS-1YR-STD
[STANDARD] 1st Year Warranty & Support - Included with Initial Purchase
Technical phone support Monday through Friday from 08:00 to 17:30 MST, excluding USDD holidays;
Remote access support Monday through Friday from 08:00 to 17:30 MST, excluding USDD holidays;
1.0 $ 1,268.14 $ 1,141.33 No Charge
STATION 02
Equipment Only: $ 11,413.25
System: $ 11,413.25
Shipping: $ 155.00
Service & Support: $ -
Estimated Tax: $ -
Station Subtotal: $ 11,568.25
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL FS02 Page 3 of 18
Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
28 Item5.
US DIGITAL DESIGNS Date: 6/22/2026
by Honeywell Expires: 9/20/2026
Proposal: CA_ESCN013 v1
Quote Submitted To:
City of Escondido, CA
Escondido Fire Department
STATION 03
STATION SYSTEM PERIPHERAL COMPONENTS
Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price RR-2 G2 Room Remote 2 7 $ 2,445.45 $ 2,200.91 $ 15,406.37 RR2-AP RR2 Adapter Plate 7 $ 90.83 $ 81.74 $ 572.18
STATION SYSTEM SERVICES
Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price FREIGHT-CHARGES Shipping 1 $ 217.00 $ 217.00 $ 217.00
STATION SYSTEM WARRANTY & OPTIONAL RECURRING ANNUAL SUPPORT Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price RS-1YR-STD
[STANDARD] 1st Year Warranty & Support - Included with Initial Purchase
Technical phone support Monday through Friday from 08:00 to 17:30 MST, excluding USDD holidays;
Remote access support Monday through Friday from 08:00 to 17:30 MST, excluding USDD holidays;
1.0 $ 1,775.39 $ 1,597.86 No Charge
STATION 03
Equipment Only: $ 15,978.55
System: $ 15,978.55
Shipping: $ 217.00
Service & Support: $ -
Estimated Tax: $ -
Station Subtotal: $ 16,195.55
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL FS03 Page 4 of 18
Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
29 Item5.
US DIGITAL DESIGNS Date: 6/22/2026
by Honeywell Expires: 9/20/2026
Proposal: CA_ESCN013 v1
Quote Submitted To:
City of Escondido, CA
Escondido Fire Department
STATION 04
STATION SYSTEM PERIPHERAL COMPONENTS
Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price RR-2 G2 Room Remote 2 5 $ 2,445.45 $ 2,200.91 $ 11,004.55 RR2-AP RR2 Adapter Plate 5 $ 90.83 $ 81.74 $ 408.70
STATION SYSTEM SERVICES
Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price FREIGHT-CHARGES Shipping 1 $ 155.00 $ 155.00 $ 155.00
STATION SYSTEM WARRANTY & OPTIONAL RECURRING ANNUAL SUPPORT Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price RS-1YR-STD
[STANDARD] 1st Year Warranty & Support - Included with Initial Purchase
Technical phone support Monday through Friday from 08:00 to 17:30 MST, excluding USDD holidays;
Remote access support Monday through Friday from 08:00 to 17:30 MST, excluding USDD holidays;
1.0 $ 1,268.14 $ 1,141.33 No Charge
STATION 04
Equipment Only: $ 11,413.25
System: $ 11,413.25
Shipping: $ 155.00
Service & Support: $ -
Estimated Tax: $ -
Station Subtotal: $ 11,568.25
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL FS04 Page 5 of 18
Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
30 Item5.
US DIGITAL DESIGNS Date: 6/22/2026
by Honeywell Expires: 9/20/2026
Proposal: CA_ESCN013 v1
Quote Submitted To:
City of Escondido, CA
Escondido Fire Department
STATION 05
STATION SYSTEM PERIPHERAL COMPONENTS
Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price RR-2 G2 Room Remote 2 7 $ 2,445.45 $ 2,200.91 $ 15,406.37 RR2-AP RR2 Adapter Plate 7 $ 90.83 $ 81.74 $ 572.18
STATION SYSTEM SERVICES
Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price FREIGHT-CHARGES Shipping 1 $ 217.00 $ 217.00 $ 217.00
STATION SYSTEM WARRANTY & OPTIONAL RECURRING ANNUAL SUPPORT Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price RS-1YR-STD
[STANDARD] 1st Year Warranty & Support - Included with Initial Purchase
Technical phone support Monday through Friday from 08:00 to 17:30 MST, excluding USDD holidays;
Remote access support Monday through Friday from 08:00 to 17:30 MST, excluding USDD holidays;
1.0 $ 1,775.39 $ 1,597.86 No Charge
STATION 05
Equipment Only: $ 15,978.55
System: $ 15,978.55
Shipping: $ 217.00
Service & Support: $ -
Estimated Tax: $ -
Station Subtotal: $ 16,195.55
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL FS05 Page 6 of 18
Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
31 Item5.
US DIGITAL DESIGNS Date: 6/22/2026
by Honeywell Expires: 9/20/2026
Proposal: CA_ESCN013 v1
Quote Submitted To:
City of Escondido, CA
Escondido Fire Department
STATION 06
STATION SYSTEM PERIPHERAL COMPONENTS
Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price RR-2 G2 Room Remote 2 4 $ 2,445.45 $ 2,200.91 $ 8,803.64 RR2-AP RR2 Adapter Plate 4 $ 90.83 $ 81.74 $ 326.96
STATION SYSTEM SERVICES
Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price FREIGHT-CHARGES Shipping 1 $ 124.00 $ 124.00 $ 124.00
STATION SYSTEM WARRANTY & OPTIONAL RECURRING ANNUAL SUPPORT Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price RS-1YR-STD
[STANDARD] 1st Year Warranty & Support - Included with Initial Purchase
Technical phone support Monday through Friday from 08:00 to 17:30 MST, excluding USDD holidays;
Remote access support Monday through Friday from 08:00 to 17:30 MST, excluding USDD holidays;
1.0 $ 1,014.51 $ 913.06 No Charge
STATION 06
Equipment Only: $ 9,130.60
System: $ 9,130.60
Shipping: $ 124.00
Service & Support: $ -
Estimated Tax: $ -
Station Subtotal: $ 9,254.60
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL FS06 Page 7 of 18
Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
32 Item5.
US DIGITAL DESIGNS Date: 6/22/2026
by Honeywell Expires: 9/20/2026
Proposal: CA_ESCN013 v1
Quote Submitted To:
City of Escondido, CA
Escondido Fire Department
STATION 07
STATION SYSTEM PERIPHERAL COMPONENTS
Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price RR-2 G2 Room Remote 2 7 $ 2,445.45 $ 2,200.91 $ 15,406.37 RR2-AP RR2 Adapter Plate 7 $ 90.83 $ 81.74 $ 572.18
STATION SYSTEM SERVICES
Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price FREIGHT-CHARGES Shipping 1 $ 217.00 $ 217.00 $ 217.00
STATION SYSTEM WARRANTY & OPTIONAL RECURRING ANNUAL SUPPORT Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price RS-1YR-STD
[STANDARD] 1st Year Warranty & Support - Included with Initial Purchase
Technical phone support Monday through Friday from 08:00 to 17:30 MST, excluding USDD holidays;
Remote access support Monday through Friday from 08:00 to 17:30 MST, excluding USDD holidays;
1.0 $ 1,775.39 $ 1,597.86 No Charge
STATION 07
Equipment Only: $ 15,978.55
System: $ 15,978.55
Shipping: $ 217.00
Service & Support: $ -
Estimated Tax: $ -
Station Subtotal: $ 16,195.55
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL FS07 Page 8 of 18
Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
33 Item5.
This quote does not include or assume any amounts for sales or use tax. Customer needs to contact its procurement department to determine if sales or use tax is payable, and if so, to make the determination of the amount to be paid. Per our contracts, Customer is responsible for the payment of any sales or use taxes owed from any purchase from USDD.
Warranty & Support Notes:
Customer must elect to choose any coverage they require beyond initial warranty period, or USDD will not be authorized to provide any service or support. Mobile Smart Phone Alerting App and Mapping Services only available to customer while under warranty or elected recurring annual support. Support Agreements subject to change if system design is modified. For additional details, please review current USDD Warranty Statement and Service Agreement. USDD cannot warrant nor support any system configuration that deviates from this specific proposal's documented station system design file number. USDD cannot warrant nor support any system not using USDD-approved UPS Battery Backup. USDD cannot warrant nor support any system not installed by G2 Trained & Certified Installation technician (installer). If customer intends to tie this system into any 3rd-party system or devices, USDD will be unable to warrant or support the system until we've had a chance to review documented engineering assumptions and approve system integrity, performance and reliability expectations.
Station System Installation Notes:
01 - Unless specifically detailed in this proposal, no installation by USDD or it's subcontractors is assumed or provided. 02 - Because these are mission-critical systems, USDD can only warrant and support systems installed by G2 Trained and Certified Contractors. 03 - USDD can source, qualify, train and certify Local Licensed Regional Subcontractors where needed. 04 - Installation warranted by installation contractor - G2 FSAS warranted, serviced and supported by USDD. 05 - Unless specifically detailed in this proposal, installation to be performed during normal working hours. 06 - Unless specifically detailed in this proposal, no permit fees or material charges have been included. 07 - Unless specifically detailed in this proposal, no removal or remediation has been assumed or included. 08 - Unless specifically detailed in this proposal, no bonds of any type (performance, bid) have been assumed, included or budgeted for in this proposal. 09 - USDD FSAS Equipment to be made available by owner to Installation Contractor prior to on-site arrival. 10 - Structural backing for system devices and other millwork (not specifically detailed) by others. 11 - If applicable, Gas Control Shutoff Valve Addendum (to USDD and installation contractor) must be signed prior to installation. 12 - All electrical power, including (but not limited to) raceway, conduit, backboxes, service panels, high-voltage wiring and fixtures by others. 13 - All communications pathway infrastructure (network, radio, etc.) by others unless specifically detailed in this proposal. 14 - USDD cannot warrant nor support any owner-furnished (3rd-Party) system or component we are required to integrate with. USDD cannot warrant nor support any system or component it has not proofed engineering for and has not specifically authorized for use within public safety environments. 15 - Any misuse, unauthorized modification, improper installation, excessive shock, attempted repair, accident, or improper or negligent use, storage, transportation, or handling by any party other than USDD shall render this limited warranty null, void and of no further effect PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL FS07 Page 9 of 18
Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
34 Item5.
US DIGITAL DESIGNS Date: 6/22/2026
by Honeywell Expires: 9/20/2026
Proposal: CA_ESCN013 v1
Quote Submitted To:
City of Escondido, CA
Escondido Fire Department
G2 FSA SYSTEM TRAINING
G2 FSA SYSTEM TRAINING
Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price
TRA-IC-O
Training - Installation Contractor - On-Site / USDD G2
Certification / 8 Hours (only needed if required to use noncertified contractor) 1 $ 7,395.94 $ 6,656.34 $ 6,656.34
Estimated Tax: $ -
G2 FSAS System Training: $ 6,656.34
G2 FSAS System Training Subtotal: $ 6,656.34
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL TRAINING Page 10 of 18
Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
35 Item5.
US DIGITAL DESIGNS Date: 6/22/2026
by Honeywell Expires: 9/20/2026
Proposal: CA_ESCN013 v1
Quote Submitted To:
City of Escondido, CA
Escondido Fire Department
[UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL PRICES ARE $USD]
STATION 01 SYSTEM: $ 57,841.25
STATION 01 SERVICE & SUPPORT: $ -
STATION 01 ESTIMATED TAX: $ -
STATION 02 SYSTEM: $ 11,568.25
STATION 02 SERVICE & SUPPORT: $ -
STATION 02 ESTIMATED TAX: $ -
STATION 03 SYSTEM: $ 16,195.55
STATION 03 SERVICE & SUPPORT: $ -
STATION 03 ESTIMATED TAX: $ -
STATION 04 SYSTEM: $ 11,568.25
STATION 04 SERVICE & SUPPORT: $ -
STATION 04 ESTIMATED TAX: $ -
STATION 05 SYSTEM: $ 16,195.55
STATION 05 SERVICE & SUPPORT: $ -
STATION 05 ESTIMATED TAX: $ -
STATION 06 SYSTEM: $ 9,254.60
STATION 06 SERVICE & SUPPORT: $ -
STATION 06 ESTIMATED TAX: $ -
STATION 07 SYSTEM: $ 16,195.55
STATION 07 SERVICE & SUPPORT: $ -
STATION 07 ESTIMATED TAX: $ -
G2 FSA SYSTEM TRAINING: $ 6,656.34
G2 FSA SYSTEM TRAINING ESTIMATED TAX: $ -
US Digital Designs System Total: $ 145,475.34
SECTION TOTALS
Notes: Additional Equipment for Seven (7) Station Systems included in this proposal.
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL SECTION TOTALS Page 11 of 18 Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
36 Item5.
(TBD By Customer) Customer must elect to choose any coverage they require beyond initial warranty period, or USDD will not be authorized to provide any service or support. Mobile Smart Phone Alerting App and Mapping Services only available to customer while under warranty or elected recurring annual support. Support Agreements subject to change if system design is modified. For additional details, please review current USDD Warranty Statement and Service Agreement.
This quote does not include or assume any amounts for sales or use tax. Customer needs to contact its procurement department to determine if sales or use tax is payable, and if so, to make the determination of the amount to be paid. Per our contracts, Customer is responsible for the payment of any sales or use taxes owed from any purchase from USDD.
Dispatch or station level training is not included in this proposal. Contact your Regional Territory Manager to schedule additional training if needed.
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL SECTION TOTALS Page 12 of 18 Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
37 Item5.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF HONEYWELL PRODUCT SALES
These terms and conditions of sale (“Terms and Conditions”) are adopted effective January 1, 2023 (the “Terms and Conditions Effective Date”), and supersede all prior versions covering the sale of products and related services (collectively, “Products”, as defined more specifically below) by Honeywell International Inc., through its US Digital Designs group (“Honeywell”). References to “Customer”, “you”, or “your” all pertain to the purchaser of Products. These Terms and Conditions, together with any separate agreement you may have with Honeywell that specifically references these Terms and Conditions (collectively, the “Agreement”) set forth the entire agreement between the parties relating to your purchase of Honeywell Products. The Agreement may only be modified by an authorized representative of each party in a signed writing.
1. ORDERS. Orders (including any revised and follow-on orders) (each, an “Order”) for Honeywell Products are non-cancelable, except as expressly set forth herein, and will be governed by the terms of the Agreement. All Orders are subject to acceptance by Honeywell and shall include the following information: purchase order number; customer’s legal name and billing address; Customer’s shipping address; and a list of the Products and quantities for each different type of Product Customer wishes to order. Honeywell’s acknowledgment of its receipt of an Order shall not constitute acceptance of such Order.
1.1 No Returns. Because of the nature of System and its Products, Honeywell cannot accept returns of Product for refund, credit, exchange or any other purpose. Notwithstanding, defective Products may be returned as provided for under Section 9.4 – Return Material Authorization Process. Customer must thoroughly assess its requirements and specifications prior to ordering.
2. REMITTANCES. All invoices shall be due and payable upon receipt in United States currency, free of exchange or any other charges, or as otherwise agreed in writing by Honeywell.
3. QUOTE PRICING. This proposal expires 90 days after its date. Prices are subject to correction for error. Prices, terms, conditions, and Product or Service specifications are subject to change without notice. Pricing is subject to immediate change upon announcement of Product discontinuance.
4. PAYMENT.
4.1. Invoicing & Payment. Honeywell reserves the right to invoice Customer monthly for all materials delivered. Invoices are due thirty (30) days from the date of the invoice, unless prepayment is required in the quote. If the Customer becomes overdue in any progress payment, Honeywell shall be entitled to suspend further shipments, shall be entitled to interest at the annual rate of 18%, or the maximum amount allowed by law, and shall also be entitled to avail itself of any other legal or equitable remedies. Customer agrees that it will pay and/or reimburse Honeywell for any and all reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs which are incurred by Honeywell in the collection of amounts due and payable hereunder.
4.2. Payment Disputes. Any disputes must be provided to Honeywell as soon as possible and must be accompanied by detailed supporting information. Disputes as to invoices are deemed waived fifteen (15) days following the invoice date. In the event that any portion of an invoice is undisputed, such undisputed amount must be paid by no later than the invoice due date.
4.3. No Set Off. Neither Customer nor any related entities (or representatives or agents thereof) shall attempt to set off or recoup any invoiced amounts or any portion thereof against other amounts that are due or may become due from Honeywell, its parent, affiliates, subsidiaries or other legal entities, business divisions, or units.
4.4. Credit Card Payments. All Honeywell quotes are developed for the Customer with the understanding that any purchase of the Products listed thereon will facilitated using to Honeywell’s standard Purchase Order and Invoice process. If Customer would rather seek to use a Credit Card for purchase, then said order would be subject to a 4% credit card surcharge.
5. SURCHARGES.
5.1. For avoidance of doubt, Orders placed prior to the Terms and Conditions Effective Date which have not been delivered, including those on backlog or which requested delivery more than twelve (12) months from the date of Order, are subject to Surcharges.
5.2. Honeywell will invoice Customer, and Buyer agrees to pay for any Surcharges pursuant to the standard payment terms in these Terms and Conditions. If a dispute arises with respect to Surcharges and that dispute remains open for more than fifteen (15) days, Honeywell may, in its sole discretion, withhold performance or future shipments, or combine any other rights and remedies under this Agreement or permitted by law, until the dispute is resolved. The terms of this Section shall prevail in the event of inconsistency with any other terms in these Terms and Conditions. Any Surcharges, as well as the timing, effectiveness, and method of determination thereof, will be separate from and in addition to any changes to pricing that are affected by any other provisions in these Terms and Conditions.
6. CANCELLATION AND SUSPENSION. Any Order resulting from this proposal is subject to cancellation or instructions to suspend work by the Customer only upon agreement to pay Honeywell for all work in progress, all inventoried or ordered project parts and materials, and all other costs incurred by Honeywell related to the Order.
7. TAXES. Honeywell’s pricing excludes all taxes (including but not limited to sales, use, excise, value-added, and other similar taxes), tariffs and duties (including, but not limited to, amounts imposed upon the Product(s) or bill of material thereof under any Trade Act, including, but not limited to, the Trade Expansion Act, section 232 and the Trade Act of 1974, section 301) and charges (collectively “Taxes”). All Taxes of any kind levied by any federal, state, municipal or other governmental authority, which tax Honeywell is required to collect or pay with respect to the production, sale, or delivery of products sold to Customer, shall be the responsibility of and be invoiced to Customer, unless, at the time of Order placement, Customer furnishes Honeywell with a valid exemption certificate or other documentation sufficient to verify exemption from Taxes, including, but not limited to, a direct pay permit. Customer agrees to pay all such Taxes and further agrees to reimburse Honeywell for any such payments made by Honeywell.
8. SHIPPING/DELIVERY/RISK OF LOSS.
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL STANDARD Ts&Cs Page 13 of 18 Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
38 Item5.
8.1. Delivery Liability. Delivery and shipment dates for Products are estimates only. Deliveries may be made in partial shipments. Honeywell and its affiliated entities are not liable, either directly or indirectly, for delays of carriers or delays in connection with any Force Majeure Event (as defined in Section 17 below), and the estimated delivery date shall be extended accordingly.
8.1.1. Inspection upon Receipt. The Customer must inspect all shipments upon receipt. Any claims for damage, loss, or shortages must be submitted within 10 calendar days of receipt. Honeywell will not be responsible for claims made after this 10-day period.
8.2. Future Delivery and Repricing. Honeywell will schedule delivery in accordance with its standard lead times unless the Order states a later delivery date or the parties otherwise agree in writing. Honeywell will accept Orders with a future ship date of up to eighteen (18) months from the date of the entry of the Order. Customer agrees that in the event an Order is scheduled to be delivered more than six (6) months from the date of the entry of the Order, Honeywell may, in its sole determination and at each six (6) month anniversary of the date of the entry of the Order, adjust the pricing of the Order to conform to the then-current prices of the Honeywell Products included in the Order.
Honeywell will include any repricing in its final invoice related to the Order.
8.3. Storage Fees. If delivery takes place more than six (6) months from the date of the entry of the Order, Customer agrees to pay Honeywell a storage fee (the “Storage Fee”), as set forth in the quote, for each month after six (6) months from the date of the entry of the Order Customer has not taken delivery of the Products in the Order. Honeywell will separately invoice any storage fees owed under this Section at the end of each month for which the storage fees are owed.
8.4. Title & Risk of Loss. Unless otherwise specifically detailed in this quote, delivery terms for Products (excluding software and services) are (i)
EX Works (EXW Incoterms 2020) Honeywell’s point of shipment (“Honeywell Dock”) for all shipments (except that Honeywell is responsible for obtaining any export license), and (ii) F.O.B. Honeywell Dock for all domestic shipments. For shipments from a Honeywell Dock to a Buyer location within the same country, the import/export provisions of the INCOTERMS do not apply. Honeywell shall be responsible for obtaining insurance on each shipment to Customer for the full value of the shipment. Shipment shall be to a single point of delivery.
9. LIMITED WARRANTY. CUSTOMER’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDIES AND HONEYWELL’S SOLE LIABILITY AS TO ANY WARRANTY CLAIM ON ANY PRODUCT SOLD IN CONNECTION WITH THIS QUOTE IS AS SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION. SUCH REMEDIES ARE IN LIEU OF ANY OTHER
LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION OF HONEYWELL, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION FOR DAMAGE, LOSS,
OR INJURY (WHETHER DIRECT, INDIRECT, EXEMPLARY, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL) ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE DELIVERY, USE, OR PERFORMANCE OF THE PRODUCTS. CREDIT, REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT (AT HONEYWELL’S OPTION) IS THE SOLE REMEDY PROVIDED HEREUNDER. NO EXTENSION OF THIS WARRANTY WILL BE BINDING UPON HONEYWELL UNLESS SET FORTH IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY A HONEYWELL AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
9.1 Product Warranty Terms
9.1.1. If Customer is purchasing a new System, i.e., the initial System for Customer, or for a new Dispatch System or Station System. subject to the terms, conditions and limitations contained herein, and unless Honeywell has otherwise provided an alternative written warranty (in which case the terms of such warranty will control), Honeywell warrants and guarantees its products will be free from defects in workmanship and materials (collectively, “Defects”) for 12 months from Customer’s “Commissioning Date” (“Warranty Period”). This limited warranty does not cover defects caused by normal wear and tear or maintenance. For purposes of subparagraph, “Commissioning Date” shall mean means the date on which an authorized Honeywell technician has inspected and approved installations, confirmed that all connections and start-up configurations are properly working, and confirming the System can send and receive alerts through the configured communication pathways.
9.1.2. If Customer is purchasing Products or services to add to or as replacement Products for an existing System, subject to the terms, conditions and limitations contained herein, and unless Honeywell has otherwise provided an alternative written warranty (in which case the terms of such warranty will control), Honeywell warrants and guarantees its products for 12 months from the day of shipment to Customer (“Warranty Period”). This limited warranty does not cover defects caused by normal wear and tear or maintenance.
9.2. Product Defects. If a Defect with a Product arises and a valid claim is made within the Warranty Period, Customer shall initiate the RMA process as described below. Upon approval, Honeywell at its option, will either (1) repair the Product defect at no charge, using new parts or parts equivalent to new in performance and reliability or (2) exchange the Product with a Product that is new or equivalent to new in performance and reliability and is at least functionally equivalent to the original Product. Any replacement Product or part, including a userinstallable part that has been installed in accordance with instructions provided by Honeywell, shall remain under warranty during the Warranty Period or for ninety (90) days from the date of repair, whichever is longer. When a Product or part is exchanged, any replacement item becomes the Customer’s property and the replaced item becomes the property of Honeywell. Parts provided by Honeywell in fulfillment of its warranty obligation must be used in the same Honeywell Fire Station Alerting System for which the warranty claim is made.
9.3. Procedure for Warranty Claims.
9.3.1. Prior to making a Warranty claim, Customer is encouraged to review Honeywell’s online help resources. Thereafter, to make a valid claim hereunder, Customer must contact Honeywell technical support and describe the problem or defect with specificity. The first such contact must occur during the Warranty Period. Honeywell’s technical support contact information can be found on Honeywell’s web site at https://buildings.honeywell.com/us/en/brands/our-brands/usdd. Customer must use its best efforts to assist in diagnosing defects, follow Honeywell’s technical instructions, and fully cooperate in the diagnostic process. Failure to do so shall relieve Honeywell of any further obligation hereunder.
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL STANDARD Ts&Cs Page 14 of 18 Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
39 Item5.
9.3.2. If a defect with the Hardware arises and Customer makes a valid Support Service Request within the Warranty Period, Customer shall initiate the RMA process as described below. Upon approval, Honeywell will cause shipment of a replacement Hardware component to Customer prior to the defective Hardware component being returned to Honeywell for repair. The replacement Hardware will be new or equivalent to new in performance and reliability and at least functionally equivalent to the original Hardware. When Hardware is exchanged, any replacement item becomes the Customer’s property and the replaced item becomes the property of Honeywell. Replaced Hardware provided by Honeywell in fulfillment of the Support Services must be used in the System to which this Agreement applies.
9.4. Return Material Authorization Process. If a Customer makes a claim for an advanced replacement of a Hardware component during the Warranty Period, Customer must initiate an RMA request. As part of this RMA process, the Customer shall provide Honeywell with the Hardware, model, serial number, and a description of the Hardware’s failure to initiate the RMA process. Upon Honeywell’s issuance of the RMA, Honeywell will send the replacement Hardware, shipped postage paid, ground shipping, to the address provided by Customer. RMA requests approved between 12:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Mountain Standard Time are shipped on the same business day. After 2:00 p.m.
Mountain Standard Time, the replacement Hardware will be shipped on the next business day. All RMA requests are processed on the business day on which the request was received, excluding holidays. Included with the shipped package will be return shipment instructions and a pre-paid return shipping label for the Hardware that the Customer is returning. The original Hardware must be returned in the shipping box provided by Honeywell. No goods will be accepted for exchange or return without a pre-approved RMA number, nor will goods which have not been properly packaged in Honeywell’s shipping box, as proper packaging ensures that goods are not damaged during the shipping process. The original Hardware must be shipped back within 10 days of receiving the replacement Hardware. Failure to return the original Hardware or failure to return the original Hardware in an appropriate manner will cause Customer to incur a replacement charge equal to full market value of the replacement Hardware.
9.5. No Fault Found. Customer understands that this fee is intended to discourage return of Products prior to proper troubleshooting or return because the product is “old.” Product returns will not be allowed if, upon examination of the returned Product, it is determined that the Product was subjected to accident, misuse, neglect, alteration, improper installation, unauthorized repair, improper testing, or poor packaging upon return. In such event, Honeywell shall invoice Customer for the full market value of the replacement Product.
9.6. WARRANTY EXCLUSIONS & DISCLAIMERS.
9.6.1. Honeywell does not warrant that the operation of its Products or any related peripherals will be uninterrupted or error-free. Honeywell further does not warrant nor support any system configuration that deviates from this specific quote’s documented station system design file number.
9.6.2. Honeywell does not warrant or support any system not installed by G2 Trained & Certified Installation technician (installer). If Customer intends to tie this system into any 3rd-party system or devices, Honeywell will be unable to warrant or support the Products unless Honeywell has had a chance to review documented engineering assumptions and approve system integrity, performance, and reliability expectations
9.6.3. Honeywell is not responsible for damage arising from Customer’s failure to follow instructions relating to the use of the Products.
This Warranty does not apply to any Products, including the hardware or software, not used for its intended purpose.
9.6.4. Honeywell cannot warrant nor support any system not using Honeywell-approved Uninterruptable Power Supply Battery Backup.
This Warranty does not apply to monitors or televisions manufactured by third parties. Repair or replacement of such components shall be subject exclusively to the manufacturer’s warranty, if any. Recovery and reinstallation of hardware and user data (including passwords) are not covered under this Warranty.
9.6.5. This Warranty does not apply: (a) to consumable parts, such as batteries, unless damage has occurred due to a defect in materials or workmanship; (b) to cosmetic damage, including but not limited to scratches, dents and broken plastic on ports; (c) to damage caused by use with non-Honeywell products; (d) to damage caused by accident, abuse, misuse, flood, lightning, fire, earthquake or other external causes; (e) to damage caused by operating the Product outside the permitted or intended uses described by Honeywell; (f) to damage or failure caused by installation or service (including upgrades and expansions) performed by anyone who is not a representative of Honeywell or a Honeywell authorized installer or service provider; (g) to a Product or part that has been modified to alter functionality or capability without the written permission of Honeywell; (h) to Software (as defined below); (i) to any other damage caused by an event or action outside of Honeywell’s control, including, without limitation, Customer’s failure to apply required or recommended updates or patches to any Software or Product; or (h) if any serial number has been removed or defaced.
9.6.6. The System is designed to generate and transmit signal-based outputs solely to supported third-party integrations (e.g., gas shutoff systems, apparatus bay doors, and similar connected equipment).
9.6.7. Customer acknowledges and agrees that the System’s functionality is strictly limited to the initiation and transmission of such signals. The System does not control, monitor, verify, or guarantee the execution, performance, or outcome of any action by third-party systems, devices, or integrations.
9.6.8. USDD by Honeywell warrants and supports only the transmission of signals from the System itself. Any actions taken (or not taken) by third-party systems in response to such signals are outside of USDD by Honeywell's control and responsibility.
9.6.9. USDD by Honeywell shall have no responsibility or liability for:
- The failure, delay, malfunction, or improper operation of any third-party system or device; - Any damages or losses arising from the actions or inactions of third-party integrations; - Any uses of the System beyond its intended signal-transmission function.
9.6.10. All other functions, uses, or integrations not expressly supported by the System are outside the scope of this Agreement and are not warranted or supported in any manner.
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL STANDARD Ts&Cs Page 15 of 18 Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
40 Item5.
10. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY. TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THE LIMITED WARRANTY IN SECTION 9 OF THESE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS AND ANY OTHER REMEDIES SET FORTH ABOVE ARE EXCLUSIVE AND IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, REMEDIES AND CONDITIONS, WHETHER ORAL OR WRITTEN, STATUTORY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. AS PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW,
HONEYWELL SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL STATUTORY OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION,
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND WARRANTIES AGAINST HIDDEN OR LATENT DEFECTS. If Honeywell cannot lawfully disclaim statutory or implied warranties, then to the extent permitted by law, all such warranties shall be limited in duration to the duration of this express Warranty and to repair or replacement service as determined by Honeywell in its sole discretion. No reseller, agent, or employee is authorized to make any modification, extension, or addition to this Warranty. If any term is held to be illegal or unenforceable, the legality or enforceability of the remaining terms shall not be affected or impaired.
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THE LIMITED WARRANTY IN SECTION 9 OF THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, AND TO THE EXTENT
PERMITTED BY LAW, HONEYWELL IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ANY BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONDITION, OR UNDER ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF USE; LOSS OF REVENUE; LOSS OF THE USE OF MONEY; LOSS OF ANTICIPATED SAVINGS; LOSS OF GOODWILL; LOSS OF REPUTATION; AND LOSS OF, DAMAGE TO OR CORRUPTION OF DATA. HONEYWELL IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR
ANY INDIRECT LOSS OR DAMAGE HOWSOEVER CAUSED, INCLUDING THE REPLACEMENT OF EQUIPMENT AND PROPERTY, ANY
COSTS OF RECOVERING PROGRAMMING OR REPRODUCING ANY PROGRAM OR DATA STORED OR USED WITH HONEYWELL PRODUCTS, AND ANY FAILURE TO MAINTAIN THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF DATA STORED ON THE PRODUCT.
ALL PRODUCT CLAIMS ARE LIMITED TO THOSE EXCLUSIVE REMEDIES SET FORTH IN THE LIMITED WARRANTY IN SECTION 9 OF THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS. HONEYWELL’S AGGREGATE LIABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH THEREWITH SHALL NOT EXCEED THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE PRODUCTS PAID BY CUSTOMER TO HONEYWELL FOR THE PRODUCTS GIVING RISE TO THE CLAIM.
Honeywell disclaims any representation that it will be able to repair any Hardware under this Warranty or make a product exchange without risk to or loss of the programs or data stored thereon.
11. SERVICE AGREEMENT. The Product being purchased hereunder is not subject to any post-Warranty service agreement or maintenance program unless specifically contracted for between Honeywell and Customer. Honeywell offers a comprehensive post-Warranty Service Agreement at additional cost. Customer should contact Honeywell regarding its Service Agreement and costs associated therewith.
12. SOFTWARE PRODUCTS. All software Products delivered by Honeywell to Customer or for which Honeywell provides access, including, without limitation, Honeywell’s mobile application software and Products with embedded software or firmware (collectively, “Software”) are not sold and are licensed. At all times that Customer is in compliance with the terms of these Terms and Conditions and any other agreement between the parties, Customer shall have a non-exclusive, non-transferable, fully paid license to use the Software, but only in conjunction with the Products provided by Honeywell and Customer’s fire station alerting system (the “License”). The terms of such Software License may be set forth in a separate software license agreement or end user license agreement provided by Honeywell with such Software. In no event shall Customer have any right to (or authorize or allow any third party to) distribute, sell, lend, rent, transfer, or convey the Software; grant any sublicense, lease, or other rights in the Software; decompile, disassemble, reverse engineer, or otherwise attempt to reconstruct, identify, or discover any source code, underlying user interface architecture or techniques, or algorithms of the Software by any means; or take any action that would cause the Software or any portion of it to be placed in the public domain. In the event of a conflict between the terms of any Software license terms provided upon download or purchase a purchase and these Terms and Conditions, the relevant Software license terms shall control solely with respect to such Software.
13. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Customer hereby agrees and acknowledges that Honeywell owns all rights, title, and interest in and to the Intellectual Property (as defined below). Customer agrees to not remove, obscure, or alter Honeywell’s or any third party's copyright notice, trademarks, or other proprietary rights notices affixed to or contained within or accessed in conjunction with or through Honeywell’s Product (as defined below). Nothing herein shall be deemed to give, transfer, or convey to Customer any rights in the Intellectual Property other than the License, as set forth above. For purposes of this Section, "Intellectual Property" means any and all rights of Honeywell related to Honeywell’s Products existing from time to time under patent law, copyright law, trade secret law, trademark law, unfair competition law, and any and all other proprietary rights, and any and all derivative works, work product, applications, renewals, extensions and restorations thereof, now or hereafter in force and effective worldwide.
14. FIRST ARRIVING MOBILE APP. If Customer wishes to use its First Arriving Mobile App (“First Arriving”) with the System being acquired from Honeywell, Customer agrees to the following:
14.1 Customer acknowledges that it bears full responsibility for complying with applicable law and regulations, including all privacy requirements, and for providing any required notices and obtaining all required consents in order for Honeywell to transmit alert to First Arriving. Customer also acknowledges that Honeywell bears no responsibility for any service failure by First Arriving, nor is Honeywell responsible for supporting First Arriving’s services or platform. Honeywell is offering to transmit alerts that are transmitted through its Honeywell service to First Arriving merely as a courtesy to Customer.
14.2 IN NO EVENT SHALL HONEYWELL BE LIABLE TO CUSTOMER FOR ANY CLAIMS, WHETHER ARISING FROM ANY INDEMNIFICATION
OBLIGATION HONEYWELL MAY HAVE OR THAT ARISE FROM A BREACH OF CONTRACT, WARRANTY, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE),
OPERATION OF LAW, OR OTHERWISE, AND EVEN IF THE PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF THE LIABILITY OR THE
LIABILITY IS OTHEWISE FORESEEABLE, FOR ANY LOST PROFITS OR REVENUE, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDEIRECT, CONSEQUETIAL,
EXEMPLARY, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES OF ANY KIND (INCLUDING ALL DAMAGES DUE TO BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, LOSS OR CORRUPTION OF DATA, OR LOST USE OF ANY PROPERTY OR CAPITAL) THAT RELATE TO OR ARISE OUT OF HONEYWELL’S TRANSMISSION OF ALERTS TO FIRST ARRIVING. FURTHER HONEYWELL’S AGGREGATE LIABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH ITS
TRANSMISSION OF ALERTS TO FIRST ARRIVING WILL BE LIMITED TO THE GREATER OF THE AMOUNT PAID BY CUSTOMER TO HONEYWELL IN ORDER FOR HONEYWELL TO TRANSMIT ALERTS TO FIRST ARRIVING OR $100. 15 REMOTE ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM.
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL STANDARD Ts&Cs Page 16 of 18 Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
41 Item5.
15.1 Remote Access. Honeywell requires remote network access to the Customer’s Products through Secure Shell (SSH) to perform implementation and support tasks under this Agreement. To enable remote network access, the Customer will provide Honeywell support personnel VPN or similar remote network access to the Products for Honeywell support personnel (“Customer Support”) to effectively troubleshoot critical or complex problems and to expedite resolution of such issues. Remote network access is also used to install core software upgrades and customized software. Honeywell will only access Customer’s Products with the knowledge and consent of Customer. Honeywell will not access any other systems or data.
15.2. Alternative to Network Access. If the Customer elects not to provide remote network access to the Products, then Honeywell may not be able to perform some support functions. Customers that elect not to routinely provide network access may temporarily reinstate this access to allow Honeywell to perform the above services. The following services will not be performed without this access: Product software upgrades; Product software customization; Network troubleshooting assistance including packet capture and network monitoring on Honeywell devices; Detailed log analysis; Bulk updates to certain Product database tables; Troubleshooting that requires low-level system access or large file transfer.
15.3. Timely Access. Customers much ensure that remote access is available prior to notifying Honeywell of a support request. In the event that the Customer is unable to provide remote access, Honeywell will not be required to provide support outside those tasks that do not require remote access, and any corresponding resolution response times will not apply.
15.4. Physical Security Tokens. Honeywell has multiple software engineers that provide after-hours support and these engineers do not typically take security tokens from the Honeywell office. If the customer requires the use of physical security tokens, this may delay after hours service.
16. GOVERNING LAW. This proposal and any contract or agreement resulting therefrom will be governed by and construed according to the laws of the State of Arizona without regard to its conflicts of law principles.
17. DISPUTE RESOLUTION/ARBITRATION. Before either Honeywell or Customer initiate any dispute resolution process related to the Agreement, they must schedule an executive resolution conference to be held within thirty (30) days of receipt of the other party’s written request. The conference must be attended by at least one executive from each party. At the conference, each party will present its view of the dispute in detail and the executives will enter into good faith negotiations in an attempt to resolve the dispute. If the dispute is not resolved within fifteen (15) days of the end of the conference or if one party refuses to attend the executive resolution conference, then Honeywell and Customer further agree that any remaining dispute between them arising out of or relating to this Agreement will be settled by litigation with jurisdiction being Maricopa County, Arizona.
18. FORCE MAJEURE. Except for Customer’s duty to pay sums due hereunder, neither party will be liable to the other for any failure to meet its obligations due to any Force Majeure Event. As used herein, a “Force Majeure Event” is one that is beyond the reasonable control of the non-performing party and may include, but is not limited to: (a) delays or refusals to grant an export license or the suspension or revocation thereof, (b) embargoes, blockages, seizure or freeze of assets, or any other acts of any government that would limit a party’s ability to perform the Contract, (c) fires, earthquakes, floods, tropical storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, severe weather conditions, or any other acts of God, (d) quarantines, pandemics, or regional medical crises, (e) labor strikes, lockouts, or pandemic worker shortages, (f) riots, strife, insurrection, civil disobedience, landowner disturbances, armed conflict, terrorism or war, declared or not (or impending threat of any of the foregoing, if such threat might reasonably be expected to cause injury to people or property), and (g) shortages or inability to obtain materials or components. The party unable to fulfill its obligations due to Force Majeure will promptly (i) Notify the other in writing of the reasons for its failure to fulfill its obligations and the effect of such failure; and (ii) Use all reasonable efforts to avoid or remove the cause and perform its obligations.
If a Force Majeure Event results in a delay, then the date of performance will be extended by the period of time that the non-performing party is actually delayed or for any other period as the parties may agree in writing. In the event that a Force Majeure Event is ongoing for a period of time which is sixty (60) days or longer, Honeywell may provide notice to Customer that it is cancelling its Order.
19. ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS. This proposal shall become a binding contract between the Customer and Honeywell when accepted in writing by the Customer. Without limiting the foregoing, issuance by Customer of a purchase order to Honeywell for any of the goods or services herein described shall constitute acceptance.
19.1 CUSTOMER CAUSED DELAYS. If the Products and/or Services purchased by Customer hereunder are part of a new system or station implementation project (the “Project”), Honeywell and Customer shall mutually develop a project schedule or timetable (“Project Schedule”). Each party shall use commercially reasonable efforts to perform its obligations in accordance with the Project Schedule, subject to adjustments for reasonable changes or unforeseen events.
Honeywell shall not be liable for any delay, increased cost, or failure to perform to the extent caused by: (i) delays in obtaining parts, materials, equipment, services, or software from any Customer designated supplier; (ii) Customer’s failure to timely provide required information, approvals, access, or resources; or (iii) any other act, omission, or circumstance caused by or within the reasonable control of Customer (each, a “Customer Caused Delay”).
If a Customer Caused Delay occurs, Honeywell shall be entitled to equitable adjustments to the price, delivery dates, milestones, and any other affected terms to account for increased costs, delays, or other adverse impacts incurred by Honeywell. Such adjustments may include, without limitation: (a) increases in material or component costs required to complete the Project; (b) costs associated with buy out or long lead items, including additional costs due to currency exchange rate fluctuations; (c) increases in labor, mobilization, or installation costs; and (d) costs associated with pre building, warehousing, storage, handling, insurance, or preservation of equipment, at Honeywell’s discretion.
If performance of the Project is delayed for a cumulative period exceeding six (6) months beyond the scheduled Project completion date due to Customer Caused Delays, Honeywell may, upon written notice to Customer, (i) suspend performance of the affected Products and/or Services until such delays are remedied, (ii) invoice Customer for reasonable costs incurred as a result of the suspension, and/or (iii) require renegotiation of pricing, schedule, and other affected terms as a condition to resuming performance.
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL STANDARD Ts&Cs Page 17 of 18 Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
42 Item5.
Further, if either (a) the Project is not completed within six (6) months of the scheduled Project completion date due to Customer Caused Delays, or (b) Honeywell and Customer have not mutually agreed upon the required adjustments to price, delivery dates, and other affected terms within sixty (60) days following the expiration or continuation of such delays, Honeywell may, upon written notice, terminate or cancel any affected outstanding Customer Orders, in whole or in part, without liability. Such termination shall be without prejudice to Honeywell’s right to recover amounts due for Products delivered, Services performed, and any reasonable costs incurred as a result of the Customer Caused Delay, including demobilization, storage, and restart costs.
20. SEVERABILITY. In the event any provision or portion of a provision herein is determined to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected and, in lieu of such provision, a provision as similar in terms as may be legal, valid, and enforceable shall be added hereto
21. WAIVER. The failure of either party to insist upon strict performance of any provision of these Terms and Conditions, or to exercise any right provided for herein, shall not be deemed to be a waiver for the future of such provision or right, and no waiver of any provision or right shall affect the right of the waiving party to enforce any provision or right herein.
22. NO JOINT VENTURE. The parties acknowledge that they are independent entities and nothing contained in these Terms and Conditions shall be construed to constitute either party hereto as the partner, joint venturer, employee, agent, servant, franchisee, or other representative of the other party hereto, and neither party has the right to bind or obligate the other, except as otherwise provided herein.
Furthermore, nothing contained in these Terms and Conditions shall be construed to constitute Customer as an exclusive purchaser of the Products in any respect.
THIS QUOTE SUBJECT TO REVIEW FOR ERRORS AND OMISSIONS.
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL STANDARD Ts&Cs Page 18 of 18 Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
43 Item5.
US DIGITAL DESIGNS Author: DWK
by Honeywell Date: 6/25/2026
1150 W Grove Pkwy St #110 Expires: 9/23/2026
Tempe, AZ 85283 Proposal: CA_ESCN014 v2
Quotation to:
City of Escondido, CA
Escondido Fire Department
Project:
G2 Fire Station Alerting System
Additional Equipment for Five (5) Stations
Pricing pursuant to the Master Price Agreement entered into between League of Oregon Cities (LOC) and USDD, and made available to members of the National Purchasing Partners, LLC, dba Public Safety GPO, dba Law Enforcement GPO, and dba NPPgov - Contract #PS20350. More information available at: https://nppgov.com/contract/honeywell/ Escondido Fire Department is a member: M-5709130
William Butler
Sr. Territory Manager
(602)-687-1733
(602)-687-1730
[email protected]
stationalerting.com
This proposal is subject to correction for errors or omissions Responsibility for identifying any errors or omissions in this quote rests with the Customer prior to order placement. *2026 Pricing*
Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
44 Item5.
US DIGITAL DESIGNS Date: 6/25/2026
by Honeywell Expires: 9/23/2026
Proposal: CA_ESCN014 v2
Quote Submitted To:
City of Escondido, CA
Escondido Fire Department
STATION 01
STATION SYSTEM CONTROLLER
Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price ATX G2 ATX Station Controller 1 $ 24,203.40 $ 21,783.06 $ 21,783.06 UPS-STD ATX UPS, Standard 1 $ 1,048.17 $ 943.35 $ 943.35 UPS-WMB Wall-Mount for UPS (Shelf/Bracket) 1 $ 79.57 $ 71.61 $ 71.61
STATION SYSTEM SERVICES
Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price ST-SU Station Configuration & Commissioning 1 $ 3,025.00 $ 2,722.50 $ 2,722.50 ST-PM Station Project Management 1 $ 1,650.00 $ 1,485.00 $ 1,485.00 FREIGHT-CHARGES Shipping 1 $ 339.00 $ 339.00 $ 339.00
STATION SYSTEM WARRANTY & OPTIONAL RECURRING ANNUAL SUPPORT Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price RS-1YR-STD
[STANDARD] 1st Year Warranty & Support - Included with Initial Purchase
Technical phone support Monday through Friday from 08:00 to 17:30 MST, excluding USDD holidays;
Remote access support Monday through Friday from 08:00 to 17:30 MST, excluding USDD holidays;
1.0 $ 2,533.11 $ 2,279.80 No Charge
STATION 01
Equipment Only: $ 22,798.02
System: $ 27,005.52
Shipping: $ 339.00
Service & Support: $ -
Estimated Tax: $ -
Station Subtotal: $ 27,344.52
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL FS01 Page 2 of 13
Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
45 Item5.
US DIGITAL DESIGNS Date: 6/25/2026
by Honeywell Expires: 9/23/2026
Proposal: CA_ESCN014 v2
Quote Submitted To:
City of Escondido, CA
Escondido Fire Department
STATION 02
STATION SYSTEM CONTROLLER
Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price ATX G2 ATX Station Controller 1 $ 24,203.40 $ 21,783.06 $ 21,783.06 UPS-STD ATX UPS, Standard 1 $ 1,048.17 $ 943.35 $ 943.35 UPS-WMB Wall-Mount for UPS (Shelf/Bracket) 1 $ 79.57 $ 71.61 $ 71.61
STATION SYSTEM SERVICES
Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price ST-SU Station Configuration & Commissioning 1 $ 3,025.00 $ 2,722.50 $ 2,722.50 ST-PM Station Project Management 1 $ 1,650.00 $ 1,485.00 $ 1,485.00 FREIGHT-CHARGES Shipping 1 $ 339.00 $ 339.00 $ 339.00
STATION SYSTEM WARRANTY & OPTIONAL RECURRING ANNUAL SUPPORT Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price RS-1YR-STD
[STANDARD] 1st Year Warranty & Support - Included with Initial Purchase
Technical phone support Monday through Friday from 08:00 to 17:30 MST, excluding USDD holidays;
Remote access support Monday through Friday from 08:00 to 17:30 MST, excluding USDD holidays;
1.0 $ 2,533.11 $ 2,279.80 No Charge
STATION 02
Equipment Only: $ 22,798.02
System: $ 27,005.52
Shipping: $ 339.00
Service & Support: $ -
Estimated Tax: $ -
Station Subtotal: $ 27,344.52
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL FS02 Page 3 of 13
Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
46 Item5.
US DIGITAL DESIGNS Date: 6/25/2026
by Honeywell Expires: 9/23/2026
Proposal: CA_ESCN014 v2
Quote Submitted To:
City of Escondido, CA
Escondido Fire Department
STATION 03
STATION SYSTEM CONTROLLER
Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price ATX G2 ATX Station Controller 1 $ 24,203.40 $ 21,783.06 $ 21,783.06 UPS-STD ATX UPS, Standard 1 $ 1,048.17 $ 943.35 $ 943.35 UPS-WMB Wall-Mount for UPS (Shelf/Bracket) 1 $ 79.57 $ 71.61 $ 71.61
STATION SYSTEM SERVICES
Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price ST-SU Station Configuration & Commissioning 1 $ 3,025.00 $ 2,722.50 $ 2,722.50 ST-PM Station Project Management 1 $ 1,650.00 $ 1,485.00 $ 1,485.00 FREIGHT-CHARGES Shipping 1 $ 339.00 $ 339.00 $ 339.00
STATION SYSTEM WARRANTY & OPTIONAL RECURRING ANNUAL SUPPORT Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price RS-1YR-STD
[STANDARD] 1st Year Warranty & Support - Included with Initial Purchase
Technical phone support Monday through Friday from 08:00 to 17:30 MST, excluding USDD holidays;
Remote access support Monday through Friday from 08:00 to 17:30 MST, excluding USDD holidays;
1.0 $ 2,533.11 $ 2,279.80 No Charge
STATION 03
Equipment Only: $ 22,798.02
System: $ 27,005.52
Shipping: $ 339.00
Service & Support: $ -
Estimated Tax: $ -
Station Subtotal: $ 27,344.52
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL FS03 Page 4 of 13
Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
47 Item5.
US DIGITAL DESIGNS Date: 6/25/2026
by Honeywell Expires: 9/23/2026
Proposal: CA_ESCN014 v2
Quote Submitted To:
City of Escondido, CA
Escondido Fire Department
STATION 04
STATION SYSTEM CONTROLLER
Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price ATX G2 ATX Station Controller 1 $ 24,203.40 $ 21,783.06 $ 21,783.06 UPS-STD ATX UPS, Standard 1 $ 1,048.17 $ 943.35 $ 943.35 UPS-WMB Wall-Mount for UPS (Shelf/Bracket) 1 $ 79.57 $ 71.61 $ 71.61
STATION SYSTEM SERVICES
Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price ST-SU Station Configuration & Commissioning 1 $ 3,025.00 $ 2,722.50 $ 2,722.50 ST-PM Station Project Management 1 $ 1,650.00 $ 1,485.00 $ 1,485.00 FREIGHT-CHARGES Shipping 1 $ 339.00 $ 339.00 $ 339.00
STATION SYSTEM WARRANTY & OPTIONAL RECURRING ANNUAL SUPPORT Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price RS-1YR-STD
[STANDARD] 1st Year Warranty & Support - Included with Initial Purchase
Technical phone support Monday through Friday from 08:00 to 17:30 MST, excluding USDD holidays;
Remote access support Monday through Friday from 08:00 to 17:30 MST, excluding USDD holidays;
1.0 $ 2,533.11 $ 2,279.80 No Charge
STATION 04
Equipment Only: $ 22,798.02
System: $ 27,005.52
Shipping: $ 339.00
Service & Support: $ -
Estimated Tax: $ -
Station Subtotal: $ 27,344.52
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL FS04 Page 5 of 13
Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
48 Item5.
US DIGITAL DESIGNS Date: 6/25/2026
by Honeywell Expires: 9/23/2026
Proposal: CA_ESCN014 v2
Quote Submitted To:
City of Escondido, CA
Escondido Fire Department
STATION 05
STATION SYSTEM CONTROLLER
Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price ATX G2 ATX Station Controller 1 $ 24,203.40 $ 21,783.06 $ 21,783.06 UPS-STD ATX UPS, Standard 1 $ 1,048.17 $ 943.35 $ 943.35 UPS-WMB Wall-Mount for UPS (Shelf/Bracket) 1 $ 79.57 $ 71.61 $ 71.61
STATION SYSTEM SERVICES
Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price ST-SU Station Configuration & Commissioning 1 $ 3,025.00 $ 2,722.50 $ 2,722.50 ST-PM Station Project Management 1 $ 1,650.00 $ 1,485.00 $ 1,485.00 FREIGHT-CHARGES Shipping 1 $ 339.00 $ 339.00 $ 339.00
STATION SYSTEM WARRANTY & OPTIONAL RECURRING ANNUAL SUPPORT Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price RS-1YR-STD
[STANDARD] 1st Year Warranty & Support - Included with Initial Purchase
Technical phone support Monday through Friday from 08:00 to 17:30 MST, excluding USDD holidays;
Remote access support Monday through Friday from 08:00 to 17:30 MST, excluding USDD holidays;
1.0 $ 2,533.11 $ 2,279.80 No Charge
STATION 05
Equipment Only: $ 22,798.02
System: $ 27,005.52
Shipping: $ 339.00
Service & Support: $ -
Estimated Tax: $ -
Station Subtotal: $ 27,344.52
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL FS05 Page 6 of 13
Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
49 Item5.
This quote does not include or assume any amounts for sales or use tax. Customer needs to contact its procurement department to determine if sales or use tax is payable, and if so, to make the determination of the amount to be paid. Per our contracts, Customer is responsible for the payment of any sales or use taxes owed from any purchase from USDD.
Warranty & Support Notes:
Customer must elect to choose any coverage they require beyond initial warranty period, or USDD will not be authorized to provide any service or support. Mobile Smart Phone Alerting App and Mapping Services only available to customer while under warranty or elected recurring annual support. Support Agreements subject to change if system design is modified. For additional details, please review current USDD Warranty Statement and Service Agreement. USDD cannot warrant nor support any system configuration that deviates from this specific proposal's documented station system design file number. USDD cannot warrant nor support any system not using USDD-approved UPS Battery Backup. USDD cannot warrant nor support any system not installed by G2 Trained & Certified Installation technician (installer). If customer intends to tie this system into any 3rd-party system or devices, USDD will be unable to warrant or support the system until we've had a chance to review documented engineering assumptions and approve system integrity, performance and reliability expectations.
Station System Installation Notes:
01 - Unless specifically detailed in this proposal, no installation by USDD or it's subcontractors is assumed or provided. 02 - Because these are mission-critical systems, USDD can only warrant and support systems installed by G2 Trained and Certified Contractors. 03 - USDD can source, qualify, train and certify Local Licensed Regional Subcontractors where needed. 04 - Installation warranted by installation contractor - G2 FSAS warranted, serviced and supported by USDD. 05 - Unless specifically detailed in this proposal, installation to be performed during normal working hours. 06 - Unless specifically detailed in this proposal, no permit fees or material charges have been included. 07 - Unless specifically detailed in this proposal, no removal or remediation has been assumed or included. 08 - Unless specifically detailed in this proposal, no bonds of any type (performance, bid) have been assumed, included or budgeted for in this proposal. 09 - USDD FSAS Equipment to be made available by owner to Installation Contractor prior to on-site arrival. 10 - Structural backing for system devices and other millwork (not specifically detailed) by others. 11 - If applicable, Gas Control Shutoff Valve Addendum (to USDD and installation contractor) must be signed prior to installation. 12 - All electrical power, including (but not limited to) raceway, conduit, backboxes, service panels, high-voltage wiring and fixtures by others. 13 - All communications pathway infrastructure (network, radio, etc.) by others unless specifically detailed in this proposal. 14 - USDD cannot warrant nor support any owner-furnished (3rd-Party) system or component we are required to integrate with. USDD cannot warrant nor support any system or component it has not proofed engineering for and has not specifically authorized for use within public safety environments. 15 - Any misuse, unauthorized modification, improper installation, excessive shock, attempted repair, accident, or improper or negligent use, storage, transportation, or handling by any party other than USDD shall render this limited warranty null, void and of no further effect PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL FS05 Page 7 of 13
Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
50 Item5.
US DIGITAL DESIGNS Date: 6/25/2026
by Honeywell Expires: 9/23/2026
Proposal: CA_ESCN014 v2
Quote Submitted To:
City of Escondido, CA
Escondido Fire Department
[UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL PRICES ARE $USD]
STATION 01 SYSTEM: $ 27,344.52
STATION 01 SERVICE & SUPPORT: $ -
STATION 01 ESTIMATED TAX: $ -
STATION 02 SYSTEM: $ 27,344.52
STATION 02 SERVICE & SUPPORT: $ -
STATION 02 ESTIMATED TAX: $ -
STATION 03 SYSTEM: $ 27,344.52
STATION 03 SERVICE & SUPPORT: $ -
STATION 03 ESTIMATED TAX: $ -
STATION 04 SYSTEM: $ 27,344.52
STATION 04 SERVICE & SUPPORT: $ -
STATION 04 ESTIMATED TAX: $ -
STATION 05 SYSTEM: $ 27,344.52
STATION 05 SERVICE & SUPPORT: $ -
STATION 05 ESTIMATED TAX: $ -
US Digital Designs System Total: $ 136,722.60
(TBD By Customer) Customer must elect to choose any coverage they require beyond initial warranty period, or USDD will not be authorized to provide any service or support. Mobile Smart Phone Alerting App and Mapping Services only available to customer while under warranty or elected recurring annual support. Support Agreements subject to change if system design is modified. For additional details, please review current USDD Warranty Statement and Service Agreement.
This quote does not include or assume any amounts for sales or use tax. Customer needs to contact its procurement department to determine if sales or use tax is payable, and if so, to make the determination of the amount to be paid. Per our contracts, Customer is responsible for the payment of any sales or use taxes owed from any purchase from USDD.
Dispatch or station level training is not included in this proposal. Contact your Regional Territory Manager to schedule additional training if needed.
SECTION TOTALS
Notes: Additional Equipment for Five (5) Stations included in this proposal with installation not included.
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL SECTION TOTALS Page 8 of 13 Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
51 Item5.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF HONEYWELL PRODUCT SALES
These terms and conditions of sale (“Terms and Conditions”) are adopted effective January 1, 2023 (the “Terms and Conditions Effective Date”), and supersede all prior versions covering the sale of products and related services (collectively, “Products”, as defined more specifically below) by Honeywell International Inc., through its US Digital Designs group (“Honeywell”). References to “Customer”, “you”, or “your” all pertain to the purchaser of Products. These Terms and Conditions, together with any separate agreement you may have with Honeywell that specifically references these Terms and Conditions (collectively, the “Agreement”) set forth the entire agreement between the parties relating to your purchase of Honeywell Products. The Agreement may only be modified by an authorized representative of each party in a signed writing.
1. ORDERS. Orders (including any revised and follow-on orders) (each, an “Order”) for Honeywell Products are non-cancelable, except as expressly set forth herein, and will be governed by the terms of the Agreement. All Orders are subject to acceptance by Honeywell and shall include the following information: purchase order number; customer’s legal name and billing address; Customer’s shipping address; and a list of the Products and quantities for each different type of Product Customer wishes to order. Honeywell’s acknowledgment of its receipt of an Order shall not constitute acceptance of such Order.
1.1 No Returns. Because of the nature of System and its Products, Honeywell cannot accept returns of Product for refund, credit, exchange or any other purpose. Notwithstanding, defective Products may be returned as provided for under Section 9.4 – Return Material Authorization Process. Customer must thoroughly assess its requirements and specifications prior to ordering.
2. REMITTANCES. All invoices shall be due and payable upon receipt in United States currency, free of exchange or any other charges, or as otherwise agreed in writing by Honeywell.
3. QUOTE PRICING. This proposal expires 90 days after its date. Prices are subject to correction for error. Prices, terms, conditions, and Product or Service specifications are subject to change without notice. Pricing is subject to immediate change upon announcement of Product discontinuance.
4. PAYMENT.
4.1. Invoicing & Payment. Honeywell reserves the right to invoice Customer monthly for all materials delivered. Invoices are due thirty (30) days from the date of the invoice, unless prepayment is required in the quote. If the Customer becomes overdue in any progress payment, Honeywell shall be entitled to suspend further shipments, shall be entitled to interest at the annual rate of 18%, or the maximum amount allowed by law, and shall also be entitled to avail itself of any other legal or equitable remedies. Customer agrees that it will pay and/or reimburse Honeywell for any and all reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs which are incurred by Honeywell in the collection of amounts due and payable hereunder.
4.2. Payment Disputes. Any disputes must be provided to Honeywell as soon as possible and must be accompanied by detailed supporting information. Disputes as to invoices are deemed waived fifteen (15) days following the invoice date. In the event that any portion of an invoice is undisputed, such undisputed amount must be paid by no later than the invoice due date.
4.3. No Set Off. Neither Customer nor any related entities (or representatives or agents thereof) shall attempt to set off or recoup any invoiced amounts or any portion thereof against other amounts that are due or may become due from Honeywell, its parent, affiliates, subsidiaries or other legal entities, business divisions, or units.
4.4. Credit Card Payments. All Honeywell quotes are developed for the Customer with the understanding that any purchase of the Products listed thereon will facilitated using to Honeywell’s standard Purchase Order and Invoice process. If Customer would rather seek to use a Credit Card for purchase, then said order would be subject to a 4% credit card surcharge.
5. SURCHARGES.
5.1. For avoidance of doubt, Orders placed prior to the Terms and Conditions Effective Date which have not been delivered, including those on backlog or which requested delivery more than twelve (12) months from the date of Order, are subject to Surcharges.
5.2. Honeywell will invoice Customer, and Buyer agrees to pay for any Surcharges pursuant to the standard payment terms in these Terms and Conditions. If a dispute arises with respect to Surcharges and that dispute remains open for more than fifteen (15) days, Honeywell may, in its sole discretion, withhold performance or future shipments, or combine any other rights and remedies under this Agreement or permitted by law, until the dispute is resolved. The terms of this Section shall prevail in the event of inconsistency with any other terms in these Terms and Conditions. Any Surcharges, as well as the timing, effectiveness, and method of determination thereof, will be separate from and in addition to any changes to pricing that are affected by any other provisions in these Terms and Conditions.
6. CANCELLATION AND SUSPENSION. Any Order resulting from this proposal is subject to cancellation or instructions to suspend work by the Customer only upon agreement to pay Honeywell for all work in progress, all inventoried or ordered project parts and materials, and all other costs incurred by Honeywell related to the Order.
7. TAXES. Honeywell’s pricing excludes all taxes (including but not limited to sales, use, excise, value-added, and other similar taxes), tariffs and duties (including, but not limited to, amounts imposed upon the Product(s) or bill of material thereof under any Trade Act, including, but not limited to, the Trade Expansion Act, section 232 and the Trade Act of 1974, section 301) and charges (collectively “Taxes”). All Taxes of any kind levied by any federal, state, municipal or other governmental authority, which tax Honeywell is required to collect or pay with respect to the production, sale, or delivery of products sold to Customer, shall be the responsibility of and be invoiced to Customer, unless, at the time of Order placement, Customer furnishes Honeywell with a valid exemption certificate or other documentation sufficient to verify exemption from Taxes, including, but not limited to, a direct pay permit. Customer agrees to pay all such Taxes and further agrees to reimburse Honeywell for any such payments made by Honeywell.
8. SHIPPING/DELIVERY/RISK OF LOSS.
8.1. Delivery Liability. Delivery and shipment dates for Products are estimates only. Deliveries may be made in partial shipments. Honeywell and its affiliated entities are not liable, either directly or indirectly, for delays of carriers or delays in connection with any Force Majeure Event (as defined in Section 17 below), and the estimated delivery date shall be extended accordingly.
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL STANDARD Ts&Cs Page 9 of 13 Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
52 Item5.
8.1.1. Inspection upon Receipt. The Customer must inspect all shipments upon receipt. Any claims for damage, loss, or shortages must be submitted within 10 calendar days of receipt. Honeywell will not be responsible for claims made after this 10-day period.
8.2. Future Delivery and Repricing. Honeywell will schedule delivery in accordance with its standard lead times unless the Order states a later delivery date or the parties otherwise agree in writing. Honeywell will accept Orders with a future ship date of up to eighteen (18) months from the date of the entry of the Order. Customer agrees that in the event an Order is scheduled to be delivered more than six (6) months from the date of the entry of the Order, Honeywell may, in its sole determination and at each six (6) month anniversary of the date of the entry of the Order, adjust the pricing of the Order to conform to the then-current prices of the Honeywell Products included in the Order.
Honeywell will include any repricing in its final invoice related to the Order.
8.3. Storage Fees. If delivery takes place more than six (6) months from the date of the entry of the Order, Customer agrees to pay Honeywell a storage fee (the “Storage Fee”), as set forth in the quote, for each month after six (6) months from the date of the entry of the Order Customer has not taken delivery of the Products in the Order. Honeywell will separately invoice any storage fees owed under this Section at the end of each month for which the storage fees are owed.
8.4. Title & Risk of Loss. Unless otherwise specifically detailed in this quote, delivery terms for Products (excluding software and services) are (i)
EX Works (EXW Incoterms 2020) Honeywell’s point of shipment (“Honeywell Dock”) for all shipments (except that Honeywell is responsible for obtaining any export license), and (ii) F.O.B. Honeywell Dock for all domestic shipments. For shipments from a Honeywell Dock to a Buyer location within the same country, the import/export provisions of the INCOTERMS do not apply. Honeywell shall be responsible for obtaining insurance on each shipment to Customer for the full value of the shipment. Shipment shall be to a single point of delivery.
9. LIMITED WARRANTY. CUSTOMER’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDIES AND HONEYWELL’S SOLE LIABILITY AS TO ANY WARRANTY CLAIM ON ANY PRODUCT SOLD IN CONNECTION WITH THIS QUOTE IS AS SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION. SUCH REMEDIES ARE IN LIEU OF ANY OTHER
LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION OF HONEYWELL, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION FOR DAMAGE, LOSS,
OR INJURY (WHETHER DIRECT, INDIRECT, EXEMPLARY, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL) ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE DELIVERY, USE, OR PERFORMANCE OF THE PRODUCTS. CREDIT, REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT (AT HONEYWELL’S OPTION) IS THE SOLE REMEDY PROVIDED HEREUNDER. NO EXTENSION OF THIS WARRANTY WILL BE BINDING UPON HONEYWELL UNLESS SET FORTH IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY A HONEYWELL AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
9.1 Product Warranty Terms
9.1.1. If Customer is purchasing a new System, i.e., the initial System for Customer, or for a new Dispatch System or Station System. subject to the terms, conditions and limitations contained herein, and unless Honeywell has otherwise provided an alternative written warranty (in which case the terms of such warranty will control), Honeywell warrants and guarantees its products will be free from defects in workmanship and materials (collectively, “Defects”) for 12 months from Customer’s “Commissioning Date” (“Warranty Period”). This limited warranty does not cover defects caused by normal wear and tear or maintenance. For purposes of subparagraph, “Commissioning Date” shall mean means the date on which an authorized Honeywell technician has inspected and approved installations, confirmed that all connections and start-up configurations are properly working, and confirming the System can send and receive alerts through the configured communication pathways.
9.1.2. If Customer is purchasing Products or services to add to or as replacement Products for an existing System, subject to the terms, conditions and limitations contained herein, and unless Honeywell has otherwise provided an alternative written warranty (in which case the terms of such warranty will control), Honeywell warrants and guarantees its products for 12 months from the day of shipment to Customer (“Warranty Period”). This limited warranty does not cover defects caused by normal wear and tear or maintenance.
9.2. Product Defects. If a Defect with a Product arises and a valid claim is made within the Warranty Period, Customer shall initiate the RMA process as described below. Upon approval, Honeywell at its option, will either (1) repair the Product defect at no charge, using new parts or parts equivalent to new in performance and reliability or (2) exchange the Product with a Product that is new or equivalent to new in performance and reliability and is at least functionally equivalent to the original Product. Any replacement Product or part, including a userinstallable part that has been installed in accordance with instructions provided by Honeywell, shall remain under warranty during the Warranty Period or for ninety (90) days from the date of repair, whichever is longer. When a Product or part is exchanged, any replacement item becomes the Customer’s property and the replaced item becomes the property of Honeywell. Parts provided by Honeywell in fulfillment of its warranty obligation must be used in the same Honeywell Fire Station Alerting System for which the warranty claim is made.
9.3. Procedure for Warranty Claims.
9.3.1. Prior to making a Warranty claim, Customer is encouraged to review Honeywell’s online help resources. Thereafter, to make a valid claim hereunder, Customer must contact Honeywell technical support and describe the problem or defect with specificity. The first such contact must occur during the Warranty Period. Honeywell’s technical support contact information can be found on Honeywell’s web site at https://buildings.honeywell.com/us/en/brands/our-brands/usdd. Customer must use its best efforts to assist in diagnosing defects, follow Honeywell’s technical instructions, and fully cooperate in the diagnostic process. Failure to do so shall relieve Honeywell of any further obligation hereunder.
9.3.2. If a defect with the Hardware arises and Customer makes a valid Support Service Request within the Warranty Period, Customer shall initiate the RMA process as described below. Upon approval, Honeywell will cause shipment of a replacement Hardware component to Customer prior to the defective Hardware component being returned to Honeywell for repair. The replacement Hardware will be new or equivalent to new in performance and reliability and at least functionally equivalent to the original Hardware. When Hardware is exchanged, any replacement item becomes the Customer’s property and the replaced item becomes the property of Honeywell. Replaced Hardware provided by Honeywell in fulfillment of the Support Services must be used in the System to which this Agreement applies.
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL STANDARD Ts&Cs Page 10 of 13 Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
53 Item5.
9.4. Return Material Authorization Process. If a Customer makes a claim for an advanced replacement of a Hardware component during the Warranty Period, Customer must initiate an RMA request. As part of this RMA process, the Customer shall provide Honeywell with the Hardware, model, serial number, and a description of the Hardware’s failure to initiate the RMA process. Upon Honeywell’s issuance of the RMA, Honeywell will send the replacement Hardware, shipped postage paid, ground shipping, to the address provided by Customer. RMA requests approved between 12:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Mountain Standard Time are shipped on the same business day. After 2:00 p.m.
Mountain Standard Time, the replacement Hardware will be shipped on the next business day. All RMA requests are processed on the business day on which the request was received, excluding holidays. Included with the shipped package will be return shipment instructions and a pre-paid return shipping label for the Hardware that the Customer is returning. The original Hardware must be returned in the shipping box provided by Honeywell. No goods will be accepted for exchange or return without a pre-approved RMA number, nor will goods which have not been properly packaged in Honeywell’s shipping box, as proper packaging ensures that goods are not damaged during the shipping process. The original Hardware must be shipped back within 10 days of receiving the replacement Hardware. Failure to return the original Hardware or failure to return the original Hardware in an appropriate manner will cause Customer to incur a replacement charge equal to full market value of the replacement Hardware.
9.5. No Fault Found. Customer understands that this fee is intended to discourage return of Products prior to proper troubleshooting or return because the product is “old.” Product returns will not be allowed if, upon examination of the returned Product, it is determined that the Product was subjected to accident, misuse, neglect, alteration, improper installation, unauthorized repair, improper testing, or poor packaging upon return. In such event, Honeywell shall invoice Customer for the full market value of the replacement Product.
9.6. WARRANTY EXCLUSIONS & DISCLAIMERS.
9.6.1. Honeywell does not warrant that the operation of its Products or any related peripherals will be uninterrupted or error-free. Honeywell further does not warrant nor support any system configuration that deviates from this specific quote’s documented station system design file number.
9.6.2. Honeywell does not warrant or support any system not installed by G2 Trained & Certified Installation technician (installer). If Customer intends to tie this system into any 3rd-party system or devices, Honeywell will be unable to warrant or support the Products unless Honeywell has had a chance to review documented engineering assumptions and approve system integrity, performance, and reliability expectations
9.6.3. Honeywell is not responsible for damage arising from Customer’s failure to follow instructions relating to the use of the Products.
This Warranty does not apply to any Products, including the hardware or software, not used for its intended purpose.
9.6.4. Honeywell cannot warrant nor support any system not using Honeywell-approved Uninterruptable Power Supply Battery Backup.
This Warranty does not apply to monitors or televisions manufactured by third parties. Repair or replacement of such components shall be subject exclusively to the manufacturer’s warranty, if any. Recovery and reinstallation of hardware and user data (including passwords) are not covered under this Warranty.
9.6.5. This Warranty does not apply: (a) to consumable parts, such as batteries, unless damage has occurred due to a defect in materials or workmanship; (b) to cosmetic damage, including but not limited to scratches, dents and broken plastic on ports; (c) to damage caused by use with non-Honeywell products; (d) to damage caused by accident, abuse, misuse, flood, lightning, fire, earthquake or other external causes; (e) to damage caused by operating the Product outside the permitted or intended uses described by Honeywell; (f) to damage or failure caused by installation or service (including upgrades and expansions) performed by anyone who is not a representative of Honeywell or a Honeywell authorized installer or service provider; (g) to a Product or part that has been modified to alter functionality or capability without the written permission of Honeywell; (h) to Software (as defined below); (i) to any other damage caused by an event or action outside of Honeywell’s control, including, without limitation, Customer’s failure to apply required or recommended updates or patches to any Software or Product; or (h) if any serial number has been removed or defaced.
9.6.6. The System is designed to generate and transmit signal-based outputs solely to supported third-party integrations (e.g., gas shutoff systems, apparatus bay doors, and similar connected equipment).
9.6.7. Customer acknowledges and agrees that the System’s functionality is strictly limited to the initiation and transmission of such signals. The System does not control, monitor, verify, or guarantee the execution, performance, or outcome of any action by third-party systems, devices, or integrations.
9.6.8. USDD by Honeywell warrants and supports only the transmission of signals from the System itself. Any actions taken (or not taken) by third-party systems in response to such signals are outside of USDD by Honeywell's control and responsibility.
9.6.9. USDD by Honeywell shall have no responsibility or liability for:
- The failure, delay, malfunction, or improper operation of any third-party system or device; - Any damages or losses arising from the actions or inactions of third-party integrations; - Any uses of the System beyond its intended signal-transmission function.
9.6.10. All other functions, uses, or integrations not expressly supported by the System are outside the scope of this Agreement and are not warranted or supported in any manner.
10. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY. TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THE LIMITED WARRANTY IN SECTION 9 OF THESE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS AND ANY OTHER REMEDIES SET FORTH ABOVE ARE EXCLUSIVE AND IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, REMEDIES AND CONDITIONS, WHETHER ORAL OR WRITTEN, STATUTORY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. AS PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW,
HONEYWELL SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL STATUTORY OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION,
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND WARRANTIES AGAINST HIDDEN OR LATENT DEFECTS. If Honeywell cannot lawfully disclaim statutory or implied warranties, then to the extent permitted by law, all such warranties shall be limited in duration to the duration of this express Warranty and to repair or replacement service as determined by Honeywell in its sole discretion. No reseller, agent, or employee is authorized to make any modification, extension, or addition to this Warranty. If any term is held to be illegal or unenforceable, the legality or enforceability of the remaining terms shall not be affected or impaired.
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL STANDARD Ts&Cs Page 11 of 13 Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
54 Item5.
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THE LIMITED WARRANTY IN SECTION 9 OF THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, AND TO THE EXTENT
PERMITTED BY LAW, HONEYWELL IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ANY BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONDITION, OR UNDER ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF USE; LOSS OF REVENUE; LOSS OF THE USE OF MONEY; LOSS OF ANTICIPATED SAVINGS; LOSS OF GOODWILL; LOSS OF REPUTATION; AND LOSS OF, DAMAGE TO OR CORRUPTION OF DATA. HONEYWELL IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR
ANY INDIRECT LOSS OR DAMAGE HOWSOEVER CAUSED, INCLUDING THE REPLACEMENT OF EQUIPMENT AND PROPERTY, ANY
COSTS OF RECOVERING PROGRAMMING OR REPRODUCING ANY PROGRAM OR DATA STORED OR USED WITH HONEYWELL PRODUCTS, AND ANY FAILURE TO MAINTAIN THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF DATA STORED ON THE PRODUCT.
ALL PRODUCT CLAIMS ARE LIMITED TO THOSE EXCLUSIVE REMEDIES SET FORTH IN THE LIMITED WARRANTY IN SECTION 9 OF THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS. HONEYWELL’S AGGREGATE LIABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH THEREWITH SHALL NOT EXCEED THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE PRODUCTS PAID BY CUSTOMER TO HONEYWELL FOR THE PRODUCTS GIVING RISE TO THE CLAIM.
Honeywell disclaims any representation that it will be able to repair any Hardware under this Warranty or make a product exchange without risk to or loss of the programs or data stored thereon.
11. SERVICE AGREEMENT. The Product being purchased hereunder is not subject to any post-Warranty service agreement or maintenance program unless specifically contracted for between Honeywell and Customer. Honeywell offers a comprehensive post-Warranty Service Agreement at additional cost. Customer should contact Honeywell regarding its Service Agreement and costs associated therewith.
12. SOFTWARE PRODUCTS. All software Products delivered by Honeywell to Customer or for which Honeywell provides access, including, without limitation, Honeywell’s mobile application software and Products with embedded software or firmware (collectively, “Software”) are not sold and are licensed. At all times that Customer is in compliance with the terms of these Terms and Conditions and any other agreement between the parties, Customer shall have a non-exclusive, non-transferable, fully paid license to use the Software, but only in conjunction with the Products provided by Honeywell and Customer’s fire station alerting system (the “License”). The terms of such Software License may be set forth in a separate software license agreement or end user license agreement provided by Honeywell with such Software. In no event shall Customer have any right to (or authorize or allow any third party to) distribute, sell, lend, rent, transfer, or convey the Software; grant any sublicense, lease, or other rights in the Software; decompile, disassemble, reverse engineer, or otherwise attempt to reconstruct, identify, or discover any source code, underlying user interface architecture or techniques, or algorithms of the Software by any means; or take any action that would cause the Software or any portion of it to be placed in the public domain. In the event of a conflict between the terms of any Software license terms provided upon download or purchase a purchase and these Terms and Conditions, the relevant Software license terms shall control solely with respect to such Software.
13. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Customer hereby agrees and acknowledges that Honeywell owns all rights, title, and interest in and to the Intellectual Property (as defined below). Customer agrees to not remove, obscure, or alter Honeywell’s or any third party's copyright notice, trademarks, or other proprietary rights notices affixed to or contained within or accessed in conjunction with or through Honeywell’s Product (as defined below). Nothing herein shall be deemed to give, transfer, or convey to Customer any rights in the Intellectual Property other than the License, as set forth above. For purposes of this Section, "Intellectual Property" means any and all rights of Honeywell related to Honeywell’s Products existing from time to time under patent law, copyright law, trade secret law, trademark law, unfair competition law, and any and all other proprietary rights, and any and all derivative works, work product, applications, renewals, extensions and restorations thereof, now or hereafter in force and effective worldwide.
14. FIRST ARRIVING MOBILE APP. If Customer wishes to use its First Arriving Mobile App (“First Arriving”) with the System being acquired from Honeywell, Customer agrees to the following:
14.1 Customer acknowledges that it bears full responsibility for complying with applicable law and regulations, including all privacy requirements, and for providing any required notices and obtaining all required consents in order for Honeywell to transmit alert to First Arriving. Customer also acknowledges that Honeywell bears no responsibility for any service failure by First Arriving, nor is Honeywell responsible for supporting First Arriving’s services or platform. Honeywell is offering to transmit alerts that are transmitted through its Honeywell service to First Arriving merely as a courtesy to Customer.
14.2 IN NO EVENT SHALL HONEYWELL BE LIABLE TO CUSTOMER FOR ANY CLAIMS, WHETHER ARISING FROM ANY INDEMNIFICATION
OBLIGATION HONEYWELL MAY HAVE OR THAT ARISE FROM A BREACH OF CONTRACT, WARRANTY, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE),
OPERATION OF LAW, OR OTHERWISE, AND EVEN IF THE PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF THE LIABILITY OR THE
LIABILITY IS OTHEWISE FORESEEABLE, FOR ANY LOST PROFITS OR REVENUE, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDEIRECT, CONSEQUETIAL,
EXEMPLARY, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES OF ANY KIND (INCLUDING ALL DAMAGES DUE TO BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, LOSS OR CORRUPTION OF DATA, OR LOST USE OF ANY PROPERTY OR CAPITAL) THAT RELATE TO OR ARISE OUT OF HONEYWELL’S TRANSMISSION OF ALERTS TO FIRST ARRIVING. FURTHER HONEYWELL’S AGGREGATE LIABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH ITS
TRANSMISSION OF ALERTS TO FIRST ARRIVING WILL BE LIMITED TO THE GREATER OF THE AMOUNT PAID BY CUSTOMER TO HONEYWELL IN ORDER FOR HONEYWELL TO TRANSMIT ALERTS TO FIRST ARRIVING OR $100. 15 REMOTE ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM.
15.1 Remote Access. Honeywell requires remote network access to the Customer’s Products through Secure Shell (SSH) to perform implementation and support tasks under this Agreement. To enable remote network access, the Customer will provide Honeywell support personnel VPN or similar remote network access to the Products for Honeywell support personnel (“Customer Support”) to effectively troubleshoot critical or complex problems and to expedite resolution of such issues. Remote network access is also used to install core software upgrades and customized software. Honeywell will only access Customer’s Products with the knowledge and consent of Customer. Honeywell will not access any other systems or data.
15.2. Alternative to Network Access. If the Customer elects not to provide remote network access to the Products, then Honeywell may not be able to perform some support functions. Customers that elect not to routinely provide network access may temporarily reinstate this access to allow Honeywell to perform the above services. The following services will not be performed without this access: Product software upgrades; Product software customization; Network troubleshooting assistance including packet capture and network monitoring on Honeywell devices; Detailed log analysis; Bulk updates to certain Product database tables; Troubleshooting that requires low-level system access or large file transfer.
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL STANDARD Ts&Cs Page 12 of 13 Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
55 Item5.
15.3. Timely Access. Customers much ensure that remote access is available prior to notifying Honeywell of a support request. In the event that the Customer is unable to provide remote access, Honeywell will not be required to provide support outside those tasks that do not require remote access, and any corresponding resolution response times will not apply.
15.4. Physical Security Tokens. Honeywell has multiple software engineers that provide after-hours support and these engineers do not typically take security tokens from the Honeywell office. If the customer requires the use of physical security tokens, this may delay after hours service.
16. GOVERNING LAW. This proposal and any contract or agreement resulting therefrom will be governed by and construed according to the laws of the State of Arizona without regard to its conflicts of law principles.
17. DISPUTE RESOLUTION/ARBITRATION. Before either Honeywell or Customer initiate any dispute resolution process related to the Agreement, they must schedule an executive resolution conference to be held within thirty (30) days of receipt of the other party’s written request. The conference must be attended by at least one executive from each party. At the conference, each party will present its view of the dispute in detail and the executives will enter into good faith negotiations in an attempt to resolve the dispute. If the dispute is not resolved within fifteen (15) days of the end of the conference or if one party refuses to attend the executive resolution conference, then Honeywell and Customer further agree that any remaining dispute between them arising out of or relating to this Agreement will be settled by litigation with jurisdiction being Maricopa County, Arizona.
18. FORCE MAJEURE. Except for Customer’s duty to pay sums due hereunder, neither party will be liable to the other for any failure to meet its obligations due to any Force Majeure Event. As used herein, a “Force Majeure Event” is one that is beyond the reasonable control of the non-performing party and may include, but is not limited to: (a) delays or refusals to grant an export license or the suspension or revocation thereof, (b) embargoes, blockages, seizure or freeze of assets, or any other acts of any government that would limit a party’s ability to perform the Contract, (c) fires, earthquakes, floods, tropical storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, severe weather conditions, or any other acts of God, (d) quarantines, pandemics, or regional medical crises, (e) labor strikes, lockouts, or pandemic worker shortages, (f) riots, strife, insurrection, civil disobedience, landowner disturbances, armed conflict, terrorism or war, declared or not (or impending threat of any of the foregoing, if such threat might reasonably be expected to cause injury to people or property), and (g) shortages or inability to obtain materials or components. The party unable to fulfill its obligations due to Force Majeure will promptly (i) Notify the other in writing of the reasons for its failure to fulfill its obligations and the effect of such failure; and (ii) Use all reasonable efforts to avoid or remove the cause and perform its obligations.
If a Force Majeure Event results in a delay, then the date of performance will be extended by the period of time that the non-performing party is actually delayed or for any other period as the parties may agree in writing. In the event that a Force Majeure Event is ongoing for a period of time which is sixty (60) days or longer, Honeywell may provide notice to Customer that it is cancelling its Order.
19. ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS. This proposal shall become a binding contract between the Customer and Honeywell when accepted in writing by the Customer. Without limiting the foregoing, issuance by Customer of a purchase order to Honeywell for any of the goods or services herein described shall constitute acceptance.
19.1 CUSTOMER CAUSED DELAYS. If the Products and/or Services purchased by Customer hereunder are part of a new system or station implementation project (the “Project”), Honeywell and Customer shall mutually develop a project schedule or timetable (“Project Schedule”). Each party shall use commercially reasonable efforts to perform its obligations in accordance with the Project Schedule, subject to adjustments for reasonable changes or unforeseen events.
Honeywell shall not be liable for any delay, increased cost, or failure to perform to the extent caused by: (i) delays in obtaining parts, materials, equipment, services, or software from any Customer designated supplier; (ii) Customer’s failure to timely provide required information, approvals, access, or resources; or (iii) any other act, omission, or circumstance caused by or within the reasonable control of Customer (each, a “Customer Caused Delay”).
If a Customer Caused Delay occurs, Honeywell shall be entitled to equitable adjustments to the price, delivery dates, milestones, and any other affected terms to account for increased costs, delays, or other adverse impacts incurred by Honeywell. Such adjustments may include, without limitation: (a) increases in material or component costs required to complete the Project; (b) costs associated with buy out or long lead items, including additional costs due to currency exchange rate fluctuations; (c) increases in labor, mobilization, or installation costs; and (d) costs associated with pre building, warehousing, storage, handling, insurance, or preservation of equipment, at Honeywell’s discretion.
If performance of the Project is delayed for a cumulative period exceeding six (6) months beyond the scheduled Project completion date due to Customer Caused Delays, Honeywell may, upon written notice to Customer, (i) suspend performance of the affected Products and/or Services until such delays are remedied, (ii) invoice Customer for reasonable costs incurred as a result of the suspension, and/or (iii) require renegotiation of pricing, schedule, and other affected terms as a condition to resuming performance.
Further, if either (a) the Project is not completed within six (6) months of the scheduled Project completion date due to Customer Caused Delays, or (b) Honeywell and Customer have not mutually agreed upon the required adjustments to price, delivery dates, and other affected terms within sixty (60) days following the expiration or continuation of such delays, Honeywell may, upon written notice, terminate or cancel any affected outstanding Customer Orders, in whole or in part, without liability. Such termination shall be without prejudice to Honeywell’s right to recover amounts due for Products delivered, Services performed, and any reasonable costs incurred as a result of the Customer Caused Delay, including demobilization, storage, and restart costs.
20. SEVERABILITY. In the event any provision or portion of a provision herein is determined to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected and, in lieu of such provision, a provision as similar in terms as may be legal, valid, and enforceable shall be added hereto
21. WAIVER. The failure of either party to insist upon strict performance of any provision of these Terms and Conditions, or to exercise any right provided for herein, shall not be deemed to be a waiver for the future of such provision or right, and no waiver of any provision or right shall affect the right of the waiving party to enforce any provision or right herein.
22. NO JOINT VENTURE. The parties acknowledge that they are independent entities and nothing contained in these Terms and Conditions shall be construed to constitute either party hereto as the partner, joint venturer, employee, agent, servant, franchisee, or other representative of the other party hereto, and neither party has the right to bind or obligate the other, except as otherwise provided herein.
Furthermore, nothing contained in these Terms and Conditions shall be construed to constitute Customer as an exclusive purchaser of the Products in any respect.
THIS QUOTE SUBJECT TO REVIEW FOR ERRORS AND OMISSIONS.
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL STANDARD Ts&Cs Page 13 of 13 Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
56 Item5.
US DIGITAL DESIGNS Author: DWK
by Honeywell Date: 6/25/2026
1150 W Grove Pkwy St #110 Expires: 9/23/2026
Tempe, AZ 85283 Proposal: CA_ESCN015 v2
Quotation to:
City of Escondido, CA
Escondido Fire Department
Project:
G2 Fire Station Alerting System
Additional Equipment for Seven (7) Stations
Pricing pursuant to the Master Price Agreement entered into between League of Oregon Cities (LOC) and USDD, and made available to members of the National Purchasing Partners, LLC, dba Public Safety GPO, dba Law Enforcement GPO, and dba NPPgov - Contract #PS20350. More information available at: https://nppgov.com/contract/honeywell/ Escondido Fire Department is a member: M-5709130
William Butler
Sr. Territory Manager
(602)-687-1733
(602)-687-1730
[email protected]
stationalerting.com
This proposal is subject to correction for errors or omissions Responsibility for identifying any errors or omissions in this quote rests with the Customer prior to order placement. *2026 Pricing*
Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
57 Item5.
US DIGITAL DESIGNS Date: 6/25/2026
by Honeywell Expires: 9/23/2026
Proposal: CA_ESCN015 v2
Quote Submitted To:
City of Escondido, CA
Escondido Fire Department
COMPONENTS
STATION SYSTEM CONTROLLER
Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price ATX G2 ATX Station Controller 2 $ 24,203.40 $ 21,783.06 $ 43,566.12 UPS-STD ATX UPS, Standard 2 $ 1,048.17 $ 943.35 $ 1,886.70 UPS-WMB Wall-Mount for UPS (Shelf/Bracket) 2 $ 79.57 $ 71.61 $ 143.22
STATION SYSTEM PERIPHERAL COMPONENTS
Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price MR-2 G2 Message Remote 2 20 $ 1,841.44 $ 1,657.29 $ 33,145.80 USDD-LCD-SIGN G2 LCD Message Sign 12 $ 3,150.00 $ 2,835.00 $ 34,020.00
STATION SYSTEM SERVICES
Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price ST-SU Station Configuration & Commissioning 2 $ 3,025.00 $ 2,722.50 $ 5,445.00 ST-PM Station Project Management 2 $ 1,650.00 $ 1,485.00 $ 2,970.00 FREIGHT-CHARGES Shipping 1 $ 1,382.00 $ 1,382.00 $ 1,382.00
STATION SYSTEM WARRANTY & OPTIONAL RECURRING ANNUAL SUPPORT Part No. Description Quantity US List Unit Unit Price Extended Price RS-1YR-STD
[STANDARD] 1st Year Warranty & Support - Included with Initial Purchase
Technical phone support Monday through Friday from 08:00 to 17:30 MST, excluding USDD holidays;
Remote access support Monday through Friday from 08:00 to 17:30 MST, excluding USDD holidays;
1.0 $ 12,529.09 $ 11,276.18 No Charge
COMPONENTS
Equipment Only: $ 112,761.84
System: $ 121,176.84
Shipping: $ 1,382.00
Service & Support: $ -
Estimated Tax: $ -
Station Subtotal: $ 122,558.84
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL COMPONENTS Page 2 of 9
Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
58 Item5.
This quote does not include or assume any amounts for sales or use tax. Customer needs to contact its procurement department to determine if sales or use tax is payable, and if so, to make the determination of the amount to be paid. Per our contracts, Customer is responsible for the payment of any sales or use taxes owed from any purchase from USDD.
Warranty & Support Notes:
Customer must elect to choose any coverage they require beyond initial warranty period, or USDD will not be authorized to provide any service or support. Mobile Smart Phone Alerting App and Mapping Services only available to customer while under warranty or elected recurring annual support. Support Agreements subject to change if system design is modified. For additional details, please review current USDD Warranty Statement and Service Agreement. USDD cannot warrant nor support any system configuration that deviates from this specific proposal's documented station system design file number. USDD cannot warrant nor support any system not using USDD-approved UPS Battery Backup. USDD cannot warrant nor support any system not installed by G2 Trained & Certified Installation technician (installer). If customer intends to tie this system into any 3rdparty system or devices, USDD will be unable to warrant or support the system until we've had a chance to review documented engineering assumptions and approve system integrity, performance and reliability expectations.
Station System Installation Notes:
01 - Unless specifically detailed in this proposal, no installation by USDD or it's subcontractors is assumed or provided. 02 - Because these are mission-critical systems, USDD can only warrant and support systems installed by G2 Trained and Certified Contractors. 03 - USDD can source, qualify, train and certify Local Licensed Regional Subcontractors where needed. 04 - Installation warranted by installation contractor - G2 FSAS warranted, serviced and supported by USDD. 05 - Unless specifically detailed in this proposal, installation to be performed during normal working hours. 06 - Unless specifically detailed in this proposal, no permit fees or material charges have been included. 07 - Unless specifically detailed in this proposal, no removal or remediation has been assumed or included. 08 - Unless specifically detailed in this proposal, no bonds of any type (performance, bid) have been assumed, included or budgeted for in this proposal. 09 - USDD FSAS Equipment to be made available by owner to Installation Contractor prior to on-site arrival. 10 - Structural backing for system devices and other millwork (not specifically detailed) by others. 11 - If applicable, Gas Control Shutoff Valve Addendum (to USDD and installation contractor) must be signed prior to installation. 12 - All electrical power, including (but not limited to) raceway, conduit, backboxes, service panels, high-voltage wiring and fixtures by others. 13 - All communications pathway infrastructure (network, radio, etc.) by others unless specifically detailed in this proposal. 14 - USDD cannot warrant nor support any owner-furnished (3rd-Party) system or component we are required to integrate with. USDD cannot warrant nor support any system or component it has not proofed engineering for and has not specifically authorized for use within public safety environments. 15 - Any misuse, unauthorized modification, improper installation, excessive shock, attempted repair, accident, or improper or negligent use, storage, transportation, or handling by any party other than USDD shall render this limited warranty null, void and of no further effect PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL COMPONENTS Page 3 of 9
Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
59 Item5.
US DIGITAL DESIGNS Date: 6/25/2026
by Honeywell Expires: 9/23/2026
Proposal: CA_ESCN015 v2
Quote Submitted To:
City of Escondido, CA
Escondido Fire Department
[UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL PRICES ARE $USD]
COMPONENTS: $ 122,558.84
COMPONENTS SERVICE & SUPPORT: $ -
COMPONENTS ESTIMATED TAX: $ -
US Digital Designs System Total: $ 122,558.84
(TBD By Customer) Customer must elect to choose any coverage they require beyond initial warranty period, or USDD will not be authorized to provide any service or support. Mobile Smart Phone Alerting App and Mapping Services only available to customer while under warranty or elected recurring annual support. Support Agreements subject to change if system design is modified. For additional details, please review current USDD Warranty Statement and Service Agreement.
This quote does not include or assume any amounts for sales or use tax. Customer needs to contact its procurement department to determine if sales or use tax is payable, and if so, to make the determination of the amount to be paid. Per our contracts, Customer is responsible for the payment of any sales or use taxes owed from any purchase from USDD.
Dispatch or station level training is not included in this proposal. Contact your Regional Territory Manager to schedule additional training if needed.
SECTION TOTALS
Notes: Additional Equipment for seven (7) Stations included in this proposal with installation not included.
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL SECTION TOTALS Page 4 of 9 Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
60 Item5.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF HONEYWELL PRODUCT SALES
These terms and conditions of sale (“Terms and Conditions”) are adopted effective January 1, 2023 (the “Terms and Conditions Effective Date”), and supersede all prior versions covering the sale of products and related services (collectively, “Products”, as defined more specifically below) by Honeywell International Inc., through its US Digital Designs group (“Honeywell”). References to “Customer”, “you”, or “your” all pertain to the purchaser of Products. These Terms and Conditions, together with any separate agreement you may have with Honeywell that specifically references these Terms and Conditions (collectively, the “Agreement”) set forth the entire agreement between the parties relating to your purchase of Honeywell Products. The Agreement may only be modified by an authorized representative of each party in a signed writing.
1. ORDERS. Orders (including any revised and follow-on orders) (each, an “Order”) for Honeywell Products are non-cancelable, except as expressly set forth herein, and will be governed by the terms of the Agreement. All Orders are subject to acceptance by Honeywell and shall include the following information: purchase order number; customer’s legal name and billing address; Customer’s shipping address; and a list of the Products and quantities for each different type of Product Customer wishes to order. Honeywell’s acknowledgment of its receipt of an Order shall not constitute acceptance of such Order.
1.1 No Returns. Because of the nature of System and its Products, Honeywell cannot accept returns of Product for refund, credit, exchange or any other purpose. Notwithstanding, defective Products may be returned as provided for under Section 9.4 – Return Material Authorization Process. Customer must thoroughly assess its requirements and specifications prior to ordering.
2. REMITTANCES. All invoices shall be due and payable upon receipt in United States currency, free of exchange or any other charges, or as otherwise agreed in writing by Honeywell.
3. QUOTE PRICING. This proposal expires 90 days after its date. Prices are subject to correction for error. Prices, terms, conditions, and Product or Service specifications are subject to change without notice. Pricing is subject to immediate change upon announcement of Product discontinuance.
4. PAYMENT.
4.1. Invoicing & Payment. Honeywell reserves the right to invoice Customer monthly for all materials delivered. Invoices are due thirty (30) days from the date of the invoice, unless prepayment is required in the quote. If the Customer becomes overdue in any progress payment, Honeywell shall be entitled to suspend further shipments, shall be entitled to interest at the annual rate of 18%, or the maximum amount allowed by law, and shall also be entitled to avail itself of any other legal or equitable remedies. Customer agrees that it will pay and/or reimburse Honeywell for any and all reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs which are incurred by Honeywell in the collection of amounts due and payable hereunder.
4.2. Payment Disputes. Any disputes must be provided to Honeywell as soon as possible and must be accompanied by detailed supporting information. Disputes as to invoices are deemed waived fifteen (15) days following the invoice date. In the event that any portion of an invoice is undisputed, such undisputed amount must be paid by no later than the invoice due date.
4.3. No Set Off. Neither Customer nor any related entities (or representatives or agents thereof) shall attempt to set off or recoup any invoiced amounts or any portion thereof against other amounts that are due or may become due from Honeywell, its parent, affiliates, subsidiaries or other legal entities, business divisions, or units.
4.4. Credit Card Payments. All Honeywell quotes are developed for the Customer with the understanding that any purchase of the Products listed thereon will facilitated using to Honeywell’s standard Purchase Order and Invoice process. If Customer would rather seek to use a Credit Card for purchase, then said order would be subject to a 4% credit card surcharge.
5. SURCHARGES.
5.1. For avoidance of doubt, Orders placed prior to the Terms and Conditions Effective Date which have not been delivered, including those on backlog or which requested delivery more than twelve (12) months from the date of Order, are subject to Surcharges.
5.2. Honeywell will invoice Customer, and Buyer agrees to pay for any Surcharges pursuant to the standard payment terms in these Terms and Conditions. If a dispute arises with respect to Surcharges and that dispute remains open for more than fifteen (15) days, Honeywell may, in its sole discretion, withhold performance or future shipments, or combine any other rights and remedies under this Agreement or permitted by law, until the dispute is resolved. The terms of this Section shall prevail in the event of inconsistency with any other terms in these Terms and Conditions. Any Surcharges, as well as the timing, effectiveness, and method of determination thereof, will be separate from and in addition to any changes to pricing that are affected by any other provisions in these Terms and Conditions.
6. CANCELLATION AND SUSPENSION. Any Order resulting from this proposal is subject to cancellation or instructions to suspend work by the Customer only upon agreement to pay Honeywell for all work in progress, all inventoried or ordered project parts and materials, and all other costs incurred by Honeywell related to the Order.
7. TAXES. Honeywell’s pricing excludes all taxes (including but not limited to sales, use, excise, value-added, and other similar taxes), tariffs and duties (including, but not limited to, amounts imposed upon the Product(s) or bill of material thereof under any Trade Act, including, but not limited to, the Trade Expansion Act, section 232 and the Trade Act of 1974, section 301) and charges (collectively “Taxes”). All Taxes of any kind levied by any federal, state, municipal or other governmental authority, which tax Honeywell is required to collect or pay with respect to the production, sale, or delivery of products sold to Customer, shall be the responsibility of and be invoiced to Customer, unless, at the time of Order placement, Customer furnishes Honeywell with a valid exemption certificate or other documentation sufficient to verify exemption from Taxes, including, but not limited to, a direct pay permit. Customer agrees to pay all such Taxes and further agrees to reimburse Honeywell for any such payments made by Honeywell.
8. SHIPPING/DELIVERY/RISK OF LOSS.
8.1. Delivery Liability. Delivery and shipment dates for Products are estimates only. Deliveries may be made in partial shipments. Honeywell and its affiliated entities are not liable, either directly or indirectly, for delays of carriers or delays in connection with any Force Majeure Event (as defined in Section 17 below), and the estimated delivery date shall be extended accordingly.
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL STANDARD Ts&Cs Page 5 of 9 Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
61 Item5.
8.1.1. Inspection upon Receipt. The Customer must inspect all shipments upon receipt. Any claims for damage, loss, or shortages must be submitted within 10 calendar days of receipt. Honeywell will not be responsible for claims made after this 10-day period.
8.2. Future Delivery and Repricing. Honeywell will schedule delivery in accordance with its standard lead times unless the Order states a later delivery date or the parties otherwise agree in writing. Honeywell will accept Orders with a future ship date of up to eighteen (18) months from the date of the entry of the Order. Customer agrees that in the event an Order is scheduled to be delivered more than six (6) months from the date of the entry of the Order, Honeywell may, in its sole determination and at each six (6) month anniversary of the date of the entry of the Order, adjust the pricing of the Order to conform to the then-current prices of the Honeywell Products included in the Order.
Honeywell will include any repricing in its final invoice related to the Order.
8.3. Storage Fees. If delivery takes place more than six (6) months from the date of the entry of the Order, Customer agrees to pay Honeywell a storage fee (the “Storage Fee”), as set forth in the quote, for each month after six (6) months from the date of the entry of the Order Customer has not taken delivery of the Products in the Order. Honeywell will separately invoice any storage fees owed under this Section at the end of each month for which the storage fees are owed.
8.4. Title & Risk of Loss. Unless otherwise specifically detailed in this quote, delivery terms for Products (excluding software and services) are (i)
EX Works (EXW Incoterms 2020) Honeywell’s point of shipment (“Honeywell Dock”) for all shipments (except that Honeywell is responsible for obtaining any export license), and (ii) F.O.B. Honeywell Dock for all domestic shipments. For shipments from a Honeywell Dock to a Buyer location within the same country, the import/export provisions of the INCOTERMS do not apply. Honeywell shall be responsible for obtaining insurance on each shipment to Customer for the full value of the shipment. Shipment shall be to a single point of delivery.
9. LIMITED WARRANTY. CUSTOMER’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDIES AND HONEYWELL’S SOLE LIABILITY AS TO ANY WARRANTY CLAIM ON ANY PRODUCT SOLD IN CONNECTION WITH THIS QUOTE IS AS SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION. SUCH REMEDIES ARE IN LIEU OF ANY OTHER
LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION OF HONEYWELL, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION FOR DAMAGE, LOSS,
OR INJURY (WHETHER DIRECT, INDIRECT, EXEMPLARY, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL) ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE DELIVERY, USE, OR PERFORMANCE OF THE PRODUCTS. CREDIT, REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT (AT HONEYWELL’S OPTION) IS THE SOLE REMEDY PROVIDED HEREUNDER. NO EXTENSION OF THIS WARRANTY WILL BE BINDING UPON HONEYWELL UNLESS SET FORTH IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY A HONEYWELL AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
9.1 Product Warranty Terms
9.1.1. If Customer is purchasing a new System, i.e., the initial System for Customer, or for a new Dispatch System or Station System. subject to the terms, conditions and limitations contained herein, and unless Honeywell has otherwise provided an alternative written warranty (in which case the terms of such warranty will control), Honeywell warrants and guarantees its products will be free from defects in workmanship and materials (collectively, “Defects”) for 12 months from Customer’s “Commissioning Date” (“Warranty Period”). This limited warranty does not cover defects caused by normal wear and tear or maintenance. For purposes of subparagraph, “Commissioning Date” shall mean means the date on which an authorized Honeywell technician has inspected and approved installations, confirmed that all connections and start-up configurations are properly working, and confirming the System can send and receive alerts through the configured communication pathways.
9.1.2. If Customer is purchasing Products or services to add to or as replacement Products for an existing System, subject to the terms, conditions and limitations contained herein, and unless Honeywell has otherwise provided an alternative written warranty (in which case the terms of such warranty will control), Honeywell warrants and guarantees its products for 12 months from the day of shipment to Customer (“Warranty Period”). This limited warranty does not cover defects caused by normal wear and tear or maintenance.
9.2. Product Defects. If a Defect with a Product arises and a valid claim is made within the Warranty Period, Customer shall initiate the RMA process as described below. Upon approval, Honeywell at its option, will either (1) repair the Product defect at no charge, using new parts or parts equivalent to new in performance and reliability or (2) exchange the Product with a Product that is new or equivalent to new in performance and reliability and is at least functionally equivalent to the original Product. Any replacement Product or part, including a userinstallable part that has been installed in accordance with instructions provided by Honeywell, shall remain under warranty during the Warranty Period or for ninety (90) days from the date of repair, whichever is longer. When a Product or part is exchanged, any replacement item becomes the Customer’s property and the replaced item becomes the property of Honeywell. Parts provided by Honeywell in fulfillment of its warranty obligation must be used in the same Honeywell Fire Station Alerting System for which the warranty claim is made.
9.3. Procedure for Warranty Claims.
9.3.1. Prior to making a Warranty claim, Customer is encouraged to review Honeywell’s online help resources. Thereafter, to make a valid claim hereunder, Customer must contact Honeywell technical support and describe the problem or defect with specificity. The first such contact must occur during the Warranty Period. Honeywell’s technical support contact information can be found on Honeywell’s web site at https://buildings.honeywell.com/us/en/brands/our-brands/usdd. Customer must use its best efforts to assist in diagnosing defects, follow Honeywell’s technical instructions, and fully cooperate in the diagnostic process. Failure to do so shall relieve Honeywell of any further obligation hereunder.
9.3.2. If a defect with the Hardware arises and Customer makes a valid Support Service Request within the Warranty Period, Customer shall initiate the RMA process as described below. Upon approval, Honeywell will cause shipment of a replacement Hardware component to Customer prior to the defective Hardware component being returned to Honeywell for repair. The replacement Hardware will be new or equivalent to new in performance and reliability and at least functionally equivalent to the original Hardware. When Hardware is exchanged, any replacement item becomes the Customer’s property and the replaced item becomes the property of Honeywell. Replaced Hardware provided by Honeywell in fulfillment of the Support Services must be used in the System to which this Agreement applies.
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL STANDARD Ts&Cs Page 6 of 9 Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
62 Item5.
9.4. Return Material Authorization Process. If a Customer makes a claim for an advanced replacement of a Hardware component during the Warranty Period, Customer must initiate an RMA request. As part of this RMA process, the Customer shall provide Honeywell with the Hardware, model, serial number, and a description of the Hardware’s failure to initiate the RMA process. Upon Honeywell’s issuance of the RMA, Honeywell will send the replacement Hardware, shipped postage paid, ground shipping, to the address provided by Customer. RMA requests approved between 12:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Mountain Standard Time are shipped on the same business day. After 2:00 p.m.
Mountain Standard Time, the replacement Hardware will be shipped on the next business day. All RMA requests are processed on the business day on which the request was received, excluding holidays. Included with the shipped package will be return shipment instructions and a pre-paid return shipping label for the Hardware that the Customer is returning. The original Hardware must be returned in the shipping box provided by Honeywell. No goods will be accepted for exchange or return without a pre-approved RMA number, nor will goods which have not been properly packaged in Honeywell’s shipping box, as proper packaging ensures that goods are not damaged during the shipping process. The original Hardware must be shipped back within 10 days of receiving the replacement Hardware. Failure to return the original Hardware or failure to return the original Hardware in an appropriate manner will cause Customer to incur a replacement charge equal to full market value of the replacement Hardware.
9.5. No Fault Found. Customer understands that this fee is intended to discourage return of Products prior to proper troubleshooting or return because the product is “old.” Product returns will not be allowed if, upon examination of the returned Product, it is determined that the Product was subjected to accident, misuse, neglect, alteration, improper installation, unauthorized repair, improper testing, or poor packaging upon return. In such event, Honeywell shall invoice Customer for the full market value of the replacement Product.
9.6. WARRANTY EXCLUSIONS & DISCLAIMERS.
9.6.1. Honeywell does not warrant that the operation of its Products or any related peripherals will be uninterrupted or error-free. Honeywell further does not warrant nor support any system configuration that deviates from this specific quote’s documented station system design file number.
9.6.2. Honeywell does not warrant or support any system not installed by G2 Trained & Certified Installation technician (installer). If Customer intends to tie this system into any 3rd-party system or devices, Honeywell will be unable to warrant or support the Products unless Honeywell has had a chance to review documented engineering assumptions and approve system integrity, performance, and reliability expectations
9.6.3. Honeywell is not responsible for damage arising from Customer’s failure to follow instructions relating to the use of the Products.
This Warranty does not apply to any Products, including the hardware or software, not used for its intended purpose.
9.6.4. Honeywell cannot warrant nor support any system not using Honeywell-approved Uninterruptable Power Supply Battery Backup.
This Warranty does not apply to monitors or televisions manufactured by third parties. Repair or replacement of such components shall be subject exclusively to the manufacturer’s warranty, if any. Recovery and reinstallation of hardware and user data (including passwords) are not covered under this Warranty.
9.6.5. This Warranty does not apply: (a) to consumable parts, such as batteries, unless damage has occurred due to a defect in materials or workmanship; (b) to cosmetic damage, including but not limited to scratches, dents and broken plastic on ports; (c) to damage caused by use with non-Honeywell products; (d) to damage caused by accident, abuse, misuse, flood, lightning, fire, earthquake or other external causes; (e) to damage caused by operating the Product outside the permitted or intended uses described by Honeywell; (f) to damage or failure caused by installation or service (including upgrades and expansions) performed by anyone who is not a representative of Honeywell or a Honeywell authorized installer or service provider; (g) to a Product or part that has been modified to alter functionality or capability without the written permission of Honeywell; (h) to Software (as defined below); (i) to any other damage caused by an event or action outside of Honeywell’s control, including, without limitation, Customer’s failure to apply required or recommended updates or patches to any Software or Product; or (h) if any serial number has been removed or defaced.
9.6.6. The System is designed to generate and transmit signal-based outputs solely to supported third-party integrations (e.g., gas shutoff systems, apparatus bay doors, and similar connected equipment).
9.6.7. Customer acknowledges and agrees that the System’s functionality is strictly limited to the initiation and transmission of such signals. The System does not control, monitor, verify, or guarantee the execution, performance, or outcome of any action by third-party systems, devices, or integrations.
9.6.8. USDD by Honeywell warrants and supports only the transmission of signals from the System itself. Any actions taken (or not taken) by third-party systems in response to such signals are outside of USDD by Honeywell's control and responsibility.
9.6.9. USDD by Honeywell shall have no responsibility or liability for:
- The failure, delay, malfunction, or improper operation of any third-party system or device; - Any damages or losses arising from the actions or inactions of third-party integrations; - Any uses of the System beyond its intended signal-transmission function.
9.6.10. All other functions, uses, or integrations not expressly supported by the System are outside the scope of this Agreement and are not warranted or supported in any manner.
10. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY. TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THE LIMITED WARRANTY IN SECTION 9 OF THESE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS AND ANY OTHER REMEDIES SET FORTH ABOVE ARE EXCLUSIVE AND IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, REMEDIES AND CONDITIONS, WHETHER ORAL OR WRITTEN, STATUTORY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. AS PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW,
HONEYWELL SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL STATUTORY OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION,
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND WARRANTIES AGAINST HIDDEN OR LATENT DEFECTS. If Honeywell cannot lawfully disclaim statutory or implied warranties, then to the extent permitted by law, all such warranties shall be limited in duration to the duration of this express Warranty and to repair or replacement service as determined by Honeywell in its sole discretion. No reseller, agent, or employee is authorized to make any modification, extension, or addition to this Warranty. If any term is held to be illegal or unenforceable, the legality or enforceability of the remaining terms shall not be affected or impaired.
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL STANDARD Ts&Cs Page 7 of 9 Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
63 Item5.
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THE LIMITED WARRANTY IN SECTION 9 OF THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, AND TO THE EXTENT
PERMITTED BY LAW, HONEYWELL IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ANY BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONDITION, OR UNDER ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF USE; LOSS OF REVENUE; LOSS OF THE USE OF MONEY; LOSS OF ANTICIPATED SAVINGS; LOSS OF GOODWILL; LOSS OF REPUTATION; AND LOSS OF, DAMAGE TO OR CORRUPTION OF DATA. HONEYWELL IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR
ANY INDIRECT LOSS OR DAMAGE HOWSOEVER CAUSED, INCLUDING THE REPLACEMENT OF EQUIPMENT AND PROPERTY, ANY
COSTS OF RECOVERING PROGRAMMING OR REPRODUCING ANY PROGRAM OR DATA STORED OR USED WITH HONEYWELL PRODUCTS, AND ANY FAILURE TO MAINTAIN THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF DATA STORED ON THE PRODUCT.
ALL PRODUCT CLAIMS ARE LIMITED TO THOSE EXCLUSIVE REMEDIES SET FORTH IN THE LIMITED WARRANTY IN SECTION 9 OF THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS. HONEYWELL’S AGGREGATE LIABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH THEREWITH SHALL NOT EXCEED THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE PRODUCTS PAID BY CUSTOMER TO HONEYWELL FOR THE PRODUCTS GIVING RISE TO THE CLAIM.
Honeywell disclaims any representation that it will be able to repair any Hardware under this Warranty or make a product exchange without risk to or loss of the programs or data stored thereon.
11. SERVICE AGREEMENT. The Product being purchased hereunder is not subject to any post-Warranty service agreement or maintenance program unless specifically contracted for between Honeywell and Customer. Honeywell offers a comprehensive post-Warranty Service Agreement at additional cost. Customer should contact Honeywell regarding its Service Agreement and costs associated therewith.
12. SOFTWARE PRODUCTS. All software Products delivered by Honeywell to Customer or for which Honeywell provides access, including, without limitation, Honeywell’s mobile application software and Products with embedded software or firmware (collectively, “Software”) are not sold and are licensed. At all times that Customer is in compliance with the terms of these Terms and Conditions and any other agreement between the parties, Customer shall have a non-exclusive, non-transferable, fully paid license to use the Software, but only in conjunction with the Products provided by Honeywell and Customer’s fire station alerting system (the “License”). The terms of such Software License may be set forth in a separate software license agreement or end user license agreement provided by Honeywell with such Software. In no event shall Customer have any right to (or authorize or allow any third party to) distribute, sell, lend, rent, transfer, or convey the Software; grant any sublicense, lease, or other rights in the Software; decompile, disassemble, reverse engineer, or otherwise attempt to reconstruct, identify, or discover any source code, underlying user interface architecture or techniques, or algorithms of the Software by any means; or take any action that would cause the Software or any portion of it to be placed in the public domain. In the event of a conflict between the terms of any Software license terms provided upon download or purchase a purchase and these Terms and Conditions, the relevant Software license terms shall control solely with respect to such Software.
13. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Customer hereby agrees and acknowledges that Honeywell owns all rights, title, and interest in and to the Intellectual Property (as defined below). Customer agrees to not remove, obscure, or alter Honeywell’s or any third party's copyright notice, trademarks, or other proprietary rights notices affixed to or contained within or accessed in conjunction with or through Honeywell’s Product (as defined below). Nothing herein shall be deemed to give, transfer, or convey to Customer any rights in the Intellectual Property other than the License, as set forth above. For purposes of this Section, "Intellectual Property" means any and all rights of Honeywell related to Honeywell’s Products existing from time to time under patent law, copyright law, trade secret law, trademark law, unfair competition law, and any and all other proprietary rights, and any and all derivative works, work product, applications, renewals, extensions and restorations thereof, now or hereafter in force and effective worldwide.
14. FIRST ARRIVING MOBILE APP. If Customer wishes to use its First Arriving Mobile App (“First Arriving”) with the System being acquired from Honeywell, Customer agrees to the following:
14.1 Customer acknowledges that it bears full responsibility for complying with applicable law and regulations, including all privacy requirements, and for providing any required notices and obtaining all required consents in order for Honeywell to transmit alert to First Arriving. Customer also acknowledges that Honeywell bears no responsibility for any service failure by First Arriving, nor is Honeywell responsible for supporting First Arriving’s services or platform. Honeywell is offering to transmit alerts that are transmitted through its Honeywell service to First Arriving merely as a courtesy to Customer.
14.2 IN NO EVENT SHALL HONEYWELL BE LIABLE TO CUSTOMER FOR ANY CLAIMS, WHETHER ARISING FROM ANY INDEMNIFICATION
OBLIGATION HONEYWELL MAY HAVE OR THAT ARISE FROM A BREACH OF CONTRACT, WARRANTY, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE),
OPERATION OF LAW, OR OTHERWISE, AND EVEN IF THE PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF THE LIABILITY OR THE
LIABILITY IS OTHEWISE FORESEEABLE, FOR ANY LOST PROFITS OR REVENUE, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDEIRECT, CONSEQUETIAL,
EXEMPLARY, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES OF ANY KIND (INCLUDING ALL DAMAGES DUE TO BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, LOSS OR CORRUPTION OF DATA, OR LOST USE OF ANY PROPERTY OR CAPITAL) THAT RELATE TO OR ARISE OUT OF HONEYWELL’S TRANSMISSION OF ALERTS TO FIRST ARRIVING. FURTHER HONEYWELL’S AGGREGATE LIABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH ITS
TRANSMISSION OF ALERTS TO FIRST ARRIVING WILL BE LIMITED TO THE GREATER OF THE AMOUNT PAID BY CUSTOMER TO HONEYWELL IN ORDER FOR HONEYWELL TO TRANSMIT ALERTS TO FIRST ARRIVING OR $100. 15 REMOTE ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM.
15.1 Remote Access. Honeywell requires remote network access to the Customer’s Products through Secure Shell (SSH) to perform implementation and support tasks under this Agreement. To enable remote network access, the Customer will provide Honeywell support personnel VPN or similar remote network access to the Products for Honeywell support personnel (“Customer Support”) to effectively troubleshoot critical or complex problems and to expedite resolution of such issues. Remote network access is also used to install core software upgrades and customized software. Honeywell will only access Customer’s Products with the knowledge and consent of Customer. Honeywell will not access any other systems or data.
15.2. Alternative to Network Access. If the Customer elects not to provide remote network access to the Products, then Honeywell may not be able to perform some support functions. Customers that elect not to routinely provide network access may temporarily reinstate this access to allow Honeywell to perform the above services. The following services will not be performed without this access: Product software upgrades; Product software customization; Network troubleshooting assistance including packet capture and network monitoring on Honeywell devices; Detailed log analysis; Bulk updates to certain Product database tables; Troubleshooting that requires low-level system access or large file transfer.
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL STANDARD Ts&Cs Page 8 of 9 Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
64 Item5.
15.3. Timely Access. Customers much ensure that remote access is available prior to notifying Honeywell of a support request. In the event that the Customer is unable to provide remote access, Honeywell will not be required to provide support outside those tasks that do not require remote access, and any corresponding resolution response times will not apply.
15.4. Physical Security Tokens. Honeywell has multiple software engineers that provide after-hours support and these engineers do not typically take security tokens from the Honeywell office. If the customer requires the use of physical security tokens, this may delay after hours service.
16. GOVERNING LAW. This proposal and any contract or agreement resulting therefrom will be governed by and construed according to the laws of the State of Arizona without regard to its conflicts of law principles.
17. DISPUTE RESOLUTION/ARBITRATION. Before either Honeywell or Customer initiate any dispute resolution process related to the Agreement, they must schedule an executive resolution conference to be held within thirty (30) days of receipt of the other party’s written request. The conference must be attended by at least one executive from each party. At the conference, each party will present its view of the dispute in detail and the executives will enter into good faith negotiations in an attempt to resolve the dispute. If the dispute is not resolved within fifteen (15) days of the end of the conference or if one party refuses to attend the executive resolution conference, then Honeywell and Customer further agree that any remaining dispute between them arising out of or relating to this Agreement will be settled by litigation with jurisdiction being Maricopa County, Arizona.
18. FORCE MAJEURE. Except for Customer’s duty to pay sums due hereunder, neither party will be liable to the other for any failure to meet its obligations due to any Force Majeure Event. As used herein, a “Force Majeure Event” is one that is beyond the reasonable control of the non-performing party and may include, but is not limited to: (a) delays or refusals to grant an export license or the suspension or revocation thereof, (b) embargoes, blockages, seizure or freeze of assets, or any other acts of any government that would limit a party’s ability to perform the Contract, (c) fires, earthquakes, floods, tropical storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, severe weather conditions, or any other acts of God, (d) quarantines, pandemics, or regional medical crises, (e) labor strikes, lockouts, or pandemic worker shortages, (f) riots, strife, insurrection, civil disobedience, landowner disturbances, armed conflict, terrorism or war, declared or not (or impending threat of any of the foregoing, if such threat might reasonably be expected to cause injury to people or property), and (g) shortages or inability to obtain materials or components. The party unable to fulfill its obligations due to Force Majeure will promptly (i) Notify the other in writing of the reasons for its failure to fulfill its obligations and the effect of such failure; and (ii) Use all reasonable efforts to avoid or remove the cause and perform its obligations.
If a Force Majeure Event results in a delay, then the date of performance will be extended by the period of time that the non-performing party is actually delayed or for any other period as the parties may agree in writing. In the event that a Force Majeure Event is ongoing for a period of time which is sixty (60) days or longer, Honeywell may provide notice to Customer that it is cancelling its Order.
19. ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS. This proposal shall become a binding contract between the Customer and Honeywell when accepted in writing by the Customer. Without limiting the foregoing, issuance by Customer of a purchase order to Honeywell for any of the goods or services herein described shall constitute acceptance.
19.1 CUSTOMER CAUSED DELAYS. If the Products and/or Services purchased by Customer hereunder are part of a new system or station implementation project (the “Project”), Honeywell and Customer shall mutually develop a project schedule or timetable (“Project Schedule”). Each party shall use commercially reasonable efforts to perform its obligations in accordance with the Project Schedule, subject to adjustments for reasonable changes or unforeseen events.
Honeywell shall not be liable for any delay, increased cost, or failure to perform to the extent caused by: (i) delays in obtaining parts, materials, equipment, services, or software from any Customer designated supplier; (ii) Customer’s failure to timely provide required information, approvals, access, or resources; or (iii) any other act, omission, or circumstance caused by or within the reasonable control of Customer (each, a “Customer Caused Delay”).
If a Customer Caused Delay occurs, Honeywell shall be entitled to equitable adjustments to the price, delivery dates, milestones, and any other affected terms to account for increased costs, delays, or other adverse impacts incurred by Honeywell. Such adjustments may include, without limitation: (a) increases in material or component costs required to complete the Project; (b) costs associated with buy out or long lead items, including additional costs due to currency exchange rate fluctuations; (c) increases in labor, mobilization, or installation costs; and (d) costs associated with pre building, warehousing, storage, handling, insurance, or preservation of equipment, at Honeywell’s discretion.
If performance of the Project is delayed for a cumulative period exceeding six (6) months beyond the scheduled Project completion date due to Customer Caused Delays, Honeywell may, upon written notice to Customer, (i) suspend performance of the affected Products and/or Services until such delays are remedied, (ii) invoice Customer for reasonable costs incurred as a result of the suspension, and/or (iii) require renegotiation of pricing, schedule, and other affected terms as a condition to resuming performance.
Further, if either (a) the Project is not completed within six (6) months of the scheduled Project completion date due to Customer Caused Delays, or (b) Honeywell and Customer have not mutually agreed upon the required adjustments to price, delivery dates, and other affected terms within sixty (60) days following the expiration or continuation of such delays, Honeywell may, upon written notice, terminate or cancel any affected outstanding Customer Orders, in whole or in part, without liability. Such termination shall be without prejudice to Honeywell’s right to recover amounts due for Products delivered, Services performed, and any reasonable costs incurred as a result of the Customer Caused Delay, including demobilization, storage, and restart costs.
20. SEVERABILITY. In the event any provision or portion of a provision herein is determined to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected and, in lieu of such provision, a provision as similar in terms as may be legal, valid, and enforceable shall be added hereto
21. WAIVER. The failure of either party to insist upon strict performance of any provision of these Terms and Conditions, or to exercise any right provided for herein, shall not be deemed to be a waiver for the future of such provision or right, and no waiver of any provision or right shall affect the right of the waiving party to enforce any provision or right herein.
22. NO JOINT VENTURE. The parties acknowledge that they are independent entities and nothing contained in these Terms and Conditions shall be construed to constitute either party hereto as the partner, joint venturer, employee, agent, servant, franchisee, or other representative of the other party hereto, and neither party has the right to bind or obligate the other, except as otherwise provided herein.
Furthermore, nothing contained in these Terms and Conditions shall be construed to constitute Customer as an exclusive purchaser of the Products in any respect.
THIS QUOTE SUBJECT TO REVIEW FOR ERRORS AND OMISSIONS.
PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL STANDARD Ts&Cs Page 9 of 9 Resolution No. 2026-126
Exhibit "A"
65 Item5.
STAFF REPORT
August 5, 2026
File Number 0910-20
SUBJECT
REQUEST APPROVAL FOR CHANGE ORDER TWO AND AN ANTICIPATED THIRD CHANGE ORDER TO THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT WITH PALM ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. FOR
THE MOUNTAIN VIEW PARK PICKLEBALL COURTS PROJECT
DEPARTMENT
Development Services, Engineering Services
RECOMMENDATION
Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2026-130: (1) authorizing the Mayor to execute, on behalf of the City, change order number two to the Public Improvement Agreement with Palm Engineering Construction Company, Inc. forthe installation of a concrete patio area with retaining walls and sidewalks as gathering space and potential rental event space area in the amount of $131,340; and (2) authorizing the Mayor to execute, on behalf of the City, a third change order to the Public Improvement Agreement with Palm Engineering Construction Company, Inc. in an maximum amount of $45,000 should additional funds be needed for maintenance access to the site.
Staff Recommendation: Approval (Kevin Snyder, Director of Development Services) Presenter: Michael Tully, Project Manager
ESSENTIAL SERVICE – Yes, Parks Facilities/Open Spaces
COUNCIL PRIORITY – Increase Retention and Attraction of People and Businesses to Escondido
FISCAL ANALYSIS
The cost associated with change order number two to the Public Improvement Agreement (“PIA”) with Palm Engineering Construction Company, Inc. will be paid from the Capital Improvement Program out of Park Development fees project accounts and will have no impact on the General Fund. Funds paid under change order number two will be for improvements to a concrete patio area with retaining walls and sidewalks as a gathering space and potential rental event space area.
The possible third change order to the PIA with Palm Engineering Construction Company, Inc., in a maximum amount of $45,000, is anticipated to cover maintenance access costs. There is available funding in the account to increase the purchase order amount by $176.340. The total purchase order will be increased to $1,258,866.84.
66 Item6.
PREVIOUS ACTION
Located near the eastern edge of the City of Escondido (“City”) within a residential neighborhood, Mountain View Park (“MVP”) was originally an avocado and orange grove before the City purchased the land in 1985 and converted it to a recreational park for City residents to enjoy. The Mountain View Park Site Master Plan Report, dated December 8, 1988, was adopted by the City and described the development of the park as a phased approach as monies are available. In the master plan, sports fields and courts were identified to be developed within the park footprint. To date, only a portion of the identified courts have been constructed leaving room for additional fields/courts.
On April 17, 2024, City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-23 awarding a Consultant Agreementto David Volz Design Landscape Architects, Inc. (“DVD”) to provide engineering design services for the Mountain View Park Pickleball Courts Project (“Project”).
On October, 15, 2025, City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-15 awarding a construction contract to Palm Engineering Construction Company, Inc. and authorizing the Mayor, on the behalf of the City, to execute a PIA for construction of the Project.
On May 13, 2025, City Council authorized the first change order with Palm Engineering Construction Company, Inc. for the installation of a shade structure, picnic tables and construction of a concrete pad in an amount not to exceed $98,620.84.
BACKGROUND
MVP is approximately 11 acres in size and contains lighted little league fields, a soccer field, tennis courts, picnic tables, a tot lot/playground, restrooms, and an open turf area. The pickleball community within the City is a rapidly growing community with residents expressing the desire to have pickleball courtsinstalled within parks around the City.
As a result of ongoing outreach with the pickleball and tennis communities, an agreement was developed between the tennis community and the pickleball community to turn the tennis courts at MVP into mixed use tennis/pickleball courts. Since that agreement wasreached, the City hasreceived feedback from both tennis and pickleball communities emphasizing the need for separate pickleball courts in order to accommodate both communities. This Project will provide eight pickleball courts within MVP and will provide additional landscape improvements along the frontage street of the park to help beautify the area.
At the 90% design phase of the Project the cost estimate was expected to be very tight for the complete design package. A decision was made by city staff to cut the picnic rest area out ofthe Project. In addition, it was discovered during this time that the large oak tree City staff was hoping to preserve for shade was not going to be possible to preserve.
67 Item6.
On September 17, 2025, eleven sealed bids were received in response to the request for bid for the project. Palm Engineering Construction Company Inc. was awarded the construction contract after review by the City. The lowest responsible bid came in well below the anticipated cost provided by the design engineer. At this time the Engineering Services team has approached the contractor to add these items back into the Project that were initially left out of the bid. These items will enhance the overall experience at Mountain View Park for our pickleball community.
Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 2026-130: (1) authorizing the Mayor to execute, on behalf of the City, change order number two to the Public Improvement Agreement with Palm Engineering Construction Company, Inc. for the installation of a concrete patio area with retaining walls and sidewalks as gathering space and potential rental event space area in the amount of $131,340; and (2) authorizing the Mayor to execute, on behalf of the City, a third change order to the Public Improvement Agreement with Palm Engineering Construction Company, Inc. in an maximum amount of $45,000 should additional funds be needed for maintenance access to complete the Mountain View Park Pickleball Courts Project.
RESOLUTIONS
a. Resolution No. 2026-130
b. Resolution No. 2026-130 – Exhibit “A” – Change Order 68 Item6.
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-130
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SECOND
CHANGE ORDER AND AN ANTICIPATED THIRD CHANGE
ORDER TO THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
WITH PALM ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
INC. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
PARK PICKLEBALL COURTS PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City Council has allocated funding in the adopted Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”) budget for the Mountain View Park Pickleball Courts Project; and WHEREAS, on October 15, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-125 authorizing execution of a Public Improvement Agreement with Palm Engineering Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $983,906 for the construction of the Mountain View Park Pickleball Courts (“Project”); and WHEREAS, on May 13, 2026, City Council authorized change order one with Palm Engineering Construction Company, Inc. for the installation of a shade structure, picnic tables, and construction of a concrete pad in an amount not to exceed $98,620.84; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that approval of a second change order for the Project is required to continue and complete construction of the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires at this time and deems it to be in the best public interest to authorize a change order number two to the Public Improvement Agreement with Palm Engineering Construction Company, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $131,340; and WHEREAS, the City Councilrecognizes additional funds may be needed beyond the second change order to complete the Project; and
69 Item6.
WHEREAS, this City Council desires at this time and deems it to be in the best public interest to authorize the Mayor, on behalf of the City, to execute a third order the Public Improvement Agreement with Palm Engineering Construction Company, Inc. in a maximum about of $45,000 should such additional funds become necessary to complete the Project; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Escondido, California as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true.
2. That the City Council authorizes the Mayor to execute, on behalf of the City, change order number two to the Public Improvement Agreement with Palm Engineering Construction Company, Inc. for the installation of a concrete patio area with retaining walls and sidewalks as gathering space and potential rental event space area in the amount of $131,340.
3. That the City Council authorizes the Mayor to execute, on behalf of the City, a third change order to the Public Improvement Agreement with Palm Engineering Construction Company, Inc. in amaximum amount of $45,000 should additional funds be needed for completion of the Mountain View Park Pickleball Courts Project.
70 Item6.
Date: 7/24/2026
Project:
Item Num Item Description Unit of Measure Quantity Unit Price Total 1 Field survey and additional engineering LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 2 Additional grading (includes rough and
final) LS 1 $ 4,300.00 $ 4,300.00
3 Additional professional survey for
foundations LS 1 $ 6,300.00 $ 6,300.00
4 6' curb LF 50 $ 155.00 $ 7,750.00
5 CMU Wall SF 250 $ 205.00 $ 51,250.00
6 CMU wall footing CY 20 $ 633.00 $ 12,660.00
7 Caps for cmu wall LS 1 $ 5,750.00 $ 5,750.00
8 Stairs EA 1 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00
9 Railing EA 1 $ 8,500.00 $ 8,500.00
10 Additional sleeves per RE direction and
mulch area utilizing mulch onsite LS 1 $ 4,830.00 $ 4,830.00 $ 131,340.00
QUOTE
Mountain view pickleball
Total
· Costs associated with unforeseen or concealed site conditions, including but not limited to undocumented utilities, rock excavation, or contaminated soils.
· Utility company delays, standby time, or work required for utility relocations not shown in the bid documents. · Permits, inspection fees, agency charges, or impact fees not specifically included in our scope. · Materials testing, compaction testing to 95%, special inspections, or third-party certifications. · Traffic control beyond that shown in the contract plans, including any flagging services.(Palm Will Perform traffic control for its own work)
· Traffic Control Plans or Permits.
· Archaeological, biological, environmental, or cultural monitoring, reporting, or mitigation. · Work performed at night, on weekends, or on holidays unless specifically required and included in the bid. · Escalation of labor, material, or fuel costs occurring after the bid date. · Removal, handling, or disposal of hazardous materials, including asbestos and lead. · Delays caused by inclement weather beyond normal seasonal conditions. · Premium time, overtime, shift differential pay, or after-hours work. · Work required due to errors, omissions, or changes in the project plans and specifications. · Design or engineering related to the project as a whole and the SDGE work/service order. · Soils reports.
· Delays related to design or permitting.
Exclusions
Resolution No. 2026-130
Exhibit "A"
71 Item6.
· Repair or investigation of existing conduits and systems. · All payments over the AL (allowance) will be at actual cost plus a reasonable mark-up for overhead and profit.
Submitted by:
· Unsuitable Soil & Base.
· Relocation of Boxes, Utilities or pushbuttons.
· Construction survey and SWPPP/ WPCP/QSP/QSD
· Construction water/water meter, power washing, sweeping, Weed kill · Non-standard wording on Insurance Certificates.
· Bond.
· T-Cap (Base Pave for the slot patch is included).
· Work not shown on the plans provided prior to bid.
· DIR# 2000000411, Expiration Date: 06/30/2027
· SB-PW# 2027265, Expiration Date: 5/31/2027
· LBE#289326, Expiration Date 09/25/2026
Palm Engineering Construction Company Inc.
7330 Opportunity Road, Suite A & B
San Diego, California 92111
Cell: (858) 335-2695
Phone:(619) 291-1495
· License# 853930, Classification: A, B, C27 & C10, Expiration Date: 2/28/2027 Resolution No. 2026-130
Exhibit "A"
72 Item6.
STAFF REPORT
August 5, 2026
File Number 0680-10
SUBJECT
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE TEMPORARY LICENSE AND ACCESS
AGREEMENT FOR ESCONDIDO CREEK TRAIL PROJECT
DEPARTMENT
City Manager’s Office
RECOMMENDATION
Request the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 2026-17 authorizing the City Manager to execute a temporary license and access agreement with the owner of the Evans Tire property located at 510 N.
Broadway for the purpose of installing a gateway entry sign and rock garden as part of the Escondido Creek Trail Expansion and Renovation project.
Staff Recommendation: Approval (City Manager’s Office: Sean McGlynn, City Manager) Presenter: Joanna Axelrod, Deputy City Manager
ESSENTIAL SERVICE – Yes, Maintenance of Parks facilities/Open Spaces COUNCIL PRIORITY – Be Business Friendly; Drive Community and Land Development
FISCAL ANALYSIS
This project will have no impact on the General Fund as the not to exceed $20,000 cost for the rocks and gateway welcome sign will be covered from Escondido Creek Trail Enhancement and Improvement project grant funds.
PREVIOUS ACTION
On September 29, 2021, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2021-146 authorizing the acceptance of Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds established by the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 in the amount of $38,808,509 amongst which $1 million was allocated to the project.
On June 5, 2019, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2019-87 authorizing the Director of Communications and Community Services or her designee to submit an application to the California Department of Parks and Recreation for $8.5 million in SPP funds for improvements to the Escondido Creek Trail.
73 Item7.
On January 25, 2012, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2012-11 accepting the final Escondido Creek Trail Master Plan Report and authorized staff to seek and acquire grant funding that will enable the City to continue revitalization of the Escondido Creek Trail.
On January 26, 2022, City staff and design consultant teams shared the background and latest design progress on the Escondido Creek Trail Expansion and Renovation Project.
On December 13, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-162, authorizing receipt of Clean California Local Grant Program funds for the Escondido Creek Trail Rose to Midway Project in the amount of $3,503,000.
On August 28, 2024, the City Council awarded the bid to Tri-Group Construction and Development Inc for physical construction of the project and a consulting agreement with T.Y. Lin International for construction management.
BACKGROUND
Starting in early 2010, residents brought forward a vision of the Escondido Creek Trail as a linear park which resulted in the following important planning documents: Revealing Escondido Creek Vision Plan and the Escondido Creek Trail Master Plan. Two top priorities that emerged were to complete the Missing Link bike path between Broadway and Centre City Parkway and to create safe mid-block crossings along the length of the Creek Trail.
In 2020, the City was awarded $8.5 million from the California Department of Parks and Recreation through the Prop 68 Parks and Water Bond Act of 2018 which aimed to create new parks and recreation opportunities in underserved communities across California. The current Escondido Creek Trail Expansion and Renovation project is improving approximately 4.5 miles of the existing Escondido Creek Trail and adding approximately 0.4 miles of new bicycle path. This project is creating a double-sided trail on approximately 1.7 miles; on one side will be the existing Class I bicycle path, on the other will be a new decomposed granite trail.
This project aims to encourage safe and healthy lifestyles through an improved sense of security, enhanced street crossings, fitness and play amenities, native and California-friendly landscaping, artistic and cultural elements, and further opportunities for walking and jogging in addition to improvements to the bike path. The goal is to revitalize the Creek Trail Corridor through enhanced activities and partnerships with local businesses, artists, schools, and other organizations. Amenities and enhancements include:
Wayfinding and educational signage
Lighting
Paving/striping on the Creek Trail
74 Item7.
New landscaping
Mural installments and artistic features
Fitness stations
Seating and gathering spaces
Children's play areas
Trash receptacles and water bottle filling stations
Safer pedestrian crossing and ramps where the Creek Trail intersects with local roadways 1.1 miles of new walking trails between Date and Midway on the north side of the Creek The bulk of the improvements being made as part of the Escondido Creek Trail Expansion and Renovation Project are between Broadway and Midway. A portion of the Evans Tire parcel, located at 510 N.
Broadway, abuts the Creek Trail. While the space is currently bare dirt, it has the potential to serve as an important, visible gateway entrance to the Trail. Therefore, as part of these beautification efforts, the City approached Niche Investments, the owner of the property, with a proposal for the City to install and maintain for a term of five years, a rock garden and gateway sign welcoming users to the Escondido Creek Trail. By utilizing a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)-approved design for the rock garden, this improvement serves as both an aesthetic enhancement as well as a deterrent for loitering which is a known challenge in that space.
A depiction of the location where these improvements would be made as well as a conceptual rendering of the rock garden and welcome sign are included in Exhibit “A” of Ordinance No. 2026-17 as Exhibits A and B of the Temporary License and Access Agreement. The rendering shown in Exhibit B of the Temporary License and Access Agreement is a conceptual illustration provided solely for reference and to convey the general intent of the anticipated improvements. The completed improvements may vary slightly from the initial rendering due to ongoing design refinements, site-specific conditions, material availability, budgetary constraints, or additional considerations.
Costs for these improvements will be paid for out of the Escondido Creek Trail Expansion and Renovation project grant funding and will therefore have no impact to the General Fund.
ORDINANCES
a. Ordinance No. 2026-17
b. Ordinance No. 2026-17—Exhibit “A”—Temporary License and Access Agreement 75 Item7.
ORDINANCE NO. 2026-17
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE A TEMPORARY LICENSE AND
ACCESS AGREEMENT FOR PROPERTY AT 510 N. BROADWAY,
ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA, AS PART OF THE ESCONDIDO
CREEK TRAIL PROJECT
The City Council of the City of Escondido, California, does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council makes the following findings:
a) Niche Investments, a California limited liability company (“Owner’), owns the real property located at 510 N. Broadway, Escondido, CA 92025, Escondido, CA 92025, APN 229-304-23-00 (“Property”). The Property is currently the site of Evans Tire, and abuts a portion of the Escondido Creek Trail; and
b) The City of Escondido (“City”) is involved in the rehabilitation of the Escondido Creek Trail (“Project”) to encourage safe and healthy lifestyles through an improved sense of security, enhanced street crossings, fitness and play amenities, native and drought friendly landscaping, and further opportunities for walking and jogging in addition to improvements to the bike path. The goal is to revitalize the Creek Trail Corridor through enhanced activities and partnerships with local businesses, artists, schools, and other organizations; and
c) The Property has been the target of various graffiti and other damage, and in a recently attempt to protect the building from other damage, Owner installed a wrought iron fence, painted over a defunct mural, and removed all landscaping from a previous native plant garden; and d) As part of the Project, the City wishes to support small businesses, including Owner, and also improve the aesthetics of this area near the opening of the Creek Trail and Owner desires to receive the benefit of certain improvements to the Property to be completed by the City; and 76 Item7.
e) The City and Owner intend to document Owner’s permission to allow the City to utilize a portion of the Property between the existing black wrought iron fence and the asphalt bike path, and the south side wall of the Property, and to make and maintain certain improvements as are described in a Temporary License and Access Agreement (“Agreement”), a copy of which is attached as Exhibit “A”; and f) The City and Owner desire to enter into the Agreement such that Owner will grant a temporary exclusive license to the City in connection with the use of a portion of Property for the Project.
SECTION 2. The City Council has reviewed and considered the above findings and determines that it is in the best interests of the City to enter into the Agreement on the terms and conditions stated therein, and as may be approved by the City Attorney, and that the City Manager, or his designee, shall have such authority to execute the Agreement, any amendments thereto, and such other documents as may be required to enforce and implement the rights, duties and obligations contained in the Agreement.
SECTION 3. SEPARABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
SECTION 4. That as of the effective date of this Ordinance, all ordinances or parts of ordinances in specific conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
SECTION 5. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance and take such further steps as are necessary and appropriate to adopt this Ordinance. 77 Item7.
Ordinance No. 2026-17
Exhibit “A”
License Agreement - 1 - CAO: 04/23/2024
TEMPORARY LICENSE AND ACCESS AGREEMENT
This TEMPORARY LICENSE AND ACCESS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into as of the last date of signature below (“Effective Date”), by and between Niche Investments, a California limited liability company (“Owner”) and the City of Escondido, a California municipal corporation (“City” or "Licensee") for use of approximately 2,400 square feet of Owner’s property located at 510 N. Broadway, Escondido, CA 92025. (The Owner and Licensee each may be referred to herein as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”)
RECITALS
A. Owner owns the real property located at 510 N. Broadway, Escondido, CA 92025, Escondido, CA 92025, APN 229-304-23-00 (“Property”). The Property is currently the site of Evans Tires, and abuts a portion of the Escondido Creek Trail.
B. The City has been working over the past year to complete the Escondido Creek Trail, which aims to encourage safe and healthy lifestyles through an improved sense of security, enhanced street crossings, fitness and play amenities, native and drought friendly landscaping, and further opportunities for walking and jogging in addition to improvements to the bike path. The goal is to revitalize the Creek Trail Corridor through enhanced activities and partnerships with local businesses, artists, schools, and other organizations.
C. The Property has been the target of various graffiti and other damage, and in a recently attempt to protect the building from other damage, Owner installed a wrought iron fence, painted over a defunct mural, and removed all landscaping from a previous native plant garden.
D. The City wishes to support Owner’s small business and also improve the aesthetics at this area near the opening of the Creek Trail; and Owner desires to receive the benefit of certain improvements to the property to be completed by the City. The Parties intend for this document to allow the City to utilize an area of approximately 2,400 square feet between the existing black wrought iron fence and the asphalt bike path, and the south side wall of the building, as further depicted on Exhibit "A,'' attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference ("Premises"), to make and maintain certain improvements specified herein.
E. Owner and Licensee desire to enter into this Agreement such that Owner will grant a temporary exclusive license to Licensee in connection with the use of the Premises.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises, terms, and conditions set forth herein, and the mutual benefits derived therefrom, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Grant of License and Access. Subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations in this Agreement, Owner hereby grants to Licensee an exclusive license to use the Premises for the installation and maintenance of a new decorative rock garden, an approximately twelve foot by twelve foot sign to welcome the public to the Escondido Creek Trail, lighting for both the rock garden and sign at the discretion of Licensee, and the right to reasonable access across the Property for any installation and maintenance purpose related to these items (“License”). 78 Item7.
Ordinance No. 2026-17
Exhibit “A”
License Agreement - 2 - CAO: 04/23/2024
2. Use of Premises.
2.1 Project. The Licensee shall use the Premises for the installation and maintenance of a new decorative rock garden and a sign to welcome the public to the Escondido Creek Trail (“Project”), as described herein, and the Licensee shall not use the Premises for any other purpose.
2.2 Site Preparation and Removal. Prior to installation of the contemplated improvements, Licensee may remove the existing items within the Premises, including the rock bench structure, bike rack, vegetation, irrigation and debris. At Owner’s request, Licensee agrees to trim the canopy of the existing oak tree that is outside of the Premises. The oak tree is shown on Exhibit A on the frontage perimeter of the building, outside of the line depicting the Premises.
2.3 Construction and Installation. Licensee shall furnish all labor, materials, and equipment necessary to install a decorative rock garden and sign in form and appearance substantially similar to the concept image approved by the Parties and attached hereto as Exhibit “B.”
3. Owner Oversight. Owner shall monitor the Premises and shall promptly inform Licensee of any improper or unauthorized use occurring within the Premises.
4. Drainage and Utilities. Owner shall be responsible for maintaining all existing private drainage facilities serving or affecting the Property. Owner shall provide electricity at no cost to Licensee for up-lighting or signage and/or the rock garden, if requested by Licensee.
5. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date of this Agreement and continue for five (5) years after the date of completion of the rock garden installation, unless extended by mutual written agreement of the parties (“Term”).
6. Fee. N/A
7. Intentionally Omitted.
8. Maintenance.
8.1 Licensee shall maintain the Premises and shall keep it in clean, safe, orderly, and sanitary condition at all times throughout the License Term.
8.2 Licensee shall keep the Premises free from trash, litter, graffiti, and unsightly debris.
Maintenance activities may include graffiti abatement, trash and litter removal, removal of illegal encampments and/or unauthorized use within the maintenance area.
9. Access. The City shall have a right to access and enter the Premises at any time to perform any act consistent with the terms and purpose of this Agreement, and may do so from time to time without providing advanced notice.
10. Vacation of Premises. Upon termination of the Agreement or revocation of the License, Licensee shall timely remove the improvements and vacate and deliver the Premises to the Owner in substantially the same condition it was found, except for ordinary wear and tear.
12. Indemnification, Hold Harmless, Duty to Defend.
79 Item7.
Ordinance No. 2026-17
Exhibit “A”
License Agreement - 3 - CAO: 04/23/2024
12.1 Licensee (including Licensee’s agents, employees, contractors, and subcontractors, if any) shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the Owner, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers (collectively, “Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, proceedings (including but not limited to legal and administrative proceedings of any kind), suits, fines, penalties, judgments, orders, liens, levies, costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages, or injuries, in law or equity, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages and attorney’s fees and other related litigation costs and expenses (collectively, “Claims”), and any attorney’s, consultant, or expert fees, and provide and pay all costs for a defense of any and all Claims against any of the Indemnified Parties, in any legal action filed in a court of competent jurisdiction by a third party in connection with this Agreement or any component thereof; the validity, applicability, or implementation of this Agreement; or the Licensee’s use of the Premises.
12.2 Owner (including Owner’s agents, employees, contractors, and subcontractors, if any) shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City, its boards, commissions, departments, officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers (collectively, “Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, proceedings (including but not limited to legal and administrative proceedings of any kind), suits, fines, penalties, judgments, orders, liens, levies, costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages, or injuries, in law or equity, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages and attorney’s fees and other related litigation costs and expenses (collectively, “Claims”), and any attorney’s, consultant, or expert fees and City staff costs for investigating and responding to any Claims, and provide and pay all costs for a defense of any and all Claims against any of the Indemnified Parties, in any legal action filed in a court of competent jurisdiction by a third party in connection with this Agreement or any component thereof; the validity, applicability, or implementation of this Agreement; or the Owner’s use of the Premises .
12.3 All provisions within this Section 12 shall survive termination of this Agreement.
13. Insurance.
13.1 Licensee shall procure and maintain, at its own cost, during the entire term of this Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with this Agreement, and the results of Licensee’s use of the Premises, by Licensee, its agents, representatives, employees, or volunteers. Insurance coverage shall be at least as broad as the following:
a. Commercial General Liability. Insurance Services Office (“ISO”) Form CG 00 01 covering Commercial General Liability on an “occurrence” basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury, and personal & advertising injury, with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence/$2,000,000 general aggregate. Insurance coverage will be provided by an insurer authorized to conduct business in the state of California with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A-:VII, or as approved by the City.
b. Additional Insured Status. Licensee agrees to provide Owner additional insured status on the Commercial General Liability policy.
c. Primary Coverage. Licensee’s insurance coverage shall be primary coverage .
13.2 Failure to comply with any of the insurance requirements in this Agreement, including but not limited to a lapse in any required insurance coverage during the term of this Agreement, shall be a material breach of this Agreement.
14. Anti-Assignment Clause. Licensee shall not assign, delegate, transfer, or sublicense any duty or right under this Agreement, or any portion of the Licensee's use of the Premises. 80 Item7.
Ordinance No. 2026-17
Exhibit “A”
License Agreement - 4 - CAO: 04/23/2024
15. Licensee not a Lessee. No legal title or leasehold interest in the Premises or appurtenances thereto, or any landlord/tenant relationship between the City and Licensee, shall be deemed or construed to have been created or vested in the Licensee by anything contained in this Agreement.
16. Provisions Cumulative. All provisions contained herein are cumulative and in addition to and not in limitation of any other rights or remedies available to the City.
17. Anti-Waiver Clause. None of the provisions contained herein shall be waived because of previous failure to insist upon strict performance, nor shall any provision be waived because any other provision has been waived, in whole or in part.
18. Severability. The Agreement shall be performed and shall be enforceable to the full extent allowed by applicable law, and the illegality, invalidity, waiver, or unenforceability of any provision of this Agreement shall not affect the legality, validity, applicability, or enforceability of the remaining provisions of this Agreement.
19. Choice of Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California.
Venue for any action arising from this Agreement, including but not limited to matters concerning validity, construction, performance or enforcement shall be exclusively in the state or federal courts located in San Diego County, California.
20. Notice. Any statements, communications, or notices to be provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be sent to the attention of the persons indicated herein. Either Party shall provide the other Party with notice of any change of person to be notified or change of address.
If to Owner:
Niche Investments LLC
_____________________
_____________________
Attn: _________________
______________________
If to City:
City of Escondido
201 N. Broadway
Escondido, CA 92025
Attn: _______________
____________________
21. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with its attachments or other documents, if any, described or incorporated herein, contains the entire Agreement and understanding concerning the subject of this Agreement and supersedes and replaces all prior negotiations, understandings, or proposed agreements, written or oral, except as otherwise provided herein. Each of the Parties hereto acknowledges that no other Party, nor the agents nor the attorneys for any Party, has made any promise, representation, or warranty whatsoever, express or implied, not contained herein, to induce the execution of this Agreement and acknowledges that this Agreement has not been executed in reliance upon any promise, representation, or warranty not contained herein.
22. Amendment. This Agreement may not be amended except in a writing signed by all of the Parties hereto, and then only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given.
23. Independent Investigation. The Parties acknowledge that they have conducted an independent investigation of the facts concerning the subject matter of this Agreement. The Parties agree that the factual recitals are correct and expressly assume the risk that the true facts concerning the foregoing may differ from those currently understood by them. 81 Item7.
Ordinance No. 2026-17
Exhibit “A”
License Agreement - 5 - CAO: 04/23/2024
24. Advice of Counsel. The Parties hereby acknowledge that they have executed this Agreement after having the opportunity to consult with, and receive the advice of, their own counsel.
25. Capacity. Each individual signing this Agreement represents and warrants that he or she has been authorized to do so by proper action of the Party on whose behalf he or she has signed.
26. Attorney’s Fees. In any action to enforce the terms of this Agreement, the Parties agree that the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney’s fees and all costs, fees, and expenses, including the fees of expert witnesses and consultants, whether or not such costs, fees, and expenses are recoverable or allowed as costs under section 1033.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
In addition to the foregoing award of attorney’s fees and costs, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its attorney’s fees and costs incurred in any post-judgment proceedings to collect or enforce any judgment. This provision is separate and shall survive the merger of this provision into any judgment on this Agreement.
27. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed on separate counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Delivery of an executed signature page of this Agreement by electronic means, including an attachment to an email, shall be effective as delivery of an executed original.
28. Compliance with Laws. Licensee shall keep itself informed of and comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, statutes, codes, ordinances, regulations, rules, and other legal requirements in effect during the term of this Agreement. Licensee shall obtain any and all permits, licenses, and other authorizations necessary to use or operate the Premises in the manner described in this Agreement. Neither City, nor any elected or appointed boards, officers, officials, employees, or agents of the City, shall be liable, at law or in equity, as a result of any failure of Licensee to comply with this section.
29. Effective Date. Unless a different date is provided in this Agreement, the effective date of this Agreement shall be the latest date of execution set forth by the names of the signatories below. (Signature Page Follows)
82 Item7.
Ordinance No. 2026-17
Exhibit “A”
License Agreement - 6 - CAO: 04/23/2024
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed by the Parties or their duly authorized representatives as of the Effective Date:
LICENSEE:
CITY OF ESCONDIDO
Date: __________________ ________________________________________ Sean McGlynn, City Manager
OWNER:
NICHE INVESTMENTS LLC
Date: __________________ __________________________________________ John Andonian, Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Michael R. McGuinness, City Attorney
By: _____________________________
Date: ____________________
83 Item7.
Ordinance No. 2026-17
Exhibit “A”
License Agreement - 7 - CAO: 04/23/2024
Exhibit A
Depiction of Premises
84 Item7.
Ordinance No. 2026-17
Exhibit “A”
License Agreement - 8 - CAO: 04/23/2024
Exhibit B
Conceptual Rendering of Anticipated Improvements
The rendering shown in this Exhibit B is a conceptual illustration provided solely for reference and to convey the general intent of the anticipated improvements. The rendering is not a final design document and shall not be construed as a representation, warranty, or guarantee regarding the exact appearance, configuration, materials, dimensions, or features of the completed improvements. The completed improvements may vary from the initial rendering due to ongoing design enhancements, site-specific conditions, material availability, budgetary constraints, or additional considerations. 85 Item7.
STAFF REPORT
August 5, 2026
File Number 0697-20-10358
SUBJECT
SHORT-FORM RENT INCREASE APPLICATION FOR WESTWINDS MOBILEHOME PARK (FILE NO. 0697-20- 10358)
DEPARTMENT
Community Development; Housing & Neighborhood Services Division
RECOMMENDATION
Request the Rent Review Board hold a Public Hearing to review and consider Westwinds Mobilehome Park Short-Form Application, located at 1415 South Pine Street, Escondido, California and adopt Resolution No. RRB 2026-127, raising all rent control space rent by 0.604 percent.
Staff Recommendation: Approval (Development Services Director: Kevin Snyder, Director of Development Services)
Presenter: Carlos Cervantes, Management Analyst and Alfredo Rubio, Code Compliance Officer II ESSENTIAL SERVICE – No
COUNCIL PRIORITY –
FISCAL ANALYSIS
Staff time and resources were expended to process the short-form application. Staff reviewed the application, evaluated the mobilehome park for code enforcement violations, and conducted public outreach with the affected park residents, park manager and owners. No additional fiscal impact was incurred by the City.
PREVIOUS ACTION
On August 13, 2025, a short-form application was considered and approved. An increase of 2.786 percent was approved, resulting in an average space increase of $21.32 per space, per month.
BACKGROUND
On June 8, 1988, the Escondido residents voted to approve Proposition K to enact Mobilehome Rent Control in the City of Escondido (“City”). Under Proposition K, if a park owner wants to increase the rent on a mobilehome rent control space, they must file an application with the City and obtain approval from 86 Item8.
the Mobilehome Park Rent Review Board (“Board”). This Board is an independent body comprised of the City of Escondido Councilmembers.
In 1997, the Board adopted changes to the Mobilehome Rent Review Board Guidelines to allow for the acceptance of a “short-form” application. The short-form application is an abbreviated and less administrative burdensome application process for park owners and City staff. A mobilehome park owner can request a rent increase based solely on the change in the San Diego Metropolitan Area’s Consumer Price Index (“CPI”), All Items/All Urban Consumers component since the last increase was granted by the Board. The requested increase may not exceed ninety percent (90%) of the increase in CPI since the last application was granted by the Board, or 8 percent, whichever is less, subject to a two-year limit. Park owners are allowed to apply one-year from the date the last application was deemed complete.
Westwinds Mobilehome Park (“Park”) is an all-age park, located at 1415 South Pine Street in Escondido, California. The Park has a total of 66 spaces, of which forty spaces are subject to rent control. The Park is requesting an increase for the forty rent-controlled spaces. The amenities available for the residents include a furnished clubhouse, a pool, restrooms and laundry facilities.
The Park submitted a short-form application on June 24, 2026. (Attachment “1”). City staff reviewed the application and deemed it to be complete on June 25, 2026. City staff mailed a letter, written in both English and Spanish, on June 29, 2026, notifying the affected Park residents of the application and proposed rent increase, upcoming residential meeting, and Public Hearing date (Attachment “2”).
The Park’s short-form application was available for public review at the Park office, and the Housing & Neighborhood Services Division counter at City Hall.
Housing & Neighborhood Services and Code Compliance staff facilitated an in-person meeting for the affected residents on July 13, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. Code Compliance conducted a lighting inspection that same evening, and completed an inspection of the common areas on July 14, 2026.
City staff mailed a 10-day notice written in both English and Spanish to residents on July 23, 2026, reminding them of the August 5, 2026 City Council Meeting (Attachment “4”).
THE RENT INCREASE APPLICATION:
The short-form application meets all the eligibility criteria for submittal of a short-form rent increase.
PARK OWNER’S REQUEST:
The Park is requesting an increase of 90 percent of the change in CPI for March 2025 to the annual rate of 2025. A park is allowed to request up to 90 percent of the change in CPI. Under Section 11(D) of the Guidelines, it states, “In determining whether the amount of the park owner’s requested increase is appropriate, the Board must presume that up to ninety percent (90%) of the change in Consumer Price 87 Item8.
Index is a fair, just, and reasonable rent increase. However, the Board may consider any of the other Rent Control Ordinance factors in Section 291104(g) at the request of either the park owner or the affected residents in determining that a lesser increase is fair, just, and reasonable.” These factors are referenced in Chapter 29, Article 5, Section 29-104(g) of the Escondido Municipal Code. Ninety percent of the change in the CPI is 0.604 percent for the period of consideration. Currently, the average monthly rent for the residents that are affected by this application is $793.20. The average monthly increase requested for the forty spaces is $4.76 per space, per month. This increase ranges from to $2.46 - $5.91 per space, per month.
RESIDENT MEETING AND COMMENTS:
All residents affected by this request were invited to attend a meeting at their clubhouse on July 13, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. Two residents attended the meeting and Salvador Torres was the representative identified.
CODE COMPLIANCE INSPECTION:
On July 13, 2026, a lighting inspection was performed by the Code Compliance Division; no lighting violations were identified. On July 14, 2026, an inspection of the common areas was conducted by the Code Compliance Division, Housing and Neighborhood Services staff, and Park management. Two general park violations were identified. There is an inoperable bathroom shower door in the men’s pool restroom and overgrown tree branches encroaching into the roadway by space 5 on Bali Hai Road.
A notice was mailed to the Park manager and owner informing them of the violations. (Attachment “3”).
A reinspection was conducted and as of July 27, 2026, all violations were corrected (Attachment “5”).
According to the Mobilehome Rent Review Board Guidelines, no increase granted for any park shall go into effect until any existing code violations are corrected.
ADDITIONAL FACTORS AFFECTING THE APPLICATION:
In conformance with the Rent Review Board Guidelines, the decision of the Board will be finalized by adoption of the Resolution confirming the findings of the Public Hearing. The Notice of Determination will be mailed to the applicant and residents immediately upon adoption of the Resolution. Park owners and management must give a 90-day notice of any rent increase to affected residents upon the adoption of the Resolution.
RESOLUTIONS
a. Resolution No. RRB 2026-127
ATTACHMENTS
a. Attachment “1”-Westwinds Mobilehome Park Application 88 Item8.
b. Attachment “2”-Resident Short-Form Letter Notification c. Attachment “3”-Code Inspection
d. Attachment “4”-10-Day Public Hearing Notice
e. Attachment “5”-Code Letter Clearing Violations
89 Item8.
RESOLUTION NO. RRB-2026-127
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL/ MOBILEHOME
RENT REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO,
CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING A RENT INCREASE FOR
WESTWINDS MOBILEHOME PARK
(File Number: 0697-20-10358)
WHEREAS, Article V of Chapter 29 of the Escondido Municipal Code is a codification of the Escondido Mobilehome Rent Protection Ordinance ("Ordinance") and provides for mobilehome space rent regulation; and
WHEREAS, the City of Escondido Mobilehome Park Rental Review Board ("Board") is charged with the responsibility of considering applications for rent increases; and WHEREAS, a short-form rent increase application pursuant to Section 11 of the Rent Review Board Guidelines was filed on June 24, 2026 (“Application”) by Westwinds Mobilehome Park LLC, the owner of the rental spaces in Westwinds Mobilehome Park (“Park”), an all-age park located at 1415 South Pine Street, Escondido, California; and
WHEREAS, the short-form application was deemed complete by City staff on June 25, 2026; and WHEREAS, the last rent increase was granted by the Rent Review Board on August 13, 2025, for an increase of 2.786% which amounted to an average increase of $21.32 per space, per month; and WHEREAS, the average monthly rent per affected space was $793.20 for the forty spaces requested for a rent increase. The Park requested an increase of 0.604%, resulting in an average increase of $4.76 per space, per month; and
90 Item8.
WHEREAS, a notice of the Park's application was mailed to all affected homeowners on June 29, 2026 and a 10-day notice of the time, date, and place of the rent hearing before the Board was mailed to the Park and to all affected tenants on July 23, 2026; and WHEREAS, on June 13, 2026 and June 14, 2026, a Mobilehome Park Rent Review Code Compliance Inspection was completed. There were no lighting violations and two general park violations were identified, which were an inoperable bathroom shower door in the men’s pool restroom and overgrown tree branches encroaching into the roadway by space 5 on Bali Hai Road; and WHEREAS, on July 27, 2026, Code Compliance completed a reinspection and all violations were cleared; and
WHEREAS, on August 5, 2026, the Board held its Public Hearing. After an initial staff presentation, the Board invited testimony from Park ownership and other residents of the community at large; and WHEREAS, after all present had been given an opportunity to speak, the Public Hearing was closed.
Following an opportunity for discussion among the Board members and clarifying questions to the parties and staff, the Board voted to grant a 0.604% increase, resulting in an average rent increase of $4.76 per space, per month, for the forty spaces.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Escondido, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true.
2. That the City of Escondido Mobilehome Park Rental Review Board finds that the Westwinds Mobilehome Park short-form application increase is consistent with the Rent Review Board Guidelines and approves the short-form rent application submitted by Westwinds Mobilehome Park, LLC. 91 Item8.
CITY OF ESCONDIDO
201 North Broadway
Escondido, CA 92025-2798
(760) 839-4562
SHORT-FORMAPPLICATION FOR MOBILEHOME SPACE RENT INCREASE Park Name Westwinds MHP Telephone 760-740-0743
Address 1419 S. Pine Street Escondido, CA 92025
Owner Westwinds MHP, LLC Telephone 949-722-1698
Address 301 E. 17th St. Suite #208 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Representative Bart Thomsen Telephone 949-722-1698
(If other than owner; all City correspondence will be addressed to this person) Address
Site Manager Katie Morris Telephone 949-722-1698
Today’s Date: 6/23/2026
Date of last RRB increase 12-1-25 Period covered by CPI request March 2025 - Annual Number of Spaces in Park 66 Spaces affected by proposed increase 40 Change in CPI during period 0.671 %o 90% of change in CPI 0.6039% Increase requested by Park 0.604 % # of In-Place Transfers as of 7/1/20 1 or since last Rent Increase Application (whichever is more recent) Briefly describe the park. Include amenities and services provided without additional charge. Attach additional pages if more space is needed.
Clubhouse
Laundry
Pool
Updated 1/26/2026 5
Attachment "1"
92 Item8.
SPACE RENTALS
Complete for all spaces affected by Proposed Increase at: Westwinds MHP Date of last application was deemed complete: 6/23/2025 Date of last increase; 12/1/2025
DIRECTIONS: |. List the monthly rent for rent-controlled spaces (“RC”) collected for all affected spaces at the date the application was deemed complete. 2. List all long-term lease spaces (“LT”) that sold or signed a new agreement after February 13, 2020. 3. If spaces have been added due to termination of long-term leases or space rents have been raised during a calendar year since the last increase was granted, list the highest rent paid for each space during that calendar year. If the last increase was granted more than three years ago, use additional pages as needed. This sheet may be duplicated as necessary.
Resident Name and RC Rentin Rent in
Space # or
LT
20 20
C urrent
Rent
(_/_/_)
| Requested
Increase
($)
Percentage
Increase
Requested
New Rent
_ #1 - See attached
#2 - None
IN-PLACE TRANSFER/ SALE(S)
Updated 4/11/2023
Attachment "1"
93 Item8.
Westwinds Mobilehome Park Rent Increase Application 2026 > Oe S - age COUC CQO ePOUS SO
e 2024 e 20 e 20 ease ease ew Re
Bahal j|Jesus Larios $755.78 755.78 776.84 0.604% $4.69 $781.53 Bahal1O |Frank Andrade $798.81 798.81 821.06 0.604% $4.96 $826.02 Bahal2 {Ramon Galvan $842.39 842.39 865.86 0.604% $5.23 $871.09 Bahal4 |Ma. Hernandez $743.86 775.66 797.27 0.604% $4.82 $802.09 Baha1l6 {Sophia Olivo $798.81 798.81 821.06 0.604% $4.96 $826.02 Baha2 |Jaime Cerda $791.33 825.16 848.15 0.604% $5.12 $853.27 Baha24 |Hugh Mac Donald $380.54 396.81 407.87 0.604% $2.46 $410.33 Baha26 {Bianca Liset Guillen $833.67 833.67 856.90 0.604% $5.18 $862.08 Baha3_ | Michelle Gallup $739.07 739.07 759.66 0.604% $4.59 $764.25 Baha4_ |Eduardo Ibarra $792.63 817.99 840.78 0.604% $5.08 $845.86 Baha6é |Margarita De La Cruz $791.63 791.63 813.68 0.604% $4.91 $818.59 Baha7_ |Teresa Kidare $423.42 441.52 453.82 0.604% $2.74 $456.56 Baha8& {Antonio Hernandez $851.18 851.18 874.89 0.604% $5.28 $880.17 Balil |Manuela Barkhorn $784.09 817.61 840.39 0.604% $5.08 $845.47 Balil1 Juan Garcia $773.79 803.19 825.57 0.604% $4.99 $830.56 Bali3 Lenika Quinones $825.66 852.08 875.82 0.604% $5.29 $881.11 Bali4 |Manuela Felix $855.00 855.00 878.82 0.604% $5.31 $884.13 Bali5 Neftali Calderon $380.54 396.81 407.87 0.604% $2.46 $410.33 Bali6 {Stephanie Branch $876.19 876.19 900.60 0.604% $5.44 $906.04 Berm10 |Victoria Ortega $730.48 758.24 779.36 0.604% $4.71 $784.07 Berm4 {Reynaldo Flores $809.69 809.69 832.25 0.604% $5.03 $837.28 Berm9 {Christopher Hein $726.88 753.05 774.03 0.604% $4.68 $778.71 JamaiO |Paul Busse $746.89 770.79 792.26 0.604% $4.79 $797.05 Jama2_ {Trinidad Sanchez Sandoval $707.43 732.90 753.32 0.604% $4.55 $757.87 Jama5S_ {Daniel Parker $380.54 396.81 407.87 0.604% $2.46 $410.33 Jama6 _|Marie Desidero $749.88 749.88 770.77 0.604% $4.66 $775.43 Jama8&_ |Octavio Rodriguez $721.12 748.52 769.37 0.604% $4.65 $774.02 Jama9_ {Roberto Carrillo Castro $776.09 776.09 797.71 0.604% $4.82 $802.53 Tahi11 |Mario Sanchez Gomez $785.57 815.42 838.14 0.604% $5.06 $843.20 Tahi15 |Balthazar Arandia Cuajunco $850.35 850.35 874.04 0.604% $5.28 $879.32 Tahi19 |Guillermina Velasquez $802.29 832.78 855.98 0.604% $5.17 $861.15 Tahi2 |Sergio Ramos Cordova $752.84 776.93 798.58 0.604% $4.82 $803.40 Tahi21 |Alfredo Rocha $805.74 840.19 863.60 0.604% $5.22 $868.82 Tahi25 |Noe Santana $797.51 797.51 819.73 0.604% $4.95 $824.68 Tahi27_ |Hien Ly $830.75 862.32 886.34 0.604% $5.35 $891.69 Tahi3 | Aurora Solis $804.43 S359 856.61 0.604% $5.17 $861.78 Tahi4 |Nancy Maclas $725.15 752.71 773.68 0.604% $4.67 $778.35 TahiS {Salvador Torres $835.00 861.72 885.73 0.604% 55.35 $891.08 Tahi6 {Lucinda Hernandez $715.26 742.44 763.12 0.604% $4.61 $767.73 Tahi9 {Joel Marin $850.36 880.97 977.95 0.604% $5.91 $983.86 Attachment "1"
94 Item8.
DIRECTIONS:
Enter the information on all in-place transfer of a resident-owned mobilehomes in the park after July 1, 2020, or since the date of when the last rent increase application was deemed complete (whichever date is more recent). Please note the term “deemed complete” means when the Housing & Neighborhood Services staff deemed your previous application complete not when the Rent Review Board granted the increase. ,. “Inplace transfer” means the transfer of the ownership of a mobilehome with the mobilehome remaining on the mobilehome lot following the transfer.
Final Space Rent - rent charged to the departing tenant for the final month of rent before the sale Space Rent after Sale — rent paid by the new tenant for the first month after the sale Park Average Space Rent - total amount of rent charged for all spaces in a mobilehome park occupied by a resident owned mobilehome, divided by the number of spaces in the park occupied by a resident owned mobilehome (calculated on the most recent annual rent control survey) Use additional Sheets if necessary
Final Space Rent Space Rent After Sale Park Average Current Lease Type S # Sale Dat and ee Before Sale ($) ($) | Space Rent (LT/RC) Tahi9 4/28/2026 $905.51 $977.95 $765.30 RC
Tahi2 Not a sale Name change only
Updated 4/11/2023
Attachment "1"
95 Item8.
OWNER’S AFFIDAVIT
1 (We.)
Katie Morris
a
being duly sworn, depose and say that I (We) am (are) the owner(s) of said park involved in this request and that the foregoing statements or answers contained herein and the information submitted herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge and belief. | (We) make the foregoing statement, the statements and answers contained herein and declare under penalty of perjury that the same are true and correct. / Signed: an Moa |
Signature
Park Owner/Type or print name
gne Morris
Representative/Type or print name
Signature
Mailing address: 301 E. 17th St. #208
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
Updated 4/11/2023 ( 5)
Attachment "1"
96 Item8.
Housing & Neighborhood Services Division
201 North Broadway, Escondido, CA 92025
Phone: 760-839-4841
www.escondido.org/housing-and-neighborhoodservices
June 29, 2026
Re: Short-form Rent Increase Application Submitted by Westwinds Mobilehome Park Dear Resident:
A short-form application for a rent increase for your Park has been received and determined to be complete.
This letter is to inform you about:
1) RESIDENT MEETING
Date: Monday July 13, at 6:00 p.m.
Location: Park Clubhouse
Purpose: To discuss the short-form hearing process, answer any questions, and select a resident representative.
Spanish translation will be provided
2) RENT REVIEW BOARD HEARING
Date: August 5, 2026 at 5 p.m.
Location: City Council Chambers, 201 North Broadway, Escondido, CA 92025 3) HOW THIS MAY IMPACT YOU
The park is requesting a 0.604% increase
Average Increase per space per month: $4.76
Average Rent for rent controlled spaces after the increase: $793.20 4) WHERE TO RECEIVE MORE INFORMATION
Attend the resident meeting on July 13, at 6:00 p.m.
The application is available on the city’s website, at your park’s office and at the Housing and Neighborhood Services Division counter at City Hall during normal business hours.
Monday – Friday 8 a.m. – 5 p.m.
This letter serves as the residents notice allowing them 30 days to review the application and supporting documents, and submit written comments to City staff prior to the hearing, either through email or in person at 201 North Broadway, Escondido, CA 92025. Contact Carlos Cervantes at (760) 839-6265 or [email protected] Sincerely,
Carlos Cervantes
Carlos Cervantes - Housing and Neighborhood Services Analyst Manager Attachment "2"
97 Item8.
Housing & Neighborhood Services Division
201 North Broadway, Escondido, CA 92025
Phone: 760-839-4841
www.escondido.org/housing-and-neighborhoodservices
29 de junio del 2026
Re: Solicitud Abreviada para un Aumento de Renta presentada por Westwinds Mobilehome Park.
Estimado Residente:
Una solicitud abreviada para un aumento de rentas para su Parque ha sido revisada y determinada ser completa.
Esta carta es para infórmale de:
1) JUNTA DE RESIDENTES
Fecha = lunes 13 de julio a las 6:00 p.m.
Locación = Clubhouse de su parque
Propósito = Para discutir el proceso de la audiencia de la solicitud abreviada, contestar cualquier pregunta y seleccionar un residente representante. 2) AUDIENCIA DE COMISIÓN DE EVALUADORES DE RENTA
Fecha = 8 de agosto, a las 5pm
Locación = En la Sala Consistorial del Municipio (City Council Chambers), 201 North Broadway, Escondido, CA 92025
3) COMO ESTO LE PUEDE AFECTAR A USTED
El parque está solicitando un aumento de 0.604%
Aumento promedio por espacio por mes = $4.76
Renta promedia para espacios de renta controlado = $793.20 4) DONDE PUEDE RECIBIR MÁS INFORMATION
Asistir la junta de residentes el 13 de julio a las 6:00 p.m. La solicitud está disponible en el sitio web de la ciudad, en la oficina de su parque y en el mostrador de la División de Vivienda y Servicios al Vecindario en el Ayuntamiento durante sus horas de oficina normal. Lunes – viernes 8am-5pm. Esta carta sirve como notificación para los residentes, permitiéndoles 30 días para revisar la solicitud y los documentos de respaldo, y enviar comentarios por escrito al personal de la Ciudad antes de la audiencia, ya sea por correo electrónico o en persona en 201 North Broadway, Escondido, CA 92025.
Contacte a Carlos Cervantes al (760) 839-6265 o [email protected] Sinceramente,
Carlos Cervantes
Carlos Cervantes - Housing and Neighborhood Services Analyst Manager Attachment "2"
98 Item8.
ESCONDIDO a wae
Sy anche Se Code Compliance Division
201 N. Broadway, Escondido, CA 92025
(760) 839-4650, FAX (760) 839-4313
Date: July 20, 2026
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE RENT
CONTROL BOARD
FROM: RUBEN HERNANDEZ, CODE COMPLIANCE SUPERVISOR ((-+- SUBJECT: WESTWINDS MOBILEHOME PARK RENT CONTROL
The Westwinds Mobile Home Park was inspected on July 14, 2026, with the lighting inspection conducted the prior evening. This inspection was a result of an application for a rent increase having been filed. There were two general park violations and no lighting violations found in the park. The inspection results are noted in the attached inspection report.
The resident meeting for the park was held on July 13, 2026 with one park manager and four city staff members. Two Park residents also attended the meeting. There were no Code Compliance concerns to discuss.
Cc: Kevin Snyder, Director of Development Services
Danielle Lopez, Housing & Neighborhood Services Manager Attachment "3"
99 Item8.
ESCONDIDO
City of Choice
July 20, 2026
MOBILE HOME PARK RENT CONTROL
CODE COMPLIANCE INSPECTION REPORT
Park Name: Westwinds Mobile Home Park
1415 S. Pine St
Escondido, CA 92025
Park Owner: Westwinds Mobile Home Park LLC
c/o Thomsen Properties
301 E. 17 Street # 208
Costa Mesa, CA. 92627
Park Managers: Liliana Silva Phone: (760) 740-0743
Jim Younce
Inspection Date: 7/14/2026 Inspector: Alfredo Rubio
The following report is based on the inspection of the Westwind’s Mobile Home Park conducted under provisions outlined in the California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Division 1, Chapter 2 and the City of Escondido Municipal Code under Article 25.
This inspection report only addresses health and safety issues that are related to areas for which maintenance, repair and operations is the responsibility of the owners and managers of the park.
Violations:
1. There is an inoperable bathroom shower door in the men’s pool restroom in violation of 25 CCR 1608 (I) & 1102.
Attachment "3"
100
Item8.
Corrective action:
Repair, replace or remove inoperable bathroom shower door.
2. There were overgrown tree branches encroaching into the roadway by space number 5 on BALI HAI Road in violation of 25 CCR 1608 (J) & 1102.
Corrective action:
Cut, trim and maintain overgrown tree branches encroaching into the roadway at all times.
Areas of the Mobile Home Park requiring illumination per 25 CCR 1108.
Exterior Mobile Home Park lighting inspection was conducted on 7/13/2026.
1. There was no Mobile Home Park lighting violations observed during the inspection.
Attachment "3"
101
Item8.
Housing & Neighborhood Services
201 North Broadway, Escondido, CA 92025
Phone: 760-839-4841
July 23, 2026
Westwinds Mobilehome Park
1411 S Pine St,
Escondido, CA 92025
RESIDENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Escondido, sitting as the Mobilehome Rent Review Board, will hold a public hearing to consider the following item:
A short-form rental increase application for Westwinds M.H.P.
A copy of the application is available for review at https://www.escondido.gov/240/Pending-Applications, or the Housing & Neighborhood Services Division at City Hall, 201 N. Broadway. A copy of the staff report will be available at the Housing counter five days prior to the hearing date.
A public hearing is scheduled for August 5, 2026 at 5 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 201 N.
Broadway, Escondido, CA 92025 to determine whether or not a rent increase will be granted for your park.
If you are protesting the short-form application, you should register in the foyer prior to the opening of the public hearing. The purpose of the hearing is for the Rent Review Board to obtain input from the owner and tenants about why an increase should or should not be granted. If you challenge the decision of the Board in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Rent Review Board at or prior to the public hearing.
You may also submit your feedback to Carlos Cervantes at [email protected] or call 760- 839-6265 and this information will be included in the City Council presentation.
At the hearing, the Rent Review Board may make a determination about the rent increase or they may request additional information from the owner or tenants. If additional information is requested, a new hearing will be scheduled. If an increase is granted, the owner must notify you in writing of the amount of the increase at least (90) days before the increase goes into effect.
Sincerely,
Carlos Cervantes
Carlos Cervantes
Housing & Neighborhood Services Analyst I
Attachment "4"
102
Item8.
Housing & Neighborhood Services
201 North Broadway, Escondido, CA 92025
Phone: 760-839-4841
23 de julio del 2026
Westwinds Mobilehome Park
1411 S Pine St,
Escondido, CA 92025
AVISO PARA RESIDENTES DE AUDIENCIA PÚBLICA
POR LA PRESENTE SE NOTIFICA que el Concejo Municipal de la Ciudad de Escondido, siendo la Comisión Evaluadora que Revisan las Rentas de Casas Móviles, tendrá una audiencia pública para considerar el siguiente punto:
La aplicación de aumento de renta para Greencrest M.H.P.
Una copia de la aplicación está disponible para revisión en https://www.escondido.gov/240/PendingApplications, o División de Vivienda y Servicios al Vecindario en el Ayuntamiento, 201 N. Broadway. Una copia del reporte del personal estará disponible en el mostrador de la División de Vivienda cinco días antes de la fecha de la audiencia.
Una audiencia pública está programada para el 5 de agosto del 2026 a las 5 p.m. en la Sala Consistorial del Concejo Municipal, 201 N. Broadway, Escondido, CA 92025 para determinar si se otorgará o no un aumento de renta para su parque.
Si usted está protestando esta abreviada-aplicación, debe registrarse en el vestíbulo antes de que comience la audiencia pública. El propósito de la audiencia es que la Comisión Evaluadora que Revisa las Rentas obtenga información del propietario y los inquilinos sobre por qué se debe o no se debe otorgar un aumento. Si impugna la decisión de la Comisión Evaluadora ante la corte, puede quedar limitado a proponer solo aquellos asuntos que usted u otra persona haya propuesto en la audiencia pública descrita en este aviso, o en la correspondencia escrita entregada a la Comisión Evaluadora que Revisa las Rentas durante o antes de la audiencia pública.
También puede enviar sus comentarios a Carlos Cervantes a [email protected] o llamar al 760-839-6265 y está información se incluirá en la presentación al Concejo Municipal.
En la audiencia, la Comisión Evaluadora de Revisión de Rentas puede tomar una determinación sobre el aumento de renta o pueden solicitar información adicional del propietario y / o inquilinos antes de tomar una decisión. Si se solicita información adicional, se programará una nueva audiencia. Si se concede un aumento, el propietario debe notificarle por escrito de la cantidad del aumento al menos (90) días antes de que el aumento entre en vigencia.
Sinceramente,
Carlos Cervantes
Carlos Cervantes
Analista de Servicios de Vivienda y Vecindario I
Attachment "4"
103
Item8.
____ July27,2026
�-westwind'sMobile Home Park LLC
C/O Thomsen Properties
30 1 E. 17th Street Suite 208
Costa Mesa CA 92627
Westwind's Mobile Home Park
Mobile Home Park Managers
Liliana Silva and Jim Younce
1415 S. Pine Street
Escondido CA 92025
Dear Liliana & Jim,
Code Compliance Division
Z0l North Broadway, Escondido, CA 92025
Phone: 760-839-4650 Fax: 760-432-6819
This notice is to formally advise you that the violations that were noted during the rent control inspection on July 14, 2026 have been corrected.
We appreciate having the parks cooperation during this process. Our mutual efforts are important in maintaining safe and ealthy parks in our city. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Anthony Mullins
Code Compliance Services Manager
CC: Kevin Snyder, Director of Development Services
Danielle Lopez, Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Attachment "5"
104
Item8.
STAFF REPORT
August 5, 2026
File Number 0800-40
SUBJECT
PL24-0067 – AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE A TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP AND ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF ONE LOT INTO 5 RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ON HAMILTON LANE
AND BERNARDO AVENUE
DEPARTMENT
Planning Services, Development Services
RECOMMENDATION
Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2026-90 denying the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Tentative Subdivision Map and Addendum for the subdivision of one lot into 5 residential lots for future development on Hamilton Lane and Bernardo Avenue.
Staff Recommendation: Approval (Development Services: Kevin Snyder, AICP, Director of Development Services)
Presenter: Melissa DiMarzo, Assistant Planner II
ESSENTIAL SERVICE – Yes, Land Use/Development
COUNCIL PRIORITY – Drive Community and Land Development
FISCAL ANALYSIS
The Applicant will be responsible for payment of all Development Impact Fees. Additionally, the Applicant will be responsible for a Hamilton Lane Storm Drain Repayment for lots 1 and 2, as detailed in the Engineering Conditions of Approval Item #2 – Repayments and Fees.
PREVIOUS ACTION
On April 28, 2026, the project was heard by the Planning Commission, who motioned to approve the project. The motion was approved by a 4-1 vote.
105
Item9.
BACKGROUND
Previous development proposal:
On June 6, 2007, City Council approved the Annexation, Pre-zone, Tentative Subdivision Map, and adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for a previous project at this location, with a language update to the resolution requested by the San Diego Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) adopted on June 4, 2008 (“Approved Project”). The Tentative Subdivision Map for the project (TR 931) was set to expire on June 2, 2010; however, state map extensions extended the expiration date to June 6, 2017. The project proponent filed an extension of time request prior to the 2017 expiration date, and City Council approved a 3-year extension on July 19, 2017 under Resolution No. 2017-97, setting the expiration to June 6, 2020. The California Governor extended certain qualifying subdivisions under a state of emergency declared due to the COVID-19 pandemic (CA Govt Code Section 65914.5), which granted an additional 18 months to any tentative map approved prior to March 4, 2020, which set the new expiration date for the 2007 approved map to December 6, 2021. However, the City did not receive any subsequent extension of time requests, and the map subsequently expired at the end of 2021.
Current development proposal:
On March 7, 2024, Robert D’Amaro of Masson & Associates (“Applicant”) filed an application to develop a 6.02-acre parcel located at the southeast corner of Hamilton Lane and Bernardo Avenue (APN 238-360- 68-00) (“Property”). The Property has a General Plan land use designation of Estate I (E1) and a zoning designation of Residential Estates (RE-40: 40,000 square-foot minimum lot sizes). The Property is surrounded by single-family residential uses to the north, east, south, and west, with the northern, eastern, and southern borders of the property abutting unincorporated San Diego County property.
The proposed development consists of a five (5) Lot Tentative Subdivision for the future development of five (5) single-family homes with the addition of a stormwater basin to address stormwater drainage on-site (“Project”). The request also includes the approval of an addendum to the previously adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the site to document the minor changes to the Project from the previously Approved Project.
Per the Escondido Zoning Code Article 6 Table 33-98(a), the minimum lot size required for the property is 40,000 square-feet and the permitted use of the property is single-family residential, with an average lot width of 150 feet, and minimum street frontage of 20 feet (or connected to a public street by a permanent access easement). A copy of the proposed tentative map is included in the April 28, 2026 Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment “3”).
Further analysis of the Project can be found within Attachment “3” – Planning Commission staff report, dated April 28, 2026.
106
Item9.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On April 28, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project. A motion to approve the resolution approving the Project was passed by a 4 – 1 vote.
APPEAL
City staff received two (2) public comments prior to the Planning Commission hearing which are included as Attachment “5” to the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment “3”). These comments were limited to general inquiries, and traffic and density concerns. City staff provided the requested information regarding the Project. On the day of the hearing, additional oral and written public comment was provided and was addressed at the public hearing (See Attachment “1”).
On May 7, 2026, Heidi Whitman (“Appellant”) filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Project. On May 11, 2026, the Appellant provided a Supplemental Submission to City Council Appeal, and on May 21, 2026, Appellant provided a Second Supplemental Submission to City Council Appeal. On June 4, 2026, the Appellant provided a Third Supplemental Submission to the City Council Appeal. All appeal documents are attached to the Staff Report as Attachment “2”.
The Appeal alleges that the environmental review for the Project is insufficient, and raises concerns related to:
1. Adequacy of the environmental review provided for the Project;
2. Movement of soil from grading activities; and
3. Bioretention basin and Stormwater Design.
SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS
Soil and Soil Gas Sampling and Analysis
The Applicant Voluntarily Performed a Soil Study Which Concluded No Further Assessment Is Needed Following the Planning Commission hearing on April 28, 2026, the Project property owner engaged the preparer of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to conduct a voluntary Soil and Soil Gas Sampling Analysis of the Project site. The tests were conducted at 4 locations on the Project site on May 21st, and samples were sent for laboratory analysis, with results provided on June 2, 2026. The results of the testing showed that no Volatile Organic Compounds (“VOCs”) were found in either the soil or soil gas that was analyzed. This would indicate that vapor intrusion is not a human pathway of concern at the Project Site, and that further analysis is not warranted. A complete copy of the report is provided as Attachment “7”. 107
Item9.
San Diego Regional Water Quality Board Meeting
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Response to Proposed Project On June 10, 2026, Appellant addressed the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board at their regularly scheduled meeting, asking them to look into the proposed Project. The Senior Engineering Geologist for the Board, Sean McClain, responded that they had reviewed the Project in coordination with the Department of Toxic Substances and Control (“DTSC”), and that the plume of contaminants had migrated south, away from the proposed Project site at such a depth that it does not pose a concern to the agencies. A recording of this Board discussion is provided here: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board June 2026 Meeting beginning at 6:05 and a transcript is provided as Attachment “8” to this report.
STANDARD OF REVIEW:
The City Council’s review of this Appeal is a de novo action, meaning the City Council has full authority to modify any aspect of the action or Project to the same extent the Planning Commission could have required that modification. The Council is not bound by the prior Planning Commission decision.
CITY STAFF RESPONSE TO APPEAL
Legal Framework
Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), several types and classes of projects are exempt from environmental review, and preparation of an Initial Study (“IS”) is not required. It was determined that the Project is not categorically or statutorily exempt from CEQA due to the Project size.
If a project is not exempt from environmental review, City staff will research to see if the environmental impacts of the Project were covered in an adopted environmental document. City staff reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) adopted for the Approved Project, and determined that impacts from the Project were adequately addressed in the adopted IS/MND.
Because there was a prior adopted MND for a prior project on the same property, there are two relevant CEQA Guidelines. California Code of Regulations (hereinafter “Guidelines”) Section 15162 describes the circumstances under which subsequent or supplemental environmental review is required, while Section 15164 details when an addendum is permissible.
Pursuant the Public Resource Code 21166 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162), which governs subsequent review, a lead agency (i.e. the City) may not require a new Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration unless, specific findings are made. If none of the conditions described in Section 15162 are triggered then the City may choose to document the environmental review under Section 15164 governing Addendums to an adopted ND/MND.
108
Item9.
This determination is governed by the substantial evidence standard. CEQA Guidelines section 15162 requires an agency to prepare an EIR or Negative Declaration when there is substantial evidence that the changes to a project for which a negative declaration has been approved might have a significant impact not previously considered for the project as originally approved. Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937.
Response to Issues Raised in Appeal
I. The Addendum is the Appropriate Level of Environmental Review Appellant asserts that the Addendum to the prior MND was insufficient and that a subsequent EIR should have been prepared. However, staff, along with the consultant who performed the Addendum, fully analyzed the relevant factors and determined that an Addendum was appropriate in this instance.
A. None of the Conditions Listed in Section 15162(a) Have Been Met Under Section 15162, “When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of” certain factors.
1. No Substantial Changes to the Project Were Identified Section 15162(a)(1) would allow for a subsequent EIR or MND if “[s]ubstantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.” Staff determined this trigger was not met, because the only changes to the Approved Project are the inclusion of the stormwater basin, and adjustments to the lot sizes which conform with the requirements of the underlying zoning. The proposed Project is in conformity with all other provisions of the zoning code and general plan land use designation, and the previously Approved Project.
2. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Were Identified Section 15162(a)(2) would allow for a subsequent EIR or MND if “[s]ubstantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.” 109
Item9.
Staff analyzed the Project under this criterion, and based on aerial views, the property appears to exist as it did when it was first approved by the City. The existing biological mitigation measures would address any impacts to vegetation, and there doesn’t appear to be any significant change to the existing site.
3. No New Information of Substantial Importance Was Identified Section 15162(a)(3) would allow for a subsequent EIR or MND if “[n]ew information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
None of these factors apply. At the time the IS/MND was adopted, the Chatham Barrel Yard was an existing, known, state Superfund site, which has been monitored by state and local agencies since the early 1980s. An Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by Weis Environmental for the project in April of 2025, which concluded that “No features, activities, uses and/or conditions that, in our professional judgment, may indicate the presence or likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products that have significantly impacted the Site were identified during the completion of this assessment.”
On February 3, 2026, the Applicant provided a final draft of the Addendum for review.
Issues identified during review were the current status of Monitoring Well 57 (MW57) as well as the vegetation removal that was completed without permits or mitigation.
Documentation was provided which substantiated that the monitoring well had been decommissioned by the Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC) on November 12, 2008, and subsequently, Well Destruction Permit No. LMON106099 was issued by the County Department of Environmental Health (DEH). Per Hargis + Associates, 110
Item9.
Inc., the work was completed on January 16, 2009 (Appendix E to Addendum). Further, the Addendum acknowledged the unpermitted removal of special status vegetation and requirement for mitigation as identified in the prior environmental document and adopted mitigation measures for the previous project.
B. The Addendum Was Sufficient and Complies with CEQA
When there has been a previously adopted MND, the factors discussed above come into play because an in-depth review of the Project has already occurred, the time for challenging that MND has expired, and the question is whether circumstances have changed enough to justify repeating a substantial portion of the process. See, Benton v. Board of Supervisors (1991) 226 Cal.App. 3rd 1467, 1479.
The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted for the Project by consultant Weis Environmental. The ESA addresses the environmental status of the site, including the adjacency to the barrel yard. The ESA recognized that it was analyzing “a parcel of real estate with respect to the range of contaminants within the scope of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)” and it performed a review of regulatory records and historical information, and performed a subject property reconnaissance before preparing the written findings.
Additionally, the most recent monitoring report for the Chatham Barrel Yard site, completed in April of 2025, states that the monitoring well nearest the Project site (33-G3) has no detectible Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), and the well to the north (MW-39) is at 1.3 micrograms per liter. A full copy of the annual report is located here:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fdeliverable_documents%2F67 15290665%2F2025%2006%2027_ChatPRP_April%202025_Annual%20Rpt.pdf Based on the information provided by the Applicant in the prepared draft Addendum, including substantiation that the findings listed under Section 15162 do not apply to the project, and a review of the previously adopted IS/MND and relevant mitigation measures, staff determined that a subsequent EIR or MND is not required, and the CEQA Addendum sufficiently addresses any and all potential environmental impacts that may occur as a result of the Project. Pursuant to Section 15164, public review of the Addendum is not required.
II. The Movement of Soil from Grading Activities Was Sufficiently Analyzed Another issue raised by the Appellant is the construction activities that will result from construction of the five (5) single family homes. Pursuant to the Escondido Municipal Code and Escondido Zoning Code, all construction activities are regulated by existing policies and ordinances codified in the aforementioned codes, especially noise disturbances. The information provided throughout the development review 111
Item9.
processes is consistent with information that is typically provided at this stage. Additionally, the City’s grading ordinance does require best management practices (BMPS) throughout the construction of the Project and which are enforced by the City’s stormwater division.
III. The Biofiltration Basin and Stormwater Design Was Sufficiently Analyzed As a part of the development review process, a preliminary water quality management plan is submitted and reviewed by the City’s Engineering Services. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant will be responsible for submittal of a Final Water Quality Management Plan for review and approval which must conform to the preliminary water quality management plan. The appellant states that further review is necessary due to the potential runoff issues, and that a more detailed analysis must be done; however, given the stage at which the Project is in, the appropriate level of analysis was done and approved by the City’s Engineering Services.
A. The Project’s Basin and Stormwater Infrastructure is Not “Infiltration-Oriented” Appellant bases her complaints about the Project’s stormwater infrastructure on the assertion that “the current project proposes the addition of a ‘bioretention basin’ and infiltration-oriented stormwater infrastructure as part of the subdivision design.” (Attachment “2” - Second Supplemental Submission, p. 1). This statement is incorrect, and reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the Project’s stormwater infrastructure. In fact, the Project’s design includes a biofiltration basin that is fully lined with an impermeable liner.
In general terms, a bioretention basin is a shallow, vegetated depression that promotes natural infiltration of stormwater into native soils, filtering pollutants through engineered media. In contrast, a fully lined biofiltration basin is an impermeable, sealed system designed to filter water and redirect it into the municipal storm drain, preventing any groundwater infiltration.
Because Appellant’s arguments are all based on what would be required if the Project included a bioretention basin, they are simply not applicable to the Project as designed. If the Project had included a bioretention basin, a geotechnical analysis would likely have been required. However, since the Project included a fully lined biofiltration basin, no further study was needed.
The Project, as proposed, includes a biofiltration structural best management practice (BMP) to meet pollutant control and hydromodification management performance standards in the current MS4 permit and City of Escondido Storm Water Design Manual and Appendices.
The proposed biofiltration BMP design includes a 30-ml PVC impermeable liner to prevent stormwater from infiltrating the underlying soil. Stormwater runoff from the development is conveyed to the biofiltration BMP, treated, and discharged via the underdrain pipe to the outlet pipe, which connects to the City storm drain infrastructure. 112
Item9.
There are two Green Street treatment features proposed to treat the off-site impervious area: a Proprietary Biofiltration unit that treats runoff from Hamilton Lane and Bernardo Ave, and a Green Street Bio Swale that receives stormwater runoff from a portion of Hamilton Lane for treatment.
B. The City Analyzed the Project’s Basin and Stormwater Infrastructure Under Current Standards Appellant is correct in her assertion that there has been a change in stormwater and groundwater protection standards since 2007. However, her assertion that the Project was analyzed pursuant to those 2007 standards is incorrect. The MS4 Stormwater permit utilized the most recent adopted standards from 2015, updated in 2018, and was reviewed and approved by the City.
IV. The Recent Soil Study and SDCWQB Hearing Conclude No Further Testing is Recommended The voluntary soil study conducted by the Applicant after the Planning Commission hearing analyzed samples taken from four locations on the actual Project site and found there were no VOCs in either the soil or soil gas analyzed.
The results of that study are consistent with the findings of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) as noted in the testimony of the Board’s Senior Geologist. He stated that he conferred with DTSC and “we looked at where the project is located…but the groundwater contamination is no longer underneath that property.” He concluded “we met with the City of San Diego, DTSC, nobody saw a threat to that project. And we concluded that it was a good project to be done.” He went on to explain how the plume had migrated far underground and away from the Project site.
Appellant has argued in her appeal that further testing of the site should be performed, and that the relevant government agencies should weigh in on the safety of the Project site. Both of those things have now happened. They have revealed that there were no VOC’s found on the site, and that the agencies have analyzed the site and concluded that there is no threat of contamination from the Chatham Barrel Yard plume.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis discussed throughout this staff report, staff recommends City Council adopt Resolution 2026-90, denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Commission.
Alternatively, the City Council could grant the appeal and require additional environmental review (either a full EIR or a subsequent MND), or the City Council could continue the hearing and provide staff with direction to conduct additional studies and either revise the addendum or determine whether additional review is needed.
113
Item9.
RESOLUTION
a. Resolution No. 2026-90
b. Resolution No. 2026-90 – Exhibit “A” – Legal Description c. Resolution No. 2026-90 – Exhibit “B” – Plan Set
d. Resolution No. 2026-90 – Exhibit “C” – Initial Study/Addendum e. Resolution No. 2026-90 – Exhibit “D” – Revised Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
f. Resolution No. 2026-90 – Exhibit “E” – Findings of Fact/Factors to be Considered g. Resolution No. 2026-90 – Exhibit “F” – Conditions of Approval
ATTACHMENTS
a. Attachment “1” – Planning Commission Written Public Comment b. Attachment “2” – Appeal and Supplemental Applications c. Attachment “3” – April 28, 2026 Planning Commission Staff Report d. Attachment “4” – CEQA Notice of Determination
e. Attachment “5” – Initial Study/Addendum
f. Attachment “6” - Previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration g. Attachment “7” – Voluntary Soil and Soil Gas Sampling and Analysis Results h. Attachment “8” – San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board June 10, 2026 Transcript Excerpt
114
Item9.
April 28th, 2026
City of Escondido Planning Commission
201 North Broadway
Escondido, CA 92025
Re: PL24-0067 — Hamilton Lane 5-Lot Tentative Subdivision Map Dear Chair and Commissioners,
My name is Heidi Whitman, and | live and own directly across the street from the proposed project site. | am writing to express serious concerns regarding the adequacy of the environmental review for this project.
The City is relying on a 2007 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to support approval of a project in 2026. However, the circumstances surrounding this site have materially changed, and ; substantial new information has emerged that was not analyzed in the original environmental document. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, this triggers the need for additional environmental review.
1. Proximity to the Chatham Barrel Yard and Updated Contamination Concerns The project site is located adjacent to the Chatham Barrel Yard, a known Superfund cleanup site with a long history of contamination and ongoing regulatory oversight. While prior documents suggest limited impact, more recent information indicates that concerns remain unresolved.
The April 2025 monitoring report indicates that contamination soil vapor has been detected along the plume boundary. Critically, no soil vapor testing has been conducted directly at the project site, despite its location at or near the edge of the plume and downgradient from the source area.
Given that soil vapor intrusion is a recognized pathway for human exposure, the absence of site-specific testing raises serious public health concerns. It is not reasonable to conclude that impacts are less than significant without fully evaluating this risk.
Additionally, there are documented community concerns regarding long-term health impacts associated with the Chatham site that have never been fully resolved. | have included testimony from community members in the record to reflect these ongoing concerns. (Below)
2. New Biological Information and Changed Site Conditions The applicant commissioned a new biological assessment in 2024, which identifies current site conditions, including the presence of 17 mature and protected trees, several of which qualify as Heritage Coast Live Oaks.
The existence of this updated study demonstrates that conditions have been reassessed nearly two decades after the origina WiND-{f no meaningful changes had occurred, such a study would not have been necessary.
Attachment "1"
115
Item9.
Further, City records indicate that unpermitted vegetation removal occurred in 2021, including areas previously identified for mitigation. This activity alone reflects a change in baseline environmental conditions from those analyzed in 2007.
Together, the 2024 biological study and the 2021 vegetation removal constitute new information of substantial importance under CEQA.
3. Impacts to Heritage Coast Live Oaks and Community Character The project proposes the removal of several mature trees, including some of the most prominent Heritage Coast Live Oaks on the site. These trees are located on one of the highest and most visible portions of the property and contribute significantly to the rural character of the surrounding neighborhood.
While replacement planting is proposed, it does not provide an equivalent ecological or visual impact to the loss of mature heritage trees. Treating this impact as insignificant based on a 2007 ___ analysis does not reflect current conditions or community context. _
4. Potential Cultural Resource Impacts
There are also credible concerns regarding the potential presence of Native American cultural resources on or near the site, given its proximity to Felicita Creek and known areas of historical significance. It is unclear whether this has been fully evaluated under current standards or whether appropriate tribal consultation has occurred.
This represents an additional impact category that warrants further review.
Overall, it is clear that this project presents new information and potentially significant impacts that were not adequately addressed in the 2007 MND.
Under CEQA, these circumstances require a more thorough environmental analysis. An addendum is not sufficient.
| respectfully request that the Planning Commission require a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to ensure that current conditions are properly evaluated and that public health, environmental resources, and community character are fully considered.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Heidi Whitman
2336 Rancho Diego Ct
Attachment "1"
116
Item9.
Prominent Heritage Coast Live Oaks Proposed for Removal - #3, #4 Attachment "1"
117
Item9.
Chatham Barrel Yard community testimony -
Hello. | grew up on 1312 Hamilton Lane and my house backed to the Chatham site. | lived there in the 80's. | went to Del Dios Middle School and San Pasquale HS and had many friends as neighbors, the majority of my friends have experienced rare, health issues, including the rarest of rare brain tumors, one requiring open heart surgery in her 30’s with no family history of heart issues, and another that just passed this last summer from colon cancer at the age of 50. They were three sisters who lived on Bernardo and backed up to the dump site. My step dad suffered from bladder cancer in his 50’s, again no family history, my next door neighbor died of a rare kidney cancer, a friend who lived next door to the three sisters | mentioned earlier also suffers from a rare brain tumor and she wasnt young woman when it was diagnosed. | myself, suffer from a thyroid disease, and my sister suffers from autoimmune disease as well. We're in our 40’s. There were only a few dozen people living around that dump site in the 70’s and 80’s. The majority of whom have come down with tumors, cancers or lifetime afflictions’... The chemicals - found in the soil are directly associated with the diseases we have uncovered. — - Sincerely,
Alison Wieseler
(425) 753-0853
Attachment "1"
118
Item9.
woRTH COUNTy North County Group GROUP Sierra Club San Diego SIERRA CLUB « SAN DIEGO Escondido, CA 92033
August 28, 2018
Mr. Hossein Nassiri, DTSC Project Manager
5796 Corporate Avenue
Cypress, California 90630
RE: Sierra Club North County Group comments on Five-Year Remedy Review Report for Chatham Brothers Barrel Yard, Escondido
Dear Mr. Nassiri:
The Sierra Club North County Group (NCG) represents 2,700 members in the inland North County area, including in Escondido and environs. Several of our members have contacted us about the issues at the Chatham Brothers Barrel Yard remediation. As we understand it, members of the Chatham family owned the property at 2257 Bernardo Ave, Escondido and ran a hazardous waste processing and collection business for decades. In the early 1980’s, massive pollution of the site was discovered and the facility was closed. The Chatham Barrel yard was listed as a state superfund site and emergency soil removal action was conducted. Additionally, on-site water remediation has been on-going for over 20 years.
However, in the intervening decades, the groundwater pollution has spread significantly and can now be found under Felicita County Park and many area homes. Further, the contamination is now entering Felicita Creek in a public area where the public is unwittingly exposed.
In spite of over 30 years of remedial action, much of it passive through the adoption of a passive strategy called ‘natural attenuation’, the cleanup objectives have not been met. It is clear that more proactive measures must be taken.
We have been notified that the Five-Year Remedy Review Report is underway and NCG would like to provide comments and recommendations for your consideration.
Sierra Club NCG requests the Department of Toxic Substances Control, as lead agency, take the following actions prior to certification of the Review.
1. Make a finding that, after 30 years of implementation of natural attenuation as a remedial action, the remedial objectives have not been met.
2. Direct additional proactive measures to achieve the remedial objectives, especially to stop unbated discharges into Felicita Creek.
3. Establish and timeline of performance for meeting the objectives.
Please add us to your mailing list [email protected] .
Thank you for your consideration,
Suzi Sandore, Chair
Sierra Club NCG
cc. David Gibson, Regional Water Quality Control Board
Attachment "1"
119
Item9.
et 2 i
FOR CITY USE ONLY f= Ee
—_— CITY OF ESCONDIDO Application Code(s) [: re
7 City Clerk Fee (Non-Refundable) q fa S ID 201 North Broadway Receipt No. ia = ESCONDIDC 0 Escondido, CA 92025 es ret cay es h o ouncil Hearing Date 4, (760) 839-4617 Planning Case File No. +o (if applicable) me
NOTICE OF APPEAL APPLICATION
Applicant Herds Whitman Phone: 18\-S12-1S50
(Print)
Mailing Address: 255 © Rancho D wi (0) Cy E Scone re oO q 20 ZW (Street) (City) (Zip)
Legal Owner: 4210 \ Whiiman Phone: (see above) (Print)
fr | | | | | l |
| | | | | | |
| Property Address: Aen: 238-360 - 6-00
| (Subject of Appeal)
| | | | | |
f ! / | / ; | [ | |
/ |
Is legal owner aware of this application? w Yes [ifs
Justification for appeal (May use additional paper, if necessary):
See G\tachmen*®.
Distribution:
Planning Department Signaturé-of Applicant
City Manager e =
City Clerk 5 T 2-6
Other Date
Applicant
MW/Forms/Appeal Application July 2013
I
|
|
|
(ae SS SSS SS SS SS SS ol
Attachment "2"
120
Item9.
CITY OF ESCONDIDO
CITY COUNCIL APPEAL — PL24-0067
Hamilton Lane Residential Subdivision Project
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the Escondido City Council, I respectfully submit this formal appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Hamilton Lane residential subdivision project (PL24-0067). As a directly impacted homeowner who lives across from the proposed development site, I have serious concerns regarding the adequacy of the environmental review relied upon for approval of this project, particularly given the project’s location within the known Chatham Brothers Barrel Yard contamination plume area and the substantial changes in environmental conditions since the original environmental documentation was prepared.
One of the primary issues underlying this appeal is the City’s continued reliance on a Mitigated Negative Declaration originally prepared in 2007, nearly two decades ago. Environmental conditions, regulatory understanding, groundwater monitoring data, and surrounding land use conditions have materially changed since that time. Despite the passage of approximately 19 years, the project was advanced using an addendum rather than requiring a more comprehensive and current environmental review. In my opinion, this does not reflect the level of analysis warranted for a project within an area associated with known contamination concerns and a designated state superfund clean up. The Regional Water Quality Control Board itself acknowledged ongoing concerns regarding the Chatham plume in its October 8, 2014 Executive Officer Report. Specifically, staff noted that “the remedy had failed to limit the migration of the groundwater plume” and further stated that there were concerns that the existing natural attenuation remedy “will not restore groundwater quality within a reasonable time frame.” Given these unresolved concerns within a designated State Superfund plume area, it is difficult to understand how a project involving grading, excavation, and infiltration based bioretention infrastructure can proceed under environmental analysis that largely relies on documentation prepared in 2007.
Of particular concern is the lack of updated and site-specific soil vapor analysis tied to current conditions. Recent monitoring reports associated with the Chatham plume continue to show the presence of contaminants in nearby areas. However, there does not appear to have been a comprehensive evaluation of soil vapor or subsurface conditions in relation to the proposed grading depths, excavation activities, utility trenching, or future residential exposure pathways.
This is especially concerning given the project’s location within or adjacent to a known contamination area.
Additionally, the project proposes the removal and relocation of very large granite boulders along with extensive grading. In this region, these formations are often substantially larger below grade than what is visible at the surface, meaning their removal may require deep and disruptive excavation. The environmental documentation does not appear to meaningfully analyze how this level of subsurface disturbance could affect groundwater movement, soil stability, or contaminant migration within the plume area.
Attachment "2"
121
Item9.
I am also concerned about the proposed bioretention basin and stormwater infiltration design.
The project includes plans to infiltrate stormwater into soils within or near a known contamination plume area, yet there appears to be limited analysis of whether this could alter groundwater flow patterns, mobilize contaminants, or increase migration risk to surrounding properties. This is a significant issue that warrants a more detailed and current hydrogeologic evaluation.
Beyond the environmental review itself, there are also very real construction related impacts that have not been adequately addressed. Thescale of grading, excavation, and boulder removal proposed for this site will generate significant dust, runoff, and disturbance that will directly impact neighboring properties, including my own and those of nearby residents such as Norm and Debbie Greene.
Given the site’s slope and soil conditions, there is a clear risk of sediment-laden runoff leaving the project site during grading and storm events. Without a more robust and clearly defined erosion and runoff control plan, adjacent properties could be exposed to sediment, contaminants, and drainage impacts. In addition, dust generated during excavation, particularly if soils contain contaminants, raises concerns about airborne exposure for nearby residents.
These construction phase impacts are not minor or speculative, they are a direct and foreseeable result of the proposed scope of work, and they deserve a higher level of analysis and mitigation than what was presented during the Planning Commission process.
The Planning Commission hearing included only limited discussion of these issues despite public concern. The reliance on an outdated environmental document, combined with the lack of detailed analysis regarding current subsurface conditions, contamination risks, and construction impacts, raises serious questions about whether the project has been adequately evaluated under CEQA.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s approval and require a more thorough and updated environmental review. This should include current soil vapor and subsurface investigation, evaluation of grading and excavation impacts, detailed analysis of the proposed bioretention basin, and a clear assessment of construction related impacts to neighboring properties.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Heidi Whitman
2336 Rancho Diego Ct
781-572-1550
[email protected]
Attachment "2"
122
Item9.
SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL APPEAL
PL24-0067 – Hamilton Lane Residential Subdivision Project To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the Escondido City Council, I am submitting this supplemental information in support of my filed appeal of the Hamilton Lane residential subdivision project (PL24-0067). This submission provides additional technical context, updated monitoring information, and relevant regulatory considerations that were not adequately addressed in the Planning Commission process or reflected in the project record. This information further supports my position that the environmental review relied upon for project approval is incomplete and does not meet the level of analysis warranted under current site conditions.
I have been in direct communication with the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding the project and its location within or adjacent to the Chatham contamination plume area. Based on these communications, I understand that the Water Board is actively reviewing and investigating aspects of the project as they relate to groundwater quality, contamination, and stormwater infiltration. I will be submitting these communications as part of the administrative record. The involvement of the responsible regulatory agency underscores that there remains uncertainty regarding current site conditions and potential environmental risks, which warrants a full and comprehensive EIR/environmental review than what has been relied upon to date.
A central concern remains the project’s proposal to include a bioretention/biofiltration basin designed to infiltrate stormwater into underlying soils without sufficient site specific analysis of whether such infiltration is appropriate given known contamination conditions. The project application and supporting environmental documentation do not appear to include a site specific hydrogeologic evaluation, groundwater quality assessment, soil vapor investigation, contaminant migration analysis, or infiltration compatibility study that would evaluate the safety and feasibility of infiltration within or near a mapped contamination plume. This omission is significant. The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board has made clear that infiltration feasibility determinations must be supported by site specific technical analysis, including geotechnical evaluation, testing, and documented conclusions sufficient to support the determination. The absence of this level of analysis in the project record raises serious concerns about whether the proposed stormwater design complies with applicable regulatory expectations and adequately protects public health and groundwater quality.
Recent monitoring data further underscores the need for updated and site specific evaluation. The most recent monitoring report April 2025 monitoring report shows results that impact the site or are adjacent or close by can be found on pages 48-51. Soil Vapor Monitoring shows results of contamination (pp 10-12) from the plume at the outside edge along Felicita road, but have not been monitored near the site. The site in question is in or at the northern edge of the plumes and could be a source of soil gas vapor. Monitoring for this is something that must be done prior to building housing in this area.
Without site specific soil vapor testing and subsurface evaluation, there is no meaningful way to determine whether future residential development could be subject to vapor intrusion or other Attachment "2"
123
Item9.
exposure pathways. Monitoring of these conditions is something that must be conducted prior to the construction of housing in this area.
These concerns are compounded by the project’s design, which proposes stormwater infiltration in an area where contamination has been documented but not fully characterized at the site level.
The introduction of infiltration infrastructure has the potential to alter subsurface conditions, mobilize contaminants, or change groundwater flow patterns in ways that have not been evaluated in the current environmental record. The project staff report confirms the inclusion of a bioretention basin as part of the proposed development, yet concludes that no additional environmental review is required and that reliance on an addendum to a previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration is sufficient. Given the presence of updated monitoring data, the lack of site specific investigation, and the nature of the proposed stormwater design, this conclusion does not appear to be supported by substantial evidence.
Under CEQA, additional environmental review is required where new information of substantial importance becomes available, where previously unexamined impacts may occur, or where existing analysis is no longer adequate due to changed circumstances. Recent monitoring data demonstrates that contamination remains present in the vicinity of the project, site specific conditions have not been evaluated, and the project introduces infiltration infrastructure that has not been meaningfully analyzed in the context of current environmental conditions. In addition, the fact that the Regional Water Quality Control Board is actively reviewing the project further supports the conclusion that environmental conditions and regulatory considerations have evolved since the original environmental document was prepared. These factors collectively indicate that reliance on a nearly 20 year old environmental document, supplemented only by an addendum, is insufficient.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the City Council require preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report. At a minimum, such review should include current site specific soil vapor and vapor intrusion analysis, groundwater and hydrogeologic investigation, evaluation of grading and excavation impacts on subsurface conditions, detailed analysis of the proposed bioretention basin and infiltration feasibility, and an assessment of contaminant transport and potential exposure pathways associated with both construction and long term residential use.
This issue is not a minor technical deficiency but rather a fundamental question of environmental safety and adequacy of analysis. Approving a project that proposes stormwater infiltration within or near a known contamination plume, without conducting site specific investigation, introduces uncertainty and potential risk that has not been properly evaluated. At a minimum, the City should require the level of analysis necessary to ensure that future residents, neighboring properties, and groundwater resources are not adversely impacted.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Heidi Whitman
Attachment "2"
124
Item9.
Heidi Whitman <[email protected]>
Hamiton Lane project
Heidi Whitman <[email protected]> Tue, May 5, 2026 at 4:44 PM To: [email protected]
Hi Sarah,
Thank you so much for taking a look into this, really appreciate it. Myself, along with other neighbors, have serious concerns about the contamination plume and the proposed removal of very large embedded granite formations that to my understanding have not been thoroughly analyzed by the city. I'll be formally appealing the Planning Commission’s approval of the project this Thursday. There’s no immediate rush on my end, I’m more focused on making sure a complete and accurate understanding of current site conditions is considered, especially given the city's reliance on a much older environmental document from 2007 with just an addendum. I attended the planning commission hearing and there was very surface level discussion before approval (commissioners said they didn't get complaints from residents about smells etc so they concluded the Chatham plume is a non issue) but did not analyze any regional well monitoring data etc.
One of my main concerns is whether the proposed grading, excavation, and proposed bioretention basin have been evaluated against current groundwater conditions and any potential contamination, particularly given the site’s location within the Chatham plume area. The project also proposes the removal and relocation of very large embedded granite boulders (photo attached), which in this region are often significantly larger below grade than what is visible at the surface.
Neighbors have run into this issue when excavating for a pool. The extent of excavation required to remove these formations could result in substantial subsurface disturbance.
The most recent April 2025 monitoring report includes data relevant to this site and nearby areas (see pages 48–51). Soil vapor monitoring results (pp. 10–12) show contamination associated with the plume along Felicita Road, however, comparable monitoring does not appear to have been conducted on the project site. The contaminants associated with the Chatham Barrel Yard site are known to be volatile and mobile. Unlike areas that are upgradient and have been approved for development, this location appears to be downgradient and within known contamination areas.
Please let me know if there is anything I should be providing to help your review, or if there are specific aspects of the project you’d recommend highlighting from a water quality standpoint.
Thanks again for your time, I truly appreciate your guidance on this! Best,
Heidi Whitman
2336 Rancho Diego Ct
781-572-1550
On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 12:54PM Mearon, Sarah@Waterboards <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello
My supervisor forwarded your email (copied below) to me regarding a project near the Chatham Brothers waste site. I will need some time to look into the issues you have raised. Currently we do not have any involvement in the work you described. I can try to get back to you by the end of this week if that is ok. -Sarah
Hi,
I’m a resident who lives next to the proposed subdivision project at the southeast corner of Bernardo Ave and Hamilton Lane in Escondido (PL24-0067), located within/downgradient to the Chaltham waste contamination plume (superfund site) and I wanted to reach out to see if your office is aware of it or involved in any review.
From what I can tell in the City’s materials, the project includes grading, relocation of large subsurface boulders, and construction of a bioretention (infiltration) basin. The site also references existing monitoring wells and past oversight tied to the Chatham Brothers waste site.
I’m trying to understand whether there has been any recent evaluation of groundwater conditions on this site or soil vapor monitoring particularly in relation to the current status or extent of any contamination plume, whether 5/11/26, 3:50 PM Gmail - Hamiton Lane project
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=8cfb1f26ce&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r7495118066678081407&dsqt=1&simpl=msg-a:r7495118066678081407 1/3 Attachment "2"
125
Item9.
infiltration (via the proposed basin) has been evaluated for compatibility with site conditions, or potential impacts from excavation or subsurface disturbance.
The City appears to be relying on an older environmental document (from 2007), and I’m not seeing anything clearly addressing current conditions or how these new site changes interact with them.
I want to confirm whether your office is aware of or has reviewed this project, any updated groundwater or contamination related analysis has been done since the April 2025 report and if this type of infiltration basin would typically require review given the site history.
I’m planning to raise this with the City as well and wanted to understand whether the Regional Board has had any involvement.
If there’s someone more specific I should be directing this to, I’d really appreciate being pointed in the right direction.
Thanks for your time, I appreciate any guidance you can provide.
Best,
Heidi Whitman
781-572-1550
2336 Rancho Diego Ct Escondido
Sarah Mearon, PG
Senior Engineering Geologist
R9 SAN DIEGO
R9 Site Restoration & Groundwater Protection | R9 Site Restoration Email: [email protected]
Phone: +1 (619) 521-3363
Regional Water Quality Control Board
2375 Northside Drive, Suite 100, San Diego CA 92108
Website: www.waterboards.ca.gov
Follow: X | YouTube | Facebook | LinkedIn
4 attachments
Hamilton_Boulder_removal.jpg
609K
5/11/26, 3:50 PM Gmail - Hamiton Lane project
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=8cfb1f26ce&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r7495118066678081407&dsqt=1&simpl=msg-a:r7495118066678081407 2/3 Attachment "2"
126
Item9.
GiantBoulders2_HamiltonLn.jpg
6841K
hamiltonLnboulders.jpg
1870K
HamiltonLn_Boulder_Relocation.jpg
1304K
5/11/26, 3:50 PM Gmail - Hamiton Lane project
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=8cfb1f26ce&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r7495118066678081407&dsqt=1&simpl=msg-a:r7495118066678081407 3/3 Attachment "2"
127
Item9.
Water Boards
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
April 28, 2017 Sent via E-mail
San Diego County Municipal Storm Water Copermittees
EDMUND G. BROWN J R.
GOVERNOR
~ M ATTHEW RODR IQUEZ l-...........~
~
Sl'.CAl'TARY fOA
ENVIAONMF.:NlAL PROTECTION
Subject: San Diego Water Board's Expectations of Documentation To Support a Determination of Priority Development Project Infiltration Infeasibility This letter provides information to clarify the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region's (San Diego Water Board) expectation on the types of documentation needed to support a storm water infiltration infeasibility determination made by a Copermittee during the development planning project approval process. The San Diego Water Board would review such supporting documentation during a storm water municipal program audit of the development planning infiltration and retention requirements in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems Draining the Watersheds within the San Diego Region (Regional MS4 Permit).
The San Diego Water Board participated in a collaborative meeting on February 14, 2017, to discuss challenges associated with the requirement for development projects to infiltrate storm water onsite, including low impact development, retention, and infiltration best management practices. Meeting participants included Copermittees, members of the Building Industry Association, members of the geotechnical engineering community and the public. As an outcome of the meeting, participants requested the San Diego Water Board provide information on the type of documentation expected in a Copermittee' project development file to support a determination that infiltration1 is not technically feasible at a development site.
Provision E.3 of the Regional MS4 Permit requires each Copermittee to use their land use and planning authorities to implement a Development Planning Program in accordance with the strategies in an accepted Water Quality Improvement Plan (WQIP).
Implementation of Development Planning Programs must include, in part, priority development project structural BMP performance requirements, which requires each priority development project to implement onsite structural BMPs to control pollutants in storm water that may be discharged from a project. Priority development projects must implement low impact development BMPs and structural controls designed to retain (e.g., infiltrate) onsite, pollutants contained in the volume of storm water runoff produced from a 24-hour 85th percentile storm event to the Maximum Extent Practical (MEP). The 1 Provision E.3.c(1 )(a) requires each Priority Development Project be required to implement LID BMPs that are designed to retain on site the pollutants contained in the volume of storm water runoff produced from a 24-hour 851 h
percentile storm event. Retain means intercept, store, infiltrate, evaporate, and evapotranspire.
HENRY ABARBANEL, PH D ., CHAIR I DAVID GIBSON, EXECUTIVE OFFICER 2375 Northside Drive Suite 100, San Diego, California 92108-2700 I www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego
C, RECYCLED PAPER
Attachment "2"
128
Item9.
San Diego County Copermittees - 2 - April 28, 2017
Regional MS4 Permit identifies numeric design criteria and mitigation requirements, if retention or biofiltration is not technically feasible on the project site.
The San Diego County Copermittees developed a BMP Design Manual that includes a general process to evaluate infiltration feasibility on a project site based on site conditions and a professional engineer's assessment. A San Diego Water Board audit of a Copermittees' land development program would look at a Copermittees' adherence to the outlined process in the BMP Design Manual and look to the documented rationale for support of an infiltration feasibility determination.
BMP Design Manual Section 3.3.4 Developing Conceptual Storm Water Control Strategies, describes a systematic approach to determining BMP feasibility categories (i.e. full, partial, or no infiltration condition). However, additional language could be added to more clearly describe when the Copermittee expects infiltration feasibility analysis to be conducted. Additionally, Form 8 in Appendix I to the BMP Design Manual could be revised to allow for submittal of comprehensive narrative rationale supportive of a determination that infiltration is technically infeasibility. It is the San Diego Water Boards expectation that the process to determine a site's infiltration feasibility, be initiated as early as possible in the entitlement process and ideally within the environmental alternative assessment I mitigation stage, and/or project conditions of approval stage. The San Diego Water Board considers such early consideration as compliance with the MEP standard.
The systematic approach should also create a robust transparent record supporting the determinations and actions of the jurisdiction. The record for determining the feasibility of infiltration at a site should at a minimum document: 1) when in the entitlement process did a geotechnical engineer analyze the site for infiltration feasibility; 2) scope and results of testing, if conducted2, by a geotechnical engineer; 3) public health and safety requirements that affect infiltration locations; and 4) conclusions and recommendation of the jurisdiction's and applicant's geotechnical engineer. The record should also include a detailed narrative, documenting early and frequent site design discussions of potential infiltration locations between jurisdiction staff and the project geotechnical engineer, which should clearly identify, but not be limited to, the following:
• The development status of the site prior to the project application (i.e., new development with raw ungraded land, or redevelopment with existing graded conditions);
• The history of design discussions for the site proposed project, resulting in the final design determination;
2 A Copermittee retains full authority to require additional or more recent testing and/or studies to substantiate findings needed to make a determination on infiltration feasibility (See Appendix I-Form 8). In certain circumstances, a Copermittee may also be able to rely on existing current data and/or studies to support a determination on infiltration infeasibility.
Attachment "2"
129
Item9.
San Diego County Copermittees - 3 - April 28, 2017
• The consideration of site design alternatives to achieve infiltration or partial infiltration on site;
• The physical impairments (i.e., fire road egress, public safety considerations, sewer lines, etc.) and public safety concerns; and
• The extent low impact development BMP requirements were included in the project site design.
During a San Diego Water Board audit, the above supporting documentation should be available in the project file as part of the Copermittee's compliance record on implementation of provision E.3.a of the Regional MS4 Permit. The record should be in sufficient technical detail to support the finding of technical infeasibility to infiltrate onsite. If a Copermittee determines that it is infeasible to infiltrate onsite, the Copermittee may allow a priority development project to utilize flow-thru treatment control BMPs to treat runoff leaving the site, AND mitigate for the design capture volume not reliably retained onsite pursuant to provision E.3.(c)(b) of the Regional MS4 Permit.
San Diego Water Board staff encourage Copermittees to continue their outreach efforts to collaborate with the San Diego Water Board and the geotechnical engineering community.
Please contact Ms. Laurie Walsh, Senior Water Resources Control Engineering of the Storm Water Management Unit at 619-521 -3373 or at
[email protected] if you have any questions. ;;;:JJw. ~ David W. Gibson
Executive Officer
DWG:jgs:law:rnm
Distribution via email:
cc via email:
Order No.
NPDES No.
Place ID
San Diego County Copermittees
Orange County Copermittees
Riverside County Copermittees
Tech Staff Info & Use
R9-2013-0001, as amended by Orders Nos. R9-2015-0001 and R9-2015-0100 CAS0109266
786088
Attachment "2"
130
Item9.
San Diego County Copermittees
Richard Gilb
San Diego Co. Reg . Airport Authority
Environmental Affairs Department
P.O. Box 82776
San Diego, CA 92138-2776
[email protected]
Kim Godby
City of Coronado
101 B Street
Coronado, CA 92118
[email protected]
Helen Davies
City of Escondido
201 North Broadway
Escondido, CA 92025
[email protected]
Joe Kuhn
City of La Mesa
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, CA 91941
[email protected]
Mo Lahsaie
City of Oceanside
300 North Coast Highway
Oceanside, CA 92054
[email protected]
Cecilia Padres-Tipton
City of Santee
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, CA 92071 -1266
[email protected]
JoAnn Weber
County of San Diego
5510 Overland Ave., Suite 410
San Diego, CA 92123
[email protected]
Elane Lukey /James Wood
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
[email protected]
[email protected]
Mikhail Ogawa
City of Del Mar
1050 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
[email protected]
Erik Steenblock
City of Encinitas
505 South Vulcan Ave
Encinitas, CA 92024-3633
[email protected]
Malik Tamimi
City of Lemon Grove
3232 Main Street
Lemon Grove, CA 91945
[email protected]
Melody Rocco
City of Poway
13325V Civic Center Drive
Poway, CA 92064
[email protected]
Karen Holman
San Diego Unified Port District
P.O. Box 120488
San Diego, CA 92112
[email protected]
Dan Goldberg/Ron Borromeo
City of Solana Beach
635 South Highway 101
Solana Beach, CA 92075
[email protected]
[email protected]
Boushra Salem
City of Chula Vista
1800 Maxwell Road
Chula Vista, CA 91911
[email protected]
John Phillips
City of El Cajon
200 East Main Street
El Cajon, CA 92020-3912
[email protected]
Chris Helmer
City of Imperial Beach
825 Imperial Beach Blvd.
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
[email protected]
Kuna Muthusamy
City of National City
1243 National City Blvd
National City, CA 91950-4397
[email protected]
Drew Kleis
City of San Diego
9370 Chesapeake Drive, Ste. 100,
M.S. 1900
San Diego, CA 92123
[email protected]
Reed Thornberry
City of San Marcos
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
[email protected]
Cheryl Filar
City of Vista
600 Eucalyptus Avenue
Vista, CA 92084
[email protected]
Attachment "2"
131
Item9.
Orange County Copermittees
Moy Yahya
City of Aliso Viejo
12 Journey, Suite 100
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656-5335
[email protected]
Amber Shah
City of Laguna Hills
24035 El Toro Rd.
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
[email protected]
Devin Slaven
City of Lake Forest
25550 Commercentre Drive, Suite100
Lake, Forest, CA 92630
[email protected]
Greg Yi
Orange County Flood Control
300 N. Flower Street, Suite 716
Santa Ana, CA 92703
[email protected]
Hossein Ajideh
City of San Juan Capistrano
32400 Paseo Adelanto
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
[email protected]
Riverside County Copermittees
Bill Woolsey/Bob Moehling
City of Murrieta
One Town Square
Murrieta, CA 92562
[email protected]
[email protected]
Mayra De La Torre
City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Temecula, California 92590
[email protected]
Lisa Zawaski
City of Dana Point
33282 Golden Lantern
Dana Point, California 92629
[email protected]
Ziad Mazboudi
City of Laguna Niguel
30111 Crown Valley Parkway
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
zmazboud i@cityoflag u nanig uel .org
Joe Ames
City of Mission Viejo
200 Civic Center
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
[email protected]
Deborah Carson
City of Rancho Santa Margarita
22112 El Paseo,
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
[email protected]
Steven Horn
County of Riverside
4080 Lemon Street, 4th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
[email protected]
Matt Bennett
City of Wildomar
23873 Clinton Keith Rd., Suite 201
Wildomar, CA 92595
[email protected]
Mary Vondrak
City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, California 92651
[email protected]
Christopher Macon
City of Laguna Woods
24264 El Toro Rd.
Laguna Woods, CA 92637
[email protected]
Chris Crompton
County of Orange
2301 N. Glassel! Street
Orange, CA 92865
[email protected]
Cynthia Mallett
City of San Clemente
910 Calle Negocio, Suite 100
San Clemente, CA 92673
[email protected]
Stuart McKibbin
Riverside County Flood Control
1995 Market Street
Riverside, CA 92501
[email protected]
Attachment "2"
132
Item9.
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL
APPEAL
PL24-0067 – Hamilton Lane Residential Subdivision Project To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the Escondido City Council, I am submitting this Second Supplemental Submission in support of my previously filed appeal and prior supplemental submission regarding the Hamilton Lane residential subdivision project (PL24-0067). This supplemental information provides additional regulatory context including correspondence with the DTSC, updated stormwater and MS4 permit details, and further technical information regarding infiltration feasibility requirements and groundwater protection standards applicable to the proposed project.
This supplemental submission is intended to further support and expand upon the concerns previously raised regarding the adequacy of the environmental review relied upon for approval of this project, particularly given the project’s location within or adjacent to the known Chatham contamination plume area and the projects inclusion of infiltration-oriented stormwater infrastructure.
I have also been in direct communication with Ahmad Aboughaida, Project Manager/Hazardous Substances Engineer with the Site Mitigation and Restoration Program, who manages the Chatham cleanup case. Based on these communications, I understand that he is actively reviewing the project as it pertains to the ongoing site cleanup efforts and the groundwater plume conditions associated with the Chatham contamination area. The involvement of the agency responsible for oversight of the cleanup effort in conjunction with the San Diego Regional Water Board further underscores that there remain active environmental and groundwater related considerations relevant to the proposed project and its stormwater infiltration design.
The current project proposes the addition of a “bioretention basin” and infiltrationoriented stormwater infrastructure as part of the subdivision design. The City staff report specifically states that the applicant submitted a request for a five-lot subdivision “with the addition of a bioretention basin to address stormwater drainage on-site.” The environmental analysis section similarly states that “[t]he Project entails a 5-lot tentative subdivision map with a bioretention basin.” The project landscape plans further identify the feature as a “BIOBASIN” and “RAIN GARDEN.”
At the same time, the City continues to rely upon a Mitigated Negative Declaration originally prepared in 2007, concluding that the prior environmental document “remains valid per CEQA.” The staff report further concludes that “no subsequent EIR or mitigated negative declaration is required.”
Attachment "2"
133
Item9.
The City’s current environmental analysis repeatedly emphasizes that the prior environmental review remains sufficient, despite the substantial evolution of stormwater and groundwater protection standards since 2007. The staff report states that “the adoption of an addendum to the previously adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the site… as the original environmental document prepared for the site remains valid per CEQA.” The Environmental Analysis section further concludes that “City staff concluded that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) prepared for the prior Approved Project fully analyzed and mitigated all potentially significant environmental impacts… and therefore, no subsequent EIR or mitigated negative declaration is required.” The report additionally states that “The proposed First Addendum is appropriate pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164 because only minor changes and additions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration are necessary…” These conclusions are central to the City’s reliance on the 2007 environmental framework despite the addition of infiltration-oriented stormwater infrastructure and the materially updated MS4 permit, and groundwater protection standards that now govern stormwater infiltration analysis in sensitive environmental settings.
The Fifth Term Permit, or Regional MS4 Permit, shifts the focus of the permit requirements from a minimum level of actions to be implemented by the Copermittees to identifying outcomes to be achieved by those actions.
Regulatory requirements moved from checklist/minimum-action stormwater compliance toward outcome-based water quality regulation.
This issue is particularly important because the current project proposes infiltrationoriented stormwater infrastructure in an environmentally sensitive setting involving known groundwater contamination concerns. Since approval of the original 2007 project, the Regional MS4 Permit framework has materially changed. The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board itself has described the 2013 MS4 Permit as a major “paradigm shift” from prior permit structures, noting that modern stormwater permits are substantially more detailed and outcome-focused than earlier generations of regulation.
Likewise, the Regional Model BMP Design Manual was specifically developed to replace earlier SUSMP-era requirements associated with the prior 2007 permit framework. These updated standards reflect a substantially more advanced regulatory understanding of infiltration feasibility, groundwater protection, and contaminant migration risks than existed when the original MND was prepared.
The County of San Diego BMP Design Manual (September 2020), prepared pursuant to updated Regional Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit requirements, specifically states that the Regional MS4 Permit requires local jurisdictions to implement LID standards through BMP design requirements. The San Diego Regional Water Attachment "2"
134
Item9.
Quality Control Board further issued guidance regarding the technical documentation required to support infiltration feasibility determinations during the entitlement and environmental review process.
These updated regulatory expectations and documentation standards did not exist in their current form when the original 2007 environmental document relied upon by the City was prepared.
Importantly, the original environmental record already acknowledged contamination related conditions associated with the Chatham plume area. The 2007 Mitigated Negative Declaration specifically references groundwater monitoring wells MW57 and MW28 and states that monitoring access must remain available to the “Chatham Brothers RP Group.” The adopted mitigation measures further required that “[n]o wells for drinking water or irrigation are to be drilled on site.”
Despite the acknowledged presence of contamination related conditions and groundwater monitoring infrastructure, the current public project record does not appear to include a plume specific infiltration analysis evaluating whether the proposed stormwater infiltration system could alter contaminant migration pathways, groundwater flow characteristics, soil vapor conditions, or long-term groundwater quality impacts.
I have not identified within the project record any site specific hydrogeologic evaluation, infiltration compatibility analysis, contaminant transport modeling, or soil vapor intrusion analysis addressing the interaction between the proposed infiltration basin and the known Chatham contamination plume area.
This omission is particularly significant because the updated MS4/LID regulatory framework reflects a substantially more advanced understanding of groundwater risk pathways and infiltration related impacts than existed in 2007.
Notably, the original 2007 MND stated that the project would comply with the “latest National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards.” However, the “latest” standards applicable in 2007 are not the same as those governing stormwater infiltration today. Since that time, Regional MS4 Permit requirements, LID mandates, infiltration feasibility standards, and groundwater protection guidance have substantially evolved, particularly regarding infiltration BMPs near sensitive environmental conditions and contamination concerns.
In addition, DTSC personnel responsible for oversight of the Chatham cleanup effort, including Ahmad Aboughaida, Project Manager/Hazardous Substances Engineer with the Site Mitigation and Restoration Program, are actively reviewing the project as it relates to the groundwater plume and ongoing remediation efforts. The fact that the agency Attachment "2"
135
Item9.
overseeing the cleanup effort is currently evaluating the project further supports the need for updated environmental review and agency coordination before any approvals move forward.
Under CEQA, additional environmental review is required where changed circumstances or new information of substantial importance demonstrates that prior environmental analysis may no longer adequately evaluate current environmental conditions or project impacts.
The combination of updated MS4 regulatory requirements, the project’s proposed infiltration-oriented bioretention basin, the acknowledged presence of contaminationrelated conditions and groundwater monitoring wells, and the apparent absence of a plume specific infiltration analysis collectively raises serious questions regarding whether reliance on a nearly 20-year-old environmental framework remains adequate for this project. As a copermittee under the Regional MS4 Permit, the City is required to implement applicable stormwater, Low Impact Development (LID), and infiltration requirements through its land use and project approval processes.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the City Council require preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report, or at minimum require comprehensive updated technical review addressing infiltration feasibility, groundwater quality, contaminant migration pathways, hydrogeologic impacts, soil vapor and vapor intrusion potential, and the interaction between the proposed bioretention basin and the known Chatham plume area.
This issue is not a minor technical deficiency but rather a fundamental question regarding the adequacy of environmental review and whether current groundwater protection standards have been meaningfully applied to a project proposing stormwater infiltration within or adjacent to a known contamination plume area.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Heidi Whitman
References / Citations
Hamilton Lane Project Application and Staff Report, PL24-0067 (April 28, 2026) County of San Diego BMP Design Manual (September 2020)
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/dpw/watersheds/DevelopmentandConst ruction/BMP_Design_Manual.html
Attachment "2"
136
Item9.
Heidi Whitman <[email protected]>
Time Sensitive: Hamilton Lane Project - Chatham Plume / Infiltration Concerns Heidi Whitman <[email protected]> Fri, May 15, 2026 at 10:52 AM To: "Aboughaida, Ahmad@DTSC" <[email protected]> Hi Ahmed,
Here is the link to the Planning Commission agenda packet for the project, the project materials begin on page 13. https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/escondidca-pubu/MEET-Packet-68a9f7e5df1b4686a3d86cf849508c 8b.pdf
Thanks for taking the time to review this. Really appreciate your willingness to take a look given the ongoing DTSC oversight of the Chatham site and the potential concerns associated with the proposed project given its location within the plume.
From my understanding of regional and state guidelines, California stormwater guidance consistently treats proposed stormwater infiltration basins near contaminated groundwater plumes as requiring heightened scrutiny and a site specific feasibility analysis which I do not see in the public project file. I attended the planning commission hearing as well and there was no discussion of this proposed infiltration bio basin as it pertains to the plume and to long term remediation clean up efforts. In addition to the infiltration and plume compatibility concerns, my appeal also raises broader issues regarding the project’s reliance on a 2007 environmental document despite substantially updated environmental conditions. Stormwater and infiltration guidance in California and at the regional level has evolved significantly since the 2007 environmental review, especially regarding groundwater protection, infiltration feasibility, and evaluation of contamination risks associated with infiltration BMPs, including current plume oversight, soil vapor considerations.
Additionally, multiple large scale embedded boulders are proposed to be removed and relocated. In this area, large granite boulder formations often extend well below grade and require significant excavation and disturbance. A neighbor in the surrounding community could not proceed with excavating a pool for this reason. Removal of these boulders could alter the contamination plume flow and affect nearby properties. No hydrogeologic analysis or groundwater flow evaluation is referenced in the project application as it pertains to the plume. As an impacted resident directly across from this proposed project, myself and neighbors surrounding the site have serious concerns about the lack of record and analysis.
Thanks again and please let me know if there is any additional information or documents that would be helpful as you review. :)
Best,
Heidi Whitman
(781) 572-1550
On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:24AM Aboughaida, Ahmad@DTSC <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Heidi,
Thank you for your email. Do you happen to have a link to the project workplans for this new development so that I can discuss it with my team? To my knowledge, DTSC was not notified of this development. Thanks, Ahmad Aboughaida
Project Manager/Hazardous Substances Engineer
Site Mitigation & Restoration Program
[email protected]
5/21/26, 12:50 PM Gmail - Time Sensitive: Hamilton Lane Project - Chatham Plume / Infiltration Concerns https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=8cfb1f26ce&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r5336611675830873479&dsqt=1&simpl=msg-a:r5336611675830873479 1/2 Attachment "2"
137
Item9.
Department of Toxic Substances Control
California Environmental Protection Agency
From: Heidi Whitman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 1:33 PM
To: Aboughaida, Ahmad@DTSC <[email protected]> Subject: Time Sensitive: Hamilton Lane Project - Chatham Plume / Infiltration Concerns Hi Mr. Aboughaida, Sarah Mearon with the Regional Water Quality Control Board suggested I reach out to you regarding the proposed Hamilton Lane residential project in Escondido, given your role managing the Chatham cleanup case and the time Hi Mr. Aboughaida,
Sarah Mearon with the Regional Water Quality Control Board suggested I reach out to you regarding the proposed Hamilton Lane residential project in Escondido, given your role managing the Chatham cleanup case and the time sensitivity of the project approval.
I recently filed an appeal of the project with the City of Escondido and wanted to provide the materials for your reference. My concerns primarily relate to the project’s proposed grading, large embedded boulder formation removal and proposed bioretention basin designed for on site stormwater infiltration in proximity to the Chatham groundwater plume area and ongoing cleanup site. Based on my review of the public project record, I was unable to identify site specific groundwater, soil vapor, contaminant migration, or infiltration compatibility analysis evaluating whether the proposed development and infiltration infrastructure are appropriate under current site conditions or compatible with longterm remediation considerations. In speaking with nearby residents, I also know there are broader community concerns regarding potential impacts associated with development, runoff and infiltration activities in and around the plume area and potential risk to nearby residents and properties.
I also wanted to ask whether DTSC has been consulted or provided input regarding the project’s proposed infiltration infrastructure and residential use in relation to the active cleanup area. I’ve attached my appeal and supplemental materials for your reference in case they are helpful as part of DTSC’s ongoing oversight of the cleanup case.
Thank you for your time and consideration, and please let me know if there is any additional information I can provide.
Best regards,
Heidi Whitman
2336 Rancho Diego Ct
781-572-1550
5/21/26, 12:50 PM Gmail - Time Sensitive: Hamilton Lane Project - Chatham Plume / Infiltration Concerns https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=8cfb1f26ce&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r5336611675830873479&dsqt=1&simpl=msg-a:r5336611675830873479 2/2 Attachment "2"
138
Item9.
THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL APPEAL
PL24-0067 – Hamilton Lane Residential Subdivision Project I'm including data from the 2024 monitoring report as well as the 2025 monitoring report for the Chatham plume. I've linked both reports below.
While the 2024 and 2025 Chatham Reports say that contaminant concentrations have generally declined over time, the monitoring data also confirms that significant contamination remains in multiple monitoring wells and is fluctuating. One of the key monitoring wells they use to demonstrate improvement, MW-67, still detected contamination in 2025 after showing nondetect results in 2024. More importantly, several nearby wells continue to show contamination at levels many times higher than California drinking water standards.
My concern is not whether the plume is getting better over time. My concern is that the plume still exists. The project proposes an infiltration bio-basin directly within or adjacent to a known contaminated groundwater area, yet no site-specific groundwater movement analysis or soil vapor study has been provided to show that infiltrating stormwater won't affect the plume or nearby properties.
April 2025 monitoring report:
MW-72 contained Trichloroethylene (TCE) at 84 µg/L ---- x17 times the CA drinking water standard
MW-70 contained TCE at 53 µg/L ---- x11 times the CA drinking water standard MW-66 contained TCE at 49 µg/L ---- x10 times CA drinking water standard MW-69 contained TCE at 32 µg/L ----- x6 times the CA drinking water standard California's drinking water standard (MCL) for TCE is 5 µg/L.
Monitoring well MW 67 shows an INCREASE in contaminants from 2024 to 2025 Date TCE PCE cis-1,2-DCE 1,2-DCA 1,1-DCE 1,1-DCA 1,4-dioxane 4/29/2024 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <0.50 <1.0 <1.0 --
4/22/2025 4.4 2.3 <1.0 0.53 1.6 <1.0 --
The 2025 rebound at MW-67 from non-detect to detectable VOCs shows the plume is still chemically active and variable and requires further analysis.
The project documents also repeatedly describe the proposed stormwater plan as having a "bioretention basin." The Planning Commission Staff Report says that the project includes "the addition of a bioretention basin to address stormwater drainage on-site" (Staff Report p. 14) and later states that "the Project entails a 5-lot tentative subdivision map with a bioretention basin" Attachment "2"
139
Item9.
(Staff Report p. 20). The landscape plan further says "BIOBASIN PLANT WITH NATIVE FLOWERING WETLAND SPECIES TO CREATE ACTIVE RAIN GARDEN" The phrase "active rain garden" is not the language someone uses for a decorative landscape feature. It suggests the basin is intended to actively receive stormwater runoff and function as a stormwater BMP.
If the City's position is that this basin is not intended to infiltrate stormwater, then the record should clearly explain why. Does the design include an impermeable liner, underdrain, or another feature that prevents infiltration? The project record repeatedly identifies the site as having a "bioretention basin," "BIOBASIN," and "rain garden." Please see attachment for the landscape plan where this is referenced. A rain garden/bio basin in land-use planning is generally understood as a stormwater BMP designed to capture, retain and infiltrate runoff into the underlying soil unless specified otherwise.
In the regional water board BMP Design Manual, bioretention infrastructure is designed to infiltrate stormwater into underlying soils unless modified with features such as underdrains or other engineering controls. I have not located any plans or technical studies in the project record identifying an underdrain, impermeable liner or other feature that would prevent infiltration. If the City's position is that the basin is not intended to infiltrate stormwater, the supporting engineering analysis should be clearly identified in the project record. Please reference SD county's BMP policy manual here.
"County of San Diego BMP Design Manual (Manual) provides guidance for land development and public improvement projects to comply with the 2013 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit (Order No. R9-2013-0001 as amended by R9-2015-0001 and R9-2015- 0100). This is the second update to the 2016 Manual and replaces the January 2019 version of the BMP Design Manual. It is focused on project design requirements and related postconstruction requirements, not on the construction process itself." Chapter 3, specifically chapter 3.3.4 in the manual says - Soil or groundwater contamination issues within the site or in the vicinity of the site must be considered during infiltration feasibility screening
In its April 28, 2017 guidance memorandum, the Water Board specifically referenced Section
3.3.4 of the BMP Design Manual, which outlines a systematic process for determining whether a site is appropriate for full infiltration, partial infiltration, or no infiltration. The Water Board further explained that these determinations should be supported by a documented technical record developed early in the entitlement process, including geotechnical analysis, supporting testing, and consideration of public health and safety factors.
As I've mentioned before, I'm not asking the City to stop development. I'm asking why a project adjacent/within a known VOC plume can move forward in 2026 without site-specific analysis addressing infiltration and soil vapor concerns.
Attachment "2"
140
Item9.
Attachment "2"
141
Item9.
Attachment "2"
142
Item9.
Attachment "2"
143
Item9.
Attachment "2"
144
Item9.
Attachment "2"
145
Item9.
Attachment "2"
146
Item9.
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 28, 2026
PL24-0067 Hamilton Lane 5 Lot Tentative Subdivision Map PROJECT NUMBER / NAME: PL24-0067 Hamilton Lane 5 Lot Tentative Subdivision Map REQUEST: Approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide a 6.02-acre parcel into five (5) lots, with a General Plan Designation of Estate I (E1) and a Zoning Designation of Residential Estates (RE-40; 40,000 square-foot minimum lot sizes) . The Project includes on-site improvements related to grading and stormwater, and off-site improvements including but not limited to: sidewalk, curb, and cutter, and other standard frontage improvements. The request also includes consideration of the environmental document prepared for the Project.
PROPERTY SIZE AND LOCATION: The 6.02-acre site is
located on the southeast corner of Bernardo Avenue and
Hamilton Lane and is addressed at 0 Hamilton Lane,
Escondido, CA 92029 238-
360-68-00)
APPLICANT: Masson & Associates
GENERAL PLAN / ZONING: Estate I (E1)/Residential
Estates (RE-40; 40,000 square-feet minimum lot sizes)
PRIMARY REPRESENTATIVE:
Associates
DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS REQUESTED: Tentative Subdivision Map PREVIOUS ACTIONS: City Council approved Ordinance 2007-11 and Resolution No. 2007-58 for an Annexation, Prezone, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Mitigated Negative Declaration (2005-06-AN, 2005-46-PZ, Tract 931, ER 2005- 33) to bring the parcel into City limits, and subdivide the parcel into five (5) lots. The City Council approved an Extension of Time (SUB17-0022) which subsequently expired December 6, 2021.
CEQA RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of an Addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 (Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Project, subject to the Conditions of Approval REQUESTED ACTION: Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-03 CITY COUNCIL HEARING REQUIRED: ___YES _X_NO
REPORT APPROVALS: Dare DeLano, Assistant City Attorney
X Veronica Morones, Assistant Director of Development Services 13 Attachment "3"
147
Item9.
BACKGROUND
& Associates filed an application for a five (5) lot
Tentative Subdivision of a 6.02-acre parcel located at the southeast corner of Hamilton Lane and Bernardo Avenue (APN 238-360-68-00) . The Property has a General Plan land use designation of Estate I (E1) and a zoning designation of Residential Estates (RE-40: 40,000 square-foot minimum lot sizes) (see Attachment 1 Aerial, General Plan land use, and zoning map). The Property is surrounded by single-family residential uses to the north, east, south, and west, with the northern, eastern, and southern borders of the property abutting unincorporated San Diego County property.
Previous development proposal:
On June 6, 2007, City Council approved the Annexation, Pre-zone, Tentative Subdivision Map, and adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for a previous project at this location, with a language update to the resolution requested by The San Diego Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) adopted on June 4, 2008 . The Tentative Subdivision Map for the project (TR 931) was set to expire on June 2, 2010; however, state map extensions extended the expiration date to June 6, 2017. The project proponent filed an extension of time request prior to the 2017 expiration date, and City Council approved a 3-year extension on July 19, 2017 under Resolution No. 2017-97, setting the expiration to June 6, 2020. The California Governor extended certain qualifying subdivisions under a state of emergency declared due to the COVID-19 pandemic (CA Govt Code Section 65914.5), which granted an additional 18 months to any tentative map approved prior to March 4, 2020, which set the new expiration date for the 2007 approved map to December 6, 2021. However, the City did not receive any subsequent extension of time requests, and the map subsequently expired at the end of 2021.
Unpermitted vegetation removal:
property owner for weed
abatement under case C21-0785. Following issuance of this notice, the Code Officer completed a reinspection on June 14, 2021, and noted that all vegetation had been removed from the site. The code case was subsequently closed; however, no mitigation was purchased or Vegetation Removal Permit (VRP) obtained for the removal of the .02 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub or 3.06 acres of Non-Native Grassland previously identified for mitigation in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
Per Escondido Zoning Code Article 55 Section 33-1068.B(b)(1), a separate Vegetation Removal Permit (VRP) is not required when the Project is subject to discretionary action, however, the requirement for the previously identified mitigation remains in effect per the prepared Addendum and updated MMRP for the current Project, and is conditioned under Condition of Approval E.g BIO-1 and BIO-2.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The Applicant submitted a request for a five (5) Lot Tentative Subdivision for the future development of five (5) single-family homes with the addition of a bioretention basin to address stormwater drainage on-site. The request also includes the adoption of an addendum to the previously adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the site to address the minor changes to the Project from the previously Approved Project, as the original environmental document prepared for the site remains valid per CEQA. 14 Attachment "3"
148
Item9.
Per the Escondido Zoning Code Article 6 Table 33-98(a), the minimum lot size required for the property is 40,000 square-feet and the permitted use of the property is single-family residential, with an average lot width of 150 feet, and minimum street frontage of 20 feet (or connected to a public street by a permanent access easement). A copy of the proposed tentative map is included in the staff report (Attachment 2 Tentative Map), and the table below identifies the required development standards for the site required standards.
SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILS OF REQUEST
Standard
1. Property Size: 6.02 gross acres /5.70 net acres
2. Number of Lots: 5
Minimum Required by the R-E zoning district Proposed
3. Lot Size: 40,000 square-foot (sq. ft.) net 40,192 sq. ft. -54,014 sq. ft. net
4. Lot Width: 150 feet (average) 150+ feet (average)
5. Density: 0-15% slopes: 1 dwelling unit (du) / 1 acre (ac) 15-25% slopes: 1 du/2-ac
25-35% slopes: 1du/4-ac
35%+ slopes: 1du/20-ac
Total allowable = 0.99 du/ac
Total proposed = 0.83 du/ac
6. Setbacks: a. Front
Yard:
25 feet 25 feet
b. Rear
Yard:
20 feet 20 feet
c. Side
Yard:
10 feet 10 feet
7. Open Space /
Landscaping:
1 tree per lot
1 street tree per 30 linear feet of street frontage
1 tree per lot
1 street tree per 30 linear feet
of street frontage (total: 41
street trees)
PROJECT ANALYSIS
1. General Plan Conformance:
15 Attachment "3"
149
Item9.
a. The City is taking steps to encourage, promote, and facilitate the development of housing consistent with policies 1.1 and 2.1 of the Housing Element of the General Plan, while section 65584. No Net Loss Law (Government Code section 65863) ensures development - and moderate-income
households. In general, jurisdictions cannot approve new housing at significantly lower densities or at different income categories than was projected in the Housing Element without making specific findings and identifying other sites that could accommodate these units and affordability val. The soresidential density or is approved at a lower residential density than shown in the Housing Element . The Project site is identified in the Housing Element to accommodate a portion of the regional housing need. The estimated dwelling unit capacity on the Project site is as follows:
Very-low Low Moderate Above Moderate
0 0 0 5
The Project does not reduce the density of the site below what was projected in the Housing Element for the identified income category; the Housing Element shows a site capacity of 5 abovemoderate income units, which is consistent with the Project.
Very-low Low Moderate Above Moderate
Sites
Inventory
capacity for
Project site
0 0 0 5
Proposed
Units
0 0 0 5
Change in
units +/ (-) n/a n/a n/a 0
The proposed residential density is consistent with the Housing Element, and the remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to meet the requirements of Government Code 16 Attachment "3"
150
Item9.
Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the City's share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584.
The proposed Project complies with General Plan Housing Policies 1.1 and 1.4, which state that the City should aim to expand the stock of all housing while preserving the health, safety, and welfare of residents to maintain fiscal stability of the City and channel residential growth to areas where the concurrent provision of services and facilities, including schools, parks, fire and police protection and street improvements can be assured. The proposed Project adds housing stock to the City within a developed area that can be serviced by nearby infrastructure, community protection agencies, and educational facilities. Any deficiencies in local infrastructure have been addressed through the application of development fees conditioned as a part of the Project. b. Density
The Project site may yield up to 1 dwelling unit per acre based on the slope categories across the property. As shown in the Supplemental Details of Request dwelling units per acre (5 units/6.02 acres), which is consistent with the General Plan allowances for Estate I properties with majority slopes of 0-15%.
c. Land Use and Community Form
Per the Land Use and Community Form element of the General Plan, the Estate designation accommodates detached single-family homes on large lots. This designation applies to areas that are on the edge of urban development, or in areas that are already characterized by an estate development pattern. The subject property is surrounded by estate residential development within the City to the west, and borders property within the County to the north, east, and south, which is developed in a similar single-family residential pattern.
The proposed setback of building pads from the street and conceptual landscaping plan follows the recommended urban form characteristics for the Estate I designation as detailed in Figure II-6 of the Land Use and Community Form element of the General Plan. The proposed private road easement is consistent with the recommendation to provide informal streets with rustic character in the area.
Per Land Use and Community Form Goals and Policies, Community Character Goal 1, Policy 1.1, new development should serve to reinforce the C -
intensity development within the downtown area and lower-intensity development in outlying areas; and new development should be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses. The proposed Project is surrounded by low-intensity, larger-lot single-family development, both within the incorporated and unincorporated areas.
Per Community Character Policy 1.5, the City should maintain its single-family residential development pattern, except in locations such as downtown and along major transportation corridors and around commercial and public activity centers. The proposed Project is consistent with this policy, as the property is not located in a commercial or major transportation corridor area.
17 Attachment "3"
151
Item9.
2. Zoning Conformance:
Per Article 6 (Residential Zones) of the Escondido Zoning Code (EZC), the estate residential (R-E) zone is established to provide a rural setting for family life in single-family detached dwellings. Provisions are made for maintenance of limited agricultural pursuits as well as those uses necessary and incidental to singlefamily living. The Project anticipates the future construction of single-family residences on large lots, and each lot is designed to accommodate all required development standards of the estate residential zone.
While the Project does not include plotting of residential units, the Project includes pad areas with front, side, and rear setbacks labeled, which demonstrate zoning code conformance for future development onsite.
Pursuant to Article 64 (Design Review), the future design of the homes is subject to City staff design review, at which time City staff will review the proposed architectural designs, landscape plans, and other on-site improvements that are regulated under the aforementioned Article. This item is included in the Conditions of Approval E.d attached as Exhibit F to Resolution 2026-03.
3. Climate Action Plan Consistency:
The Applicant completed the Climate Action Plan (CAP) Consistency Checklist for the Project, and based on the screening criteria (36 single family dwellings), the Project does not exceed the established threshold; and therefore, is screened from further CAP analysis.
4. Site Design
a. Grading, topography, retaining wall, and fencing:
The Project requires minor grading; however, the proposed cut and fill slopes do not exceed 10 feet, as permitted administratively under Article 55 (Grading and Erosion Control) of the EZC. Per the proposed grading plan for the Project, the elevation of the site ranges from 640 to approximately 656 and the proposed pad elevations range from 642 to 659.50. Proposed cut slopes are 8,700 cubic yards, and fill slopes are 8,700 cubic yards, representing a balanced grading site.
Based on the proposed grading plan, no soil would be imported or exported to/from the site. b. Project Access and Circulation:
Primary access to Lots 2 through 5 would be from a 28-foot-wide private road easement off of Hamilton Lane, with Lot 1 taking access from Bernardo Avenue. The private road easement and fire hammerhead at the terminus of the road
(HOA), as provided in the Conditions of Approval for the Project. The Project would also construct curb and gutter and sidewalks along Bernardo Avenue and Hamilton Lane adjacent to the site, and along the west side of the private road easement.
c. Building Orientation:
18 Attachment "3"
152
Item9.
The plotted pads shown on the proposed civil plans for the Project demonstrate the proposed buildable area for the future single-family residences. All future residential home construction will be subject to the provisions of the zoning code and applicable development standards provided therein. Proposed building elevations and orientation will be subject to City staff Design Review prior to building plan approval as denoted in Condition of Approval E.d of Exhibit F to Resolution 2026-03.
d. Open Space and Landscaping
Per the preliminary landscaping plan for the Project ( -03), the Project would include 41 15-gallon street trees planted along Bernardo Avenue, Hamilton Lane, and the proposed private road easement, as required by Article 62 (Water Efficient Landscape Regulations) of the EZC for single-family developments (1 street tree per 30 feet of street frontage).
Additionally, the Project would preserve 9 total existing oak trees on site, and mitigate for the Coastal Sage Scrub previously removed from the site without the required Vegetation Removal Permit and mitigation credit purchase, as conditioned (see Conditions of Approval Section E Mitigation Measures - BIO-1 within Resolution 2026-03). e. Parking:
Parking for the proposed Project shall be consistent with EZC Article 39 (Off-Street Parking) for single-family dwellings, which requires two (2) covered parking spaces per single-family residence.
Additionally, no parking will be permitted along the eastern boundary of the private road easement so as to accommodate Fire Department access.
5. Hamilton Lane Storm Drain Basin Ordinance 91-26
The City previously adopted City Council Ordinance 91-26 on July 17, 1991, establishing a drainage basin in the vicinity of Hamilton Lane and requiring reimbursement to the City for previously constructed drainage improvements which protect a number or properties in the area from flooding. Both proposed lots 1 and 2 are subject to this fee, which is invoiced at $39,236 per acre. This fee is further subject to an 8% increase on July 1st of each year. The current calculated total for the Project is $82,396, as conditioned under Exhibit F to Resolution 2026-03, Engineering Condition of Approval G Repayments and Fees - Item #2.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
The Applicant will be responsible for payment of all Development Impact Fees. Additionally, the Applicant will be responsible for a Hamilton Lane Storm Drain Repayment for lots 1 and 2, as detailed in the Engineering Conditions of Approval Item #2 Repayments and Fees, and as described in Project Analysis Item #5 above (Hamilton Lane Storm Drain Basin Ordinance 91-26).
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Pursuant to CEQA, when taking subsequent discretionary actions in furtherance of a project for which a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been adopted, the lead agency is required to review any changed circumstances or new information to determine whether any of the circumstances under Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA 19 Attachment "3"
153
Item9.
Guidelines section 15162 require additional environmental review. City staff concluded that the Mitigated Negative ior Approved Project fully analyzed and mitigated all potentially significant environmental impacts, if any, that would result from the approval of the Project, and therefore, no subsequent EIR or mitigated negative declaration is required. On that basis, the Applicant prepared an Addendum for the changes, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164 ( C 4).
City staff evaluated the current Project, and all elements of the changes, in light of the standards for subsequent environmental review outlined in Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162. The Project entails a 5-lot tentative subdivision map with a bioretention basin. City staff conclude the drafted environmental document, the First Addendum, may be used to fulfill the environmental review requirements of the current Project. The proposed First Addendum is appropriate pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164 because only minor changes and additions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration are necessary to address the Project changes and no circumstances exist calling for the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163. The proposed First Addendum concluded that there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed Project is undertaken that would require major revisions to the adopted MND. There is no new information of substantial importance which was not known or could not have been known at the time the MND was adopted that shows the proposed Project would have significant effects not discussed previously; a substantial increase in severity or a previously identified significant impact; mitigation measures or alternatives previously found infeasible that would now be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects; or mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the adopted MND which would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment.
The Project would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed in the adopted MND, and would not meet any of the conditions requiring further environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163. Therefore, not further analysis is required.
The adopted MND prepared for the Approved Project in this location has been attached for consideration by the Planning Commission as required by Section 15164(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines (Attachment 3 Adopted MND for the Approved Project).
PUBLIC NOTICE/PUBLIC INPUT
Pursuant to Section 33-1300 of Division 6 (Public Hearings, Notices, Fees, and Appeals) in Article 61 (Administration and Enforcement) of the Escondido Zoning Code, public notice was provided through the following methods:
Times-Advocate: The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Times-Advocate on Thursday, April 16, 2026.
Mailings: The Notice of Public Hearing was mailed out to approximately 76 property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject property with prepaid postage on Monday, April 13, 2026.
On-site posting: The Applicant posted a Notice of Public Hearing on the Project site on Saturday, April 11, 2026, for a period of 17-days.
Public Comments
20 Attachment "3"
154
Item9.
To date, the City has received two (2) public comments regarding the Project, one as a general inquiry and the other related to density and traffic concerns, which are included as Attachment 5 to this report. Both residents have been provided the requested information regarding the Project.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Project consists of a Tentative Subdivision Map to create 5 parcels on 6.02 gross acres of residentially zoned property. As provided in this staff report, the Project complies with the provisions of the Escondido Zoning Code The Project would facilitate housing development on a currently vacant parcel, and assist with the City fulfilling its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
Motion as recommended by City staff: Adopt Resolution No. 2026-03 approving the Project, as conditioned and adopt the First Addendum prepared for the Project.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Aerial, General Plan, and Zoning Map
2. Tentative Map Design
3. Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Approved Project (ER2005-33)
4. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-03 including Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, and F Legal Description
Landscape and Civil Plan Set
C First Addendum to the adopted MND prepared for the Approved Project Revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
E Factors to be considered/Findings of Fact
F Conditions of Approval
5. Public Comments
21 Attachment "3"
155
Item9.
22 Attachment "3"
156
Item9.
23 Attachment "3"
157
Item9.
24 Attachment "3"
158
Item9.
PREPARED BY: M A S S O N ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: OWNER/APPLICANT: VICINITY MAP PROJECT DESCRIPTION ROBERT D'AMARO LEE DURAN DATE 11/6/2025 11/6/2025 DATE Attachment "2" 25 Attachment "3"
159
Item9.
PREPARED BY: M A S S O N ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: OWNER/APPLICANT: VICINITY MAP PROJECT DESCRIPTION Attachment "2" 26 Attachment "3"
160
Item9.
27 Attachment "3"
161
Item9.
PREPARED BY: M A S S O N ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: OWNER/APPLICANT: VICINITY MAP PROJECT DESCRIPTION Exhibit B Attachment "2" 28
Attachment "3"
162
Item9.
Attachment "2" 29
Attachment "3"
163
Item9.
Attachment "3"
30 Attachment "3"
164
Item9.
Attachment "3"
31 Attachment "3"
165
Item9.
Attachment "3"
32 Attachment "3"
166
Item9.
Attachment "3"
33 Attachment "3"
167
Item9.
Attachment "3"
34 Attachment "3"
168
Item9.
Attachment "3"
35 Attachment "3"
169
Item9.
Attachment "3"
36 Attachment "3"
170
Item9.
Attachment "3"
37 Attachment "3"
171
Item9.
Attachment "3"
38 Attachment "3"
172
Item9.
Attachment "3"
39 Attachment "3"
173
Item9.
Attachment "3"
40 Attachment "3"
174
Item9.
Attachment "3"
41 Attachment "3"
175
Item9.
Attachment "3"
42 Attachment "3"
176
Item9.
Attachment "3"
43 Attachment "3"
177
Item9.
Attachment "3"
44 Attachment "3"
178
Item9.
Attachment "3"
45 Attachment "3"
179
Item9.
Attachment "3"
46 Attachment "3"
180
Item9.
Attachment "3"
47 Attachment "3"
181
Item9.
Attachment Attachment 2"3"
48 Attachment "3"
182
Item9.
Attachment "3"
49 Attachment "3"
183
Item9.
Attachment "3"
50 Attachment "3"
184
Item9.
Attachment "3"
51 Attachment "3"
185
Item9.
Attachment "3"
52 Attachment "3"
186
Item9.
Attachment "3"
53 Attachment "3"
187
Item9.
Attachment "3"
54 Attachment "3"
188
Item9.
Attachment "3"
55 Attachment "3"
189
Item9.
Attachment "3"
56 Attachment "3"
190
Item9.
Attachment "3"
57 Attachment "3"
191
Item9.
Attachment "3"
58 Attachment "3"
192
Item9.
Attachment "3"
59 Attachment "3"
193
Item9.
Attachment "3"
60 Attachment "3"
194
Item9.
Attachment "3"
61 Attachment "3"
195
Item9.
Attachment "3"
62 Attachment "3"
196
Item9.
Attachment "3"
63 Attachment "3"
197
Item9.
Attachment "3"
64 Attachment "3"
198
Item9.
ATTACHMENT 4
Planning Commission
Hearing Date: April 28, 2026
Effective Date: May 11, 2026
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT AND REVISED MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT, AND APPROVE A FIVE (5) LOT TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP IN THE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE 40,000 (RE-40) ZONE
APPLICANT:
CASE NO: PL24-0067
WHEREAS, , Planning Case
No. PL24-0067 constituting a request for a Tentative Subdivision Map for the subdivision of one existing lot into five (5) lots ( on a 6.02 gross acre site located at 0 Hamilton Lane (APN 238-360-68-00), with the Estate (E1) General Plan Land Use Designation, in the Residential Estate 40,000 (RE-40) Zone; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is all that real property described in Exhibit "A which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference as though fully set forth herein ; and WHEREAS, the Application was submitted to, and processed by, Planning Services of the Development Services Department in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Escondido Zoning Code and the applicable procedures and time limits specified by the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code section 65920 et seq.) and the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) ; and
65 Attachment "3"
199
Item9.
ATTACHMENT 4
WHEREAS, Tentative Subdivisions are permitted subject to review and approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map, subject to the rules and regulations of the California Subdivision and in accordance with Chapter 32 (Subdivisions) of the Escondido Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, a Tentative Subdivision Map is required for the subdivision of one existing parcel into five (5) lots within the RE-40 zoning district; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et. seq.), the City is the Lead Agency for the Project, as the public agency with the principal responsibility for approving the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2007, the City Council adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for a project constituting a 5-lot subdivision on the site (City Log No. ER 2005-33) ; and,
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2007, the City Council adopted the Prior Project, and subsequently on December 6, 2021, -lot Tentative Subdivision Map expired; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, when taking subsequent discretionary actions in furtherance of a project for which an MND has been adopted, the lead agency is required to review any changed circumstances to whether any of the circumstances under Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 require additional environmental review; and, WHEREAS, City staff evaluated the environmental impact of the proposed modification to the Project in light of the standards for subsequent environmental outlined in Public Resources Code Section 2166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162; and,
WHEREAS, based on this evaluation, staff concluded that the MND had fully analyzed and mitigated, in compliance with CEQA, all potentially significant environmental impacts, if any, that would result from the Project modifications, that the impacts to the environment as a result of the modifications 66 Attachment "3"
200
Item9.
ATTACHMENT 4
are consistent with and would not create substantial new or increased impacts beyond those that were evaluated in the MND, and that, therefore, no subsequent EIR or mitigated negative declaration is now required; and
evaluation of the environmental impact of said modifications, Applicant prepared an Addendum to the MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an addendum need not be circulated for public review;
WHEREAS, Planning Services studied the Application, performed necessary investigations, prepared a written report, and hereby recommends approval of the Project as depicted on the plan set shown in Exhibit "B", which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference as though fully set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, City staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with City (Article 61, Division 6) and State public noticing requirements; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the Planning Commission received and considered the reports and recommendation of Planning Services and gave all persons full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and testimony regarding the Project. Evidence was submitted to and considered by the Planning Commission, including, without limitation:
a. Written information including plans, studies, written and graphical information, and other material, submitted by the Applicant;
b. Oral testimony from City staff, interested parties, and the public; 67 Attachment "3"
201
Item9.
ATTACHMENT 4
c. The staff report, dated April 28, 2026, with its
on the Project, which is incorporated herein as though fully set forth herein; and d. Additional information submitted during the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the public hearing before the Planning Commission was conducted in all respects as required by the Escondido Municipal Code and the rules of this Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Escondido that:
1.The above recitations are true and correct.
2. The Planning Commission, in its independent judgement, has determined the Project to have no new significant environmental impacts and no increase in severity of impacts previously identified in the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, and therefore an Addendum to the MND is sufficient in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, and in accordance generally with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.). The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the adopted MND and First Addendum
including the revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto as prepared for the Project and finds that those documents taken together contain a complete and accurate reporting of all the environmental impacts associated with the revised Project. The Planning Commission further finds that the First Addendum and administrative record have been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and that the findings related to the MND and First
3. Based upon the evidence submitted and as demonstrated by the analysis included in the First Addendum, which is attached hereto as C , none of the conditions 68 Attachment "3"
202
Item9.
ATTACHMENT 4
described in Section 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration have occurred, specifically:
a. There are no substantial changes proposed in the Project which would require major revisions of the previous environmental document due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. b. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken which would require major revisions of the previous environmental document due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
c. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous environmental document was adopted, that shows any of the following:
i. The Project would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous environmental document;
ii. Significant effects previously examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the previous environmental document; iii. Mitigation measures previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
69 Attachment "3"
203
Item9.
ATTACHMENT 4
iv. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous environmental document would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
3. After consideration of all evidence presented, and studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and on its behalf, the Planning Commission makes the following substantive findings and determinations, attached E
considered. In accordance with the Findings of Fact and the foregoing, the Planning Commission reached a recommendation on the matter as hereinafter set forth.
4. The Application to use the Property for the Project, subject to each and all of the conditions hereinafter set forth in Exhibit F is hereby approved by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission expressly declares that it would not have approved this Application except upon and subject to each and all of said conditions, each and all of which shall run with the land and be binding upon the Applicant, the owner, and all subsequent owners of the Property, and all persons who use the Property for the use permitted hereby.
6. The development plans for the Project are on file in Planning Services of the Development Services Department and are available for inspection by anyone interested herein, and the development plans are incorporated herein by this reference as if they were fully set forth herein. The Project is conditionally approved as set forth on the Application and Project drawings, all designated as approved by the Planning Commission, and which shall not be altered without the express authorization by Planning Services. Any deviations from the approved development plans shall be reviewed by the City for substantial compliance and may require amendment by the appropriate hearing body. 70 Attachment "3"
204
Item9.
ATTACHMENT 4
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, pursuant to Government Code section 66020(d)(1):
1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Project is subject to dedications, reservations, and exactions, as specified in the Conditions of Approval. The Project is subject to certain fees described in Services and Public
Works Departments. The Applicant shall be required to pay all development fees of the City then in effect facilities and capital improvements be
imposed to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. The Applicant is advised to review the Planned Fee Updates portion of the web page, www.escondido.gov, and regularly monitor and/or review fee-related information to plan for the costs associated with undertaking the Project.
2. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the 90-day period during which to protest the imposition of any fee, dedication, reservation, or other exaction described in this Resolution begins on the effective date of this Resolution, and any such protest must be in a manner that complies with Government Code section 66020.
71 Attachment "3"
205
Item9.
ATTACHMENT 4
PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED by a majority vote of the Planning Commission of the City of Escondido, California, at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of April, 2026, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAINED: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ______________________________ STAN WEILER, Chair Escondido Planning Commission
ATTEST: ______________________________ VERONICA MORONES, Secretary of the Escondido Planning Commission
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed at the time and by the vote above stated.
_____________________________ ANGEL ESTRADA, Minutes Clerk Escondido Planning Commission
Decision may be appealed to City Council
pursuant to Zoning Code Section 33-1303
72 Attachment "3"
206
Item9.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13268, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MAY 10, 1984.
APN: 238-360-68-00
73 Attachment "3"
207
Item9.
PREPARED BY: M A S S O N ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: OWNER/APPLICANT: VICINITY MAP PROJECT DESCRIPTION ROBERT D'AMARO LEE DURAN DATE 11/6/2025 11/6/2025 DATE Exhibit B 74
Attachment "3"
208
Item9.
PREPARED BY: M A S S O N ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: OWNER/APPLICANT: VICINITY MAP PROJECT DESCRIPTION Exhibit B 75
Attachment "3"
209
Item9.
76 Attachment "3"
210
Item9.
PREPARED BY: M A S S O N ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: OWNER/APPLICANT: VICINITY MAP PROJECT DESCRIPTION Exhibit B 77
Attachment "3"
211
Item9.
Exhibit BExhibit B 78
Attachment "3"
212
Item9.
INITIAL STUDY ADDENDUM
City of Escondido, California
1. PROJECT TITLE: Hamilton Bernardo Tentative Tract Map Project
2. LEAD AGENCY & ADDRESS: City of Escondido; 201 North Broadway; Escondido, CA 92025
3. CONTACT PERSON & PHONE: Melissa DiMarzo, Assistant Planner II
4. PROJECT LOCATION: The project site is located southeast of the Hamilton Lane/Bernardo Avenue intersection and comprises 6.02 gross acres in the City of Escondido (Assessor Parcel Number 238-360- 68-00).
5. PROJECT SPONSOR & ADDRESS: Hamilton Bernardo LLC
PO Box 1795
La Jolla, CA 92038
Lee Duran
858-699-9311
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Estate 1
7. ZONING DESIGNATION: Residential Estate (RE)-40
8. SURROUNDING LAND USES & PROJECT SETTING:
The project site is vacant. An existing single-family residence is located adjacent to and south of Lot 2 and east of the proposed stormwater biofiltration basin in unincorporated San Diego County. Adjacent land to the west is zoned RE-40. Unincorporated San Diego County is located to the north, east and south. Surrounding land use is single-family residential development.
9. SUMMARY OF ORIGINAL PROJECT:
The original project was a Subdivision Map consisting of 5 single-family residential lots on minimum 40,000 square foot lots and associated public infrastructure improvements such as circulation, storm drains, and water and sewer lines. The project would include grading to create the proposed private street and home building sites. No grading exemptions are required. The approximately 6.28-acre site is comprised of one Assessor Parcel Number (238-360-6800) connecting to and fronting on both Bernardo Avenue and Hamilton Lane. The proposed project is located in an area composed of a mix of established residential development, newer housing tracts and some remaining vacant parcels.
The City of Escondido prepared and adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Case Number ER 2005-33, TR 931, 2005-46-PZ, 2005-06 AN. The Initial Study was circulated for public review from March 22, 2007 to April 11, 2007. The Initial Study determined that no significant impacts to the environment would occur with implementation of the proposed annexation and subdivision map. The following mitigation measures were identified and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
Air Quality
Impact. The project will potentially impact air quality in the area surrounding the project during construction.
Mitigation. Prior to construction and issuance of grading and building permits, a site-specific analysis shall be prepared to determine equipment and methods necessary to protect adjacent properties. 79 Attachment "3"
213
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -2- City of Escondido, California Biological Resources
Impact. The project will have a direct impact on 3.06 acres of non-native grasslands.
Mitigation. The proposed mitigation ratio is 0.25:1 for direct impacts through the purchase of habitat credits from an approved mitigation bank (BIO-1).
Impact. Project will have a direct impact on .02 acres of Coast Sage Scrub. U.S. Fish and Wildlife and California Department of Fish and Game approval required.
Mitigation. The proposed mitigation ratio is 1:1 for direct impacts through the purchase of habitat credits from an approved mitigation bank (BIO-2).
Impact. The project will require the removal of four individual oak trees to develop the residential lots within the subdivision.
Mitigation. Impacts to native Live Oak trees will be mitigated by relocating the four Live Oaks on-site and planting four new Live Oak trees on-site (BIO-3).
Impact. The project will remove four individual oak trees to develop the residential lots within the subdivision.
Mitigation. A qualified biologist must inspect trees for nests prior to any brushing, grading, tree relocation or construction within close proximity to, or within the existing Oaks discussed in the Biological Report's addendum of 2/14/07. If any active nests of sensitive species are found, no impacts will be allowed until all young have fledged (BIO-4).
Impact. Oak trees planted as part of the replacement program must be monitored to ensure viability.
Mitigation. The applicant shall provide funding to the satisfaction of the City for the five-year monitoring of the oak trees with sufficient reserve for the replacement of any dead/dying stock (BIO-5).
Hazardous Materials
Impact. Project is near the Chatham Barrel Yard (a Superfund Cleanup Site). The project site has one County Monitoring well to that is to remain.
Mitigation. Monitoring well MW57 is to remain onsite and be accessible to the Chatham Brothers RP Group for monitoring purposes until officially released. Upon release, it is to be removed per Regional Board and City of Escondido standards. Alternately, if a new replacement well is installed nearby and approved by the Regional Board and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), existing well MW57 can also then be released and removed per Regional Board and City of Escondido standards.
This well was decommissioned as documented in a letter provided by Chatham Site PRP Group dated May 21, 2009. This mitigation measure has been satisfied.
Hydrology/Water Quality
Impact. Project is near the Chatham Barrel Yard (a Superfund Cleanup Site). The project site has one County Monitoring well that is to remain.
Mitigation. No drinking water wells are to be drilled on-site and no excavations shall be allowed on-site without proper permits (HYD-1).
80 Attachment "3"
214
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -3- City of Escondido, California Proposed Project
The project applicant is seeking entitlement approval from the City of Escondido for a Tentative Tract Map subdividing an existing 6.02 gross/5.95 net acre parcel into five single-family residential estate lots and one stormwater detention basin lot. The applicant is requesting the following entitlement approvals:
- PL24-0067
Hamilton Bernardo, LLC, (applicant) submitted a proposal to the City of Escondido for approval of a subdivision to create five single-family estate lots and one lot for the construction of a stormwater biofiltration basin. The proposed single-family residential lots would be a minimum of 40,000 square feet and accommodate one single-family residence with related improvements. Primary access would be from Hamilton Lane with secondary emergency vehicle access (EVA) from Bernardo Avenue. Potable water would be provided by the City of Escondido Water Department. Sewer conveyance and treatment and public services (i.e., fire, police and stormwater) would be provided by the City of Escondido.
School services would be provided by the Escondido Union School District. Grading would require cut/fill of 8,700 cubic yards. Grading spoils would be balanced on-site. Construction would begin in mid2026 and be completed in 2027.
10. OTHER REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS:
None required.
11. HAVE CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES TRADITIONALLY & CULTURALLY AFFILIATED
WITH THE PROJECT AREA REQUESTED CONSULTATION PER PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21080.3.1? IF SO, IS THERE A PLAN FOR CONSULTATION THAT INCLUDES, FOR
EXAMPLE, THE DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS TO TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES, PROCEDURE REGARDING CONFIDENTIALITY, ETC.?
The proposed project will disturb native soils during site preparation and grading. Approval of the project would incorporate conditions of approval to address potential adverse effects to Cultural Resources and/or Tribal Cultural Resources during construction. The 2007 Initial Study was prepared prior to adoption of AB 52; thus, while tribal cultural resources are addressed herein, no consultation with Native American Tribes per AB52 is required.
12. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION/ADDENDUM:
As stated, the City previously prepared and adopted an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for Case Number ER 2005-33, TR 931, 2005-46-PZ, 2005-06, dated March 21, 2007.. Based on all available information and in light of the entire record, the analysis in this Addendum, and pursuant to Sections 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has determined the following
1. There are no substantial changes proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous environmental document due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous environmental document due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous environmental 81 Attachment "3"
215
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -4- City of Escondido, California document was certified as complete or was adopted, shows any of the following:
A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration;
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
Per Section 15164 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency has prepared an addendum to a previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration because, while some changes or additions to the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration were necessary, none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
Based upon review of the current project, none of the conditions described in Sections 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines apply. No changes in circumstances have occurred, and no new information of substantial importance has manifested, which would result in new significant or substantially increased adverse impacts as a result of the project. As stated, pursuant to Section 15164, , this Addendum has been prepared to document minor technical changes or additions to the Project.
4. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The project would not affect any environmental factors resulting in a Potentially Significant Impact or Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated. A summary of the environmental factors potentially affected by this project, consisting of a Potentially Significant Impact or Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated, include:
Aesthetics Agriculture & Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population / Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Finding of Significance Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wildfire Energy
DETERMINATION. (To be completed by lead agency) Based on this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described herein have been included in this project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 82
Attachment "3"
216
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -5- City of Escondido, California I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant impact or potentially significant unless mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An Addendum is being prepared to address minor changes to the project. Nothing further is required.
Melissa DiMarzo, Assistant Planner II
5. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except No Impact answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A No Impact answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A No Impact answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more Potentially Significant Impact entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from Potentially Significant Impact to a Less Than Significant Impact. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Earlier Analyses, as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated, describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 83 Attachment "3"
217
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -6- City of Escondido, California
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a projects environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 84 Attachment "3"
218
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -7- City of Escondido, California
14.1 AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway?
c. In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
2007 Initial Study
The proposed map is not located on a Ridgeline identified in the Community Open Space/Conservation Element of the General Plan. No Grading exemptions are being requested in conjunction with this tentative map. The highest fill proposed on the site is approximately 10 feet in height, consistent with the maximum height allowed in the City's Grading Ordinance. It is located along one pad area in the far northeastern corner of the project. The deepest proposed cut areas are up to 6 feet deep, with a maximum of 20 feet being allowed in the Grading Ordinance. The largest cuts are located within the north-central portion of the site.
These proposed cuts and fills are at a 2:1 ratio, also consistent with the Grading Ordinance. These proposed slopes are considered minor in nature by the Code and will not block significant views.
Residential projects typically do not directly illuminate or reflect glare upon adjacent properties, therefore no significant light or glare impact would result from the proposed project. Development of the proposed future development will not obstruct scenic views or vistas open to the public since neither the City nor the State designates Hamilton Lane or Bernardo Avenue as a scenic resources.
Proposed Project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. The project would approve five new single-family estate lots and one lot to accommodate a stormwater bioretention basin. The site is currently vacant and comprised of rolling terrain with several granite boulder clusters. As stated, the site is zoned RE-40 and surrounded by existing singlefamily residential development. New residential lots would be planned and residences constructed consistent with City of Escondido Zoning Code (Chapter 33) Article 6 (Residential Zones), and Article 64 (Design Review).
The General Plan Conservation Element notes that hillsides and ridgelines provide a visual resource and aesthetic value to Escondido that contributes to the communitys sense of identity. These areas are located to the west and east of the site (see Conservation Element, Figure VII-5). The project site does not have any designated scenic features and while the project would change existing views into the site; the site is not a scenic vista. The proposed project would not further obstruct existing public views of hillsides and ridgelines; 85 Attachment "3"
219
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -8- City of Escondido, California thus, the approved project would not result in adverse effects to scenic resources identified in the General Plan. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. No officially designated state scenic highways exist within City limits. Additionally, the Citys General Plan Resource Conservation Element does not identify any local scenic roadways (City of Escondido 2012). Grading would likely remove or relocate existing vegetation and boulders; however, no impact within a state scenic highway corridor would occur. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less-Than-Significant Impact. Scenic quality is governed by the Citys Zoning Code and General Plan. As discussed under response (a), the proposed project would not result in an adverse effect to a scenic vista as defined in the Citys General Plan. As indicated above, the project site does not have any designated scenic features and while the project would change existing views into the site; the site is not a scenic vista. The proposed project would not further obstruct existing public views of hillsides and ridgelines; thus, the approved project would not result in adverse effects to scenic resources identified in the General Plan. Impacts would be less than significant. The project is within an urbanized area and it would not conflict with applicable RE-40 zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less-Than-Significant Impact. There are two primary artificial sources of light that generally affect an urban environment: light emanating from building interiors that passes through windows to the outside and light from exterior sources (e.g., street lighting, parking lot lighting, building illumination, security lighting, and landscape lighting) that affect the natural ambient light level. The introduction of light can affect adjacent areas and diminish night sky views depending on the location of the light sources and proximity to nearby light-sensitive areas.
Glare can be caused by unshielded or misdirected lighting sources. Reflective surfaces such as chrome or polished metal can also be a source of glare. Glare results from development and associated parking areas that contain reflective materials such as hi-efficiency window glass, highly polished surfaces and expanses of pavement. The Project site is in a developed area with predominantly single-family uses. The existing lighting in the project area includes streetlights and vehicle lights within the adjacent roadway corridors and interior and exterior building lighting from developed parcels proximal to the site.
Proposed lighting is anticipated to include a combination of street and security lighting. City of Escondido Zoning Code Article 35 addresses the use of light fixtures on residential properties to minimize the amount of light cast on adjoining properties and public right-of-way. During construction, lights may be used within the construction areas, notably the construction staging areas, to provide security for construction equipment and construction materials. Further, in the event that construction-related activities occur during nighttime hours, temporary, overhead artificial lighting would be provided to illuminate the work area. Compliance with applicable lighting regulations and standards would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. 86 Attachment "3"
220
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -9- City of Escondido, California Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result.
14.2 AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the states inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as depicted on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 2007 Initial Study
The project site is not in agricultural production and is not listed as Prime Agricultural Land as identified in the General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, which was prepared for the City's most recent General Plan revisions in 2012.
The California Department of Conservation, which publishes farmland conservation reports, classifies the site as "Urban and Built-up Land" which is defined as:
" ... land occupied by structures with a building density of at least one unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10-acre parcel, including residential, industrial, commercial, institutional facilities, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, and water control structures. 87 Attachment "3"
221
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -10- City of Escondido, California The development of residential lots and natural vegetated lands to remain; would therefore, not result in significant individual or cumulative impacts to agricultural resources.
Proposed Project
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. The site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Construction of the proposed project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The proposed project is located in an area zoned to accommodate the existing use. Agricultural designations do not occur within the project area and no Williamson Act contracts apply. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in any conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract. No impact would occur. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
No Impact. The project site is neither zoned for agricultural use, nor subject to a Williamson Act contract.
Approval of the proposed project would have no impact on existing agricultural zoning or to land under a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. The project site is not zoned as forest land or timberland or for Timberland Production nor do these uses occur on the site. No impact would occur. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The project site does not contain forested areas or designated forest land. The proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The project site is not located on a site dedicated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in changes in the environment that would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. No impact would occur.
Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result. . 88
Attachment "3"
222
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -11- City of Escondido, California
14.3 AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significant criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determination. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
2007 Initial Study
The project area is within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). Air quality at a particular location is a function of the kinds and amounts of pollutants being emitted into the air locally, and throughout the basin, and the dispersal rates of pollutants within the region. The major factors affecting pollutant dispersion are wind, speed and direction, the vertical dispersion of pollutants (which is affected by inversions) and the local topography.
The air basin currently is designated a state and federal non-attainment area for ozone and particulate matter.
However, in the SDAB, part of the ozone contamination is derived from the Los Angeles area South Coast Air Basin during periods of westerly winds (Santa Ana condition) when air pollutants are windborne over the ocean, drift to the south and eventually are blown easterly into the SDAB. Local agencies can control neither the source nor transportation of pollutants from outside the basin. The Air Pollution Control District (APCD) policy; therefore, has been to control local sources effectively enough to reduce locally produced contamination.
For long-term emissions, the direct impacts of a project can be measured by the project's consistency with regional plans to improve and maintain air quality. Local air-quality impacts are directly related to the number of vehicle trips and operation levels on adjacent streets and intersections. For planning purposes, the APCD assumed the City's General Plan designation of Estate I in calculating air quality impacts. According to CEQA Guidelines, a project normally is considered to have a significant air quality impact if it violates any ambient air quality standard, contributes substantially to an existing or projected air-quality violation, or exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations.
Emissions resulting from developing the site would be directly related to the amount of vehicular traffic generated by the project. The increase of 5 units would have an incremental impact to basin-wide air quality.
Considering the cumulative impacts of thousands of sources, the impact attributed to the project is immeasurably small on a regional scale and will not cause ambient air-quality standards to be exceeded.
Since development would not materially degrade the levels of service on adjacent streets and intersections, and would not violate daily emissions thresholds, the project will not have a significant impact on air quality and no mitigation measures are required.
Construction-Related Emissions
Construction-related activities are temporary, short-term sources of air emissions. Sources of constructionrelated air emission include:
89 Attachment "3"
223
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -12- City of Escondido, California Fugitive dust from grading activities; Construction equipment exhaust; Construction-related trips by worker, delivery trucks and material-hauling trucks; and Construction-related power consumption.
Maximum daily emissions of NOx during construction periods are not projected to exceed City thresholds or APCD standards based on similar studies performed for similar size grading operations. Since construction is a one-time temporary activity, and because average daily construction emissions are projected to be below thresholds of significance, operation of equipment during project construction is not anticipated to result in substantial air quality impacts. Dust from grading and other site preparation would generate particulate matter emission; however, with appropriate use of grading and operation procedures as described in the attached mitigation measures (in conformance with APCD Best Management Practice for dust control), the project would not generate significant particulate matter or dust.
The City of Escondido Grading Ordinance and erosion control requirements include provisions for dust control to reduce impacts to air quality during grading and construction activities. At a minimum, these ordinances and provisions require projects to perform regular watering and timely re-vegetation of disturbed areas to minimize the dust and airborne nuisance impacts to off-site receptors. Emissions from construction equipment, worker and delivery and material-hauling trucks, and construction-related power consumption would be temporary and would result in an extremely small contribution to the SDAB; and therefore, would not result in a significant impact.
As stated above, mitigation for air quality required preparation of a site-specific analysis and report to determine equipment and methods necessary to protect adjacent properties from adverse air quality impacts which may result from construction. A site-specific analysis was prepared and is summarized below; thus, satisfying this mitigation measure.
Proposed Project
Information within this section was obtained in part from the California Emission Estimator Model version 2022.1. The output file is provided as Appendix A.
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project site is zoned RE-40 which supports low density single-family residential development.
SANDAGs Regional Plan population, employee population and housing estimates for the years 2020 and 2035 was compared to the estimated increase in population, employees, and housing generated by the proposed project. The number of housing units in the City was projected to be 54,910 in 2025 and 58,990 in 2035, or an increase in 4,080 housing units. Furthermore, the Citys population was projected to be 165,127 residents in 2025 and 169,122 residents in 2035, or an increase of 3,995 residents over the period. The average household size is 2.8 people per dwelling unit, which translates into approximately 14 residents for the proposed project. Therefore, the project would be within SANDAGs population growth forecast and, as addressed below, the proposed project emissions would not conflict with the State Implementation Plan (SIP), AQMP and RAQS. Therefore, as the Final IS/MND disclosed regarding the approved project, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less than Significant Impact. The thresholds listed in Table 1 are screening-level thresholds used to evaluate whether proposed-project-related emissions could cause a significant impact on air quality.
Emissions below the screening-level thresholds would not cause a significant impact. The emissions-based thresholds for ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) are intended to serve as the threshold for ozone. This 90 Attachment "3"
224
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -13- City of Escondido, California approach is used because ozone is not emitted directly; thus, ozone concentrations associated with individual projects precursors (VOC and NOx) emissions cannot be determined through air quality models or other quantitative methods. For nonattainment pollutants, if emissions exceed the thresholds shown in Table 1, the project has the potential to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in these pollutants; and thus, could have a significant impact on the ambient air quality. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
Table 1
SDAPCD Air Emission Significance Thresholds
Construction Emissions
Pollutant Total Emissions (pounds per day)
Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) 75
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 250
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550
Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 250
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 100
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55
Operational Emissions
Total Emissions
Pounds per Hour Pounds per Day Tons per Year
Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) -- 75 13.7
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 25 250 40
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 100 550 100
Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 25 250 40
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) -- 100 15
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) -- 55 10
Lead and Lead Compounds -- 3.2 0.6
The estimated maximum daily construction and operating emissions are summarized in Table 2 below. As shown, the Project construction-source emissions and operating emissions would not exceed San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) regional thresholds for daily emission. Thus, a less than significant impact will occur and no mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. Sensitive populations (i.e., children, senior citizens and acutely or chronically ill people) are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than are the general population. Land uses considered sensitive receptors typically include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, hospitals, convalescent homes, and retirement homes. Sensitive receivers include the single-family residences located adjacent to and proximal to the site. In evaluating impacts to sensitive receptors, the two primary emissions of concern are diesel particulate matter and CO. The proposed project would generate approximately 50 daily trips (i.e., 10 trips per unit) and five trips during the peak hour. Per the City of Escondido Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (April 2021), projects that generate less than 200 daily trips may be presumed to have a less-than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. The project is not expected to cause a traffic impact or otherwise impede circulation within the project area and at proximal intersections.
Consequently, sensitive receptors would not be significantly affected by CO emissions generated by Projectrelated traffic.
Toxic Air Contaminants. The proposed project would be constructed within an RE-40 zone and require a common mix of equipment. As shown, construction emissions would not violate SDAPCD daily construction emission standards. With respect to operation, the proposed project would not include uses that cause or contribute to TAC emissions. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not 91 Attachment "3"
225
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -14- City of Escondido, California Table 2
Maximum Daily Construction and Operational Emissions
Project Emissions
Maximum Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Construction 2026 6.2 12.9 15.0 0.02 3.4 1.8
SDAPCD Screening
Thresholds 75 250 550 250 100 55
Threshold Exceeded No No No No No No
Operating Emission
Proposed Project 0.04 0.12 1.8 0.003 0.3 0.08
SDAPCD Screening
Thresholds 75 250 550 250 100 55
Threshold Exceeded No No No No No No
Source: Birdseye Planning Group, LLC., (March 2025) (Appendix A). expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Potential odor sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed Projects (long-term operational) uses. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction; and thus, is considered less than significant. It is expected that Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the solid waste regulations. Therefore, odors associated with the proposed Project construction and operations would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. The 2007 Initial Study does not specifically address odors; however, as described herein, impacts would be less than significant.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
92 Attachment "3"
226
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -15- City of Escondido, California a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the USFWS?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy/ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Information provided in this section was in part, obtained from the Biological Resources Memorandum prepared by Tierra Data, Inc., July, 2024.(Appendix B). 2007 Initial Study
A series of biological reports dated 6/19/06, 11/20/06, and 2/14/07 were prepared by the Chambers Group to augment the Biological Resource Assessment conducted in 1991 for the subject property. Taken in combination, the reports conclude that the 6.28-acre parcel is composed mostly of non-native grassland with a few oaks in the southeastern portion of the site and a small isolated patch of coastal sage scrub along a fence line adjacent to Hamilton Lane. Based on information detailed in Appendix B, there are currently no sensitive wildlife species present on the site. The biological resource reports concluded that development of the site under the 2007 proposal would necessitate the removal of 3.06 acres of non-native grassland, four oak trees and .02 acres of coastal sage scrub. Proposed mitigation would bring the impacts to biological resources to less than significant.
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the USFWS? Less than Significant. The parcel is primarily Disturbed Habitat (DH) composed of annual non-native grasses and non-native vegetation, reflecting the history of agricultural use and repeated mowing for weed abatement.
Due to the significant disturbance and a shift from the original vegetation composition, resilient and fastgrowing non-native species and grasses now outcompete the native flora including several brome grasses (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens, B. hordeaceus and B. diandrus) and slender wild oat (Avena barbata), as well as non-native forbs, such as mustards (Hirshfeldia incana and Brassica nigra), and filarees (Erodium brachycarpum, E. cicutarium, and E. moschatum).
93 Attachment "3"
227
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -16- City of Escondido, California Despite the dominance of non-native species, the parcel supports some native species, predominantly annual forbs such as Menzies' Fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii), Narrow Leaf Bedstraw (Galium angustifolium) and a few diminutive perennial species including Coast Buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and Broom Baccharis (Baccharis sarothroides) which have clearly been mowed annually. Additionally, several large piles of mulch have been placed on the property, with some already spread. These piles consist primarily of Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta) material, laden with seeds that are now sprouting abundantly.
Animals observed included species of native and non-native Argentine ants (Linepithema humile), Great Basin fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis) on the rocks, a dead gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer catenifer), evidence of Coyote (Canis latrans), Bottas pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), and a woodrat nest (Neotoma sp.), and common birds including mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), house finch (house finch), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), and northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos). Larger birds were using the offsite trees in the vicinity, including California scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), hooded oriole (Icterus cucullatus), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), and American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos). A red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicansis) was seen flying overhead in the area.
No special status plants or animals were observed at the time of the survey nor is the on-site habitat expected to support sensitive species.
As stated in the 2007 Initial Study, the project would require mitigation for direct impacts to 3.06 acres of nonnative grassland and .02 acres of coastal sage scrub. Neither of these habitat types remain on the project site under current conditions. The property was cleared as requested in weed abatement orders issued by the City of Escondido on May 26, 2021, and August 12, 2025 (see Appendix C). Thus, impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant and less than what was identified in the 2007 Initial Study. However, mitigation measures addressing impacts to these habitat types in the 2007 Initial Study and listed above in Section 9, Summary of Original Project, remain applicable and would require implementation with approval of the proposed Project.
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The site is vacant and does not contain any federal or State jurisdictional areas. The proposed project would have no substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wild Service. The project site is void of riparian corridors and sensitive habitat. Thus, no impacts to riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities would occur. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. No wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, exist on-site or immediately adjoining the site. Thus, the project would not result in impacts to wetlands. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact. The project site is disturbed and located within an urban area. Project implementation would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites, as none exist within the immediate project area. No impacts to migratory corridors or native wildlife nursery sites would occur.
Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation 94 Attachment "3"
228
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -17- City of Escondido, California policy/ordinance?
Less than Significant Impact. The Escondido Municipal Code regulates removal of trees identified as Mature or Heritage (i.e., Protected), trees (Sec 33-1069). Mature and Protected trees are defined in the Escondido Municipal Code Sec 33-1052 as:
Mature tree is any self-supporting woody perennial plant, native or ornamental, with a single welldefined stem or multiple stems supporting a crown of branches. The single stem, or one of the multiple stems of any mature oak tree (genus Quercus), shall have a diameter 4 inches or greater when measured at 4½ feet diameter at breast height (DBH) above the trees natural grade. All other mature trees shall have a diameter of 8 inches DBH, or greater, for a single stem or one of the multiple stems.
Protected tree is any oak (genus Quercus) which has a 10-inch or greater DBH, or any other species or individual specimen listed on the local historic register, or determined to substantially contribute to the historic character of a property or structure listed on the local historic register, pursuant to Article 40 of the Escondido Zoning Code.
A total of 17 mature and protected trees are located on-site. Most of the trees on site are in the southern portion of the site. Two trees are in the west and center of the site, one a small black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) and the other, a Heritage coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). The southern portion of the site contains six Heritage coast live oak trees, three mature coast live oak trees and three mature non-native trees. The remaining four trees do not meet the Protected tree criteria.
Several Mature and Heritage Trees are located on Lots 2, 4, and 5. The proposed project could potentially remove two Heritage coast live oak trees located within the pad of Lot 4 while avoiding all other oak trees. A coast live oak tree on the boundary of Lots 4 and 5 would be avoided. Two additional Mature olive trees would also be removed by grading Lot 5. Lastly, a black locust tree meets neither Heritage nor Mature tree criterion, would be removed to create the retention basin. All the impacted Heritage or Mature trees are far from the three roads that border the parcel and the loss of four trees would not significantly change views for area residents or the aesthetics of the area. It is expected that future homeowners will plant trees around their homes that will offset any aesthetic impacts from removal of the four trees. While multiple trees would be removed, the Project would be in compliance with Citys current Municipal Code requirements for trees.
As stated in the 2007 Initial Study, the proposed project would require removal of four Live Oak trees; thus, requiring on-site relocation or replacement of the four existing Live Oak trees and planting of four additional Live Oak trees. The current project as proposed would be consistent with the Citys Municipal Code requirements for removal of heritage and mature trees. However, removal of any Live Oak tree would require replacement of that tree plus planting of one additional live oak tree as stated in the 2007 Initial Study mitigation measures for biological resources. Impacts would be similar to what was identified for the project as proposed in 2007.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result. f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The City is no longer participating in the local regional Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) effort and the site was not in a Focused Planning Area of the Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP). Thus, the proposed Project would neither impact regional conservation planning efforts under the NCCP or MHCP, and because of its location and features, development would not impact any future regional conservation planning efforts. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. 95 Attachment "3"
229
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -18- City of Escondido, California
14.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of CEQA?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of CEQA? c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
2007 Initial Study
The undeveloped site currently has only some minor indications that farming and citrus grove activity took place on the property in the past. The hilltop and surrounded land is now vacant. The property does not appear on the list of Archaeological Resources Sites; therefore, it is assumed the proposed development would have less than significant impacts on cultural resources.
Proposed Project
Information provided in this section was in part, obtained from the Phase I Cultural Resources Report prepared by South Environmental, LLC, May 2025 (Appendix D). a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of CEQA?
No Impact. On March 27, 2025, South Environmental performed an in-person cultural resources records search of the project site and a 0.5-mile search radius at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC), which houses cultural resources records for San Diego County. This search included their collections of mapped prehistoric and historic archaeological resources and historic built-environment resources, State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 forms (DPR forms), technical reports, archival resources, and ethnographic references. Additional consulted sources include historical maps of the study area, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), the lists of California State Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the Archaeological Resource Directory and Historic Built Environment Resource Directory lists. The SCIC records search identified three cultural resources studies (SD-8588, -8596, and -10211) that were conducted within the project site and an additional 42 studies within a 0.5-mile radius. None identified any historic resources on-site that are listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR. Further, no historic resources were identified. No impact to historic resources would occur. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5 of CEQA?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. As stated above, The SCIC records search identified three cultural resources studies (SD-8588, -8596, and -10211) that were conducted within the project site and an additional 42 studies within a 0.5-mile radius. These are summarized as follows:
SD-08588. The Draft Environmental Impact Report for Expansion of Wastewater Treatment Facility was completed by the City of Escondido in 1980. This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) included a cultural resources inventory that identified an archaeological site within the treatment plant site to be avoided by its 96 Attachment "3"
230
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -19- City of Escondido, California expansion. The study included a records search but no pedestrian survey. Adherence to State and Regional Historic Preservation regulations was recommended to mitigate impacts to cultural resources. However, the identified archaeological site is nowhere near the current project site, located west of Interstate 15 and south of State Route 78. The EIRs broad study area included the current project site but did not include archaeological surveys within or near the project site.
SD-08596. The Results of a Cultural Resource Survey of the Escondido Reclaimed Water Distribution System Project: Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared by Brian F. Smith and Associates in 1992. This study inventoried cultural resources within and adjacent to the 24.2-mile project alignment. A record search found 115 prehistoric sites and two historic sites near the project alignment, but no cultural resources were discovered within the studys project boundaries. The entire project alignment was surveyed. Where terrain permitted, the project alignment was intensively surveyed with 20-foot linear transects, and areas with steep grades, heavy foliage, structures, or pavement that inhibited access or ground visibility were surveyed at a reconnaissance level. This approach resulted in approximately 25 percent of the project alignment being intensively surveyed. The eastern half of the current project site falls with the 100-foot buffer zone of the Smith 1992 project alignment; however, no details are provided that indicate the current project site was intensively surveyed. Archaeological monitoring was recommended for certain areas deemed sensitive but not the entirety of the project alignment. Standard mitigation measures were also recommended.
SD-010211. The Results of Archaeological Testing at CA-SDI-12525 Report was prepared by Susan Underbrink of Chambers Group, Inc. in 2006. This multicomponent resource was originally recorded by Del James, Steven Briggs, and Scott Campbell of ERC Environmental and Energy Services in 1991. The prehistoric component was initially described as possessing numerous slicks on 17 different granite bedrock outcrops, more than 20 chipped stone flakes, two manos, one metate fragment, and more than 50 marine shell fragments. An L-shaped concrete foundation and a subterranean concrete foundation was also referenced. It was stated that the area around the bedrock outcrops had been subject to disking but also estimated that the subsurface appeared to retain good integrity.
Susan Underbrink (2006) of Chambers Group, Inc. conducted resurvey and archaeological testing of P-37- 012535 for CRHR eligibility evaluation in May 2006. Underbrink recorded 20 bedrock milling features (labeled as Features A-T) with 27 milling surfaces, all flush or shallow slicks. Underbrink noted that many of the milling surfaces were heavily eroded and that some of the features identified in 1991 could not be relocated.
Underbrink excavated 16 shovel test pits and two 1-meter by 1-meter test units to a maximum depth of 70 centimeters. From the excavations she collected nine metavolcanic chipped stone flakes or shatter, one quartz flake, three small marine shell fragments of unidentified genus or species, one burnt large mammal bone, and one metal plate that states, American Automobile Owners Association. Test Unit 1 produced 10 of the 15 artifacts and ecofacts between 0-30 centimeters of depth. No artifacts from the surface were recorded or collected. Underbrink described the site as a food processing site with a paucity of subsurface cultural material lacking diagnostic artifacts or evidence of habitation. The report (Underbrink 2006) stated that the research potential of P-37-012535 has been exhausted and the site was recommended not eligible for the CRHR and no further work is necessary beyond archaeological monitoring.
Native American Scoping
A Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File search was requested by South Environmental on March 21, 2025. The NAHC responded to the request on April 4, 2025, and reported positive result and recommended contacting the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians. The NAHC also recommended contacting 31 Native American tribal representatives for additional information or knowledge they may have regarding the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by the proposed project.
South Environmental sent letters to each contact provided by the NAHC on April 7, 2025, and sent follow-up emails on April 17, 2025, to non-responsive contacts.
Four tribal contacts have responded to the outreach letters to date. The Pala Band of Mission Indians and Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians stated that the area is archaeologically sensitive with known sites recorded 97 Attachment "3"
231
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -20- City of Escondido, California within the vicinity. These tribes, along with the San Pasqual Band of Diegueño Mission Indians expressed concern about potential impacts the project may have on local tangible cultural heritage and declared interest in entering formal government-to-government consultation.
Field Survey Results
On April 22, 2025, South Environmental conducted an intensive-level survey of the project site. The site was surveyed using transects spaced approximately ten meters apart throughout the site. Areas with exposed ground surface were examined for the presence of prehistoric artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools), historical artifacts (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics), sediment discolorations that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, depressions, and other features that might indicate the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., post holes, foundations).
The previously recorded multicomponent archaeological site P-37-012525 (CA-SDI-12525/H) referenced above was relocated and one medium-grained metavolcanic flake was observed within the archaeological site. Some of the previously recorded bedrock milling slicks were relocated; however, others appeared to have eroded through weathering since the 2006 recordation and testing. No artifacts or other evidence was identified to change the previous characterization of site P-37-012525. No additional archaeological or historic built environment resources were observed during the survey beyond the previously recorded and tested P37-012525. Based on these findings, no further archaeological testing of P-37-012525 is recommended.
Further, the current findings are consistent with the previous recommendation that the site lacks significant data potential and is not eligible for CRHR listing.
No Cultural Resources were identified within the project site through Native American scoping; however, the Native American scoping identified the project vicinity as highly sensitive for prehistoric/Native American resources as referenced above. This sensitivity is supported by the five previously recorded resources with prehistoric components within 0.5-mile of the project site, including the CRHR/NRHP-listed multicomponent site P-37-000570 within Felicita Park, which contains a large prehistoric habitation component.
Given the presence of a previously recorded archaeological site within the project site and evidence of archaeological sensitivity indicated by the records search results and responses from tribal contacts, archaeological and Native American monitoring of all project-related earth disturbing activities is recommended as a condition of approval for addressing any discoveries of cultural resources. With implementation of Condition of Approval (COA) CUL-1, impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant.
CUL-1. Archaeological and Native American Monitoring. Based on the sensitivity of the project site and the presence of P-37-012525, archaeological and Native American monitoring should be considered at the Citys discretion and conducted during all project-related ground disturbance, including but not limited to, grading and excavation for and installation of foundations and utilities.
Within 30 days of the conclusion of all monitoring activities, an archaeological monitoring report shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and submitted to the appropriate parties detailing the results of all monitoring activities and any cultural resources identified. Any discoveries of cultural resources or human remains shall be addressed in accordance with the unanticipated discovery measures outlined below.
As stated in the 2007 Initial Study, the proposed project was not expected to have any adverse impact to cultural or historic resources. Based on the current Phase I Cultural Resources Report, there is evidence that resources may occur on-site; and per existing protocol, monitoring during construction is recommended at the Citys discretion as a Condition of Approval. Implementation of this Condition of Approval does not represent a substantial change proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous environmental document due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects that would necessitate revisions to the 2007 Initial Study. 98 Attachment "3"
232
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -21- City of Escondido, California c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant. There are no known grave sites within the project limits. Therefore, the disturbance of human remains is not anticipated. However, in the unlikely event that human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of any human remains find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery, and shall complete the inspection within 24 of notification by the NAHC. The MLD will have the opportunity to make recommendations to the NAHC on the disposition of the remains. With implementation of existing regulations, potential impacts associated with the disturbance of human remains would be less than significant. This issue was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, compliance with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, does not represent a substantial change proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the 2007 Initial Study.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result.
14.6 Energy. Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during the project construction or operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
2007 Initial Study
An evaluation of energy impacts was not required under Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines when the 2007 Initial Study was prepared.
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during the project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact. During construction, the Project would temporarily consume energy for the operation of construction equipment and vehicles. Standard methods of earth moving, excavations, building construction, and paving are planned. The proposed construction activities do not include methods of construction which would result in inefficient or unnecessary use of energy resources. For operational energy use, the project would be required to meet CCR Title 24 building energy and California Green Building (CALGreen) Code standards. Energy-efficient buildings require less electricity, natural gas, and other fuels.
Electricity production from fossil fuels and on-site fuel combustion (typically for space or water heating) results in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Title 24 standards are updated approximately every three years to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.
The 2022 Title 24 standards went into effect on January 1, 2023. The standards are divided into three basic sets. First, there is a basic set of mandatory requirements that apply to all buildings. Second, there is a set of 99 Attachment "3"
233
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -22- City of Escondido, California performance standardsthe energy budgetsthat vary by climate zone (of which there are 16 in California) and building type; thus, the standards are tailored to local conditions. Finally, the third set constitutes an alternative to the performance standards, which is a set of prescriptive packages that are basically a recipe or a checklist compliance approach.
CALGreen (CCR Title 24, Part 11) is a code with mandatory requirements for all residential and nonresidential buildings (including industrial and commercial buildings) for which no other state agency has authority to adopt green building standards. The current 2022 Standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings went into effect on January 1, 2023. CALGreen is intended to (1) reduce GHG emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the directives by the Governor. In short, the code is established to reduce construction waste; make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy; and reduce environmental impact during and after construction. CALGreen contains requirements for storm water control during construction; construction waste reduction; indoor water use reduction; material selection; natural resource conservation; site irrigation conservation; and more.
All fuel calculations are based on the total Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e) value calculated for each construction phase and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1. Data are reported in annual metric tons of CO2e for the duration of each construction phase. Metric tons are converted to kilogram CO2e and then divided by a conversion factor used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to estimate gallons of gasoline consumed based on carbon emissions. For the purpose of determining fuel demand, it was assumed that all worker vehicles would be use gasoline and all construction equipment would diesel-fueled. Deisel demand would be approximately 22,659 gallons. Demand for gasoline would be approximately 504 gallons. During operation, the project would generate demand for approximately 30,706 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity and 142,585 British Thermal Units (BTU) of natural gas annually. The annual gasoline demand generated by passenger vehicles visiting the site would be approximately 6,584 gallons.
Compliance with state Title 24 and CALGreen standards would ensure that the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. No further Project-specific mitigation measures would be required. Implementation of the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources that may have a significant impact on the environment.
Impacts would be less than significant; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study.
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No Impact. Several levels of government have implemented regulatory programs in response to reducing GHG emissions, which consequently serve to increase energy efficiency statewide. Multiple state agencies, including CARB, California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, CalRecycle, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the Department of Water Resources have developed regulatory and incentive programs that promote energy efficiency. Many of the measures are generally beyond the ability of any future development to implement and are implemented by utility providers or manufacturers.
The project does not conflict with any state or local plans for renewable energy efficiency. The project would employ standard methods of construction and does not propose to create a project condition post-construction whereby a greater energy, relative to projects of a similar scope would occur. The project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. No impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study.
As stated, this topical issue was not addressed in the 2007 Initial Study. However, based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would result in any significant energy 100
Attachment "3"
234
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -23- City of Escondido, California impact.
14.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
(i.) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area, or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Refer to DM&G Pub. 42)?
(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
(iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (iv) Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in onsite or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 1994 UBC, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
2007 Initial Study
The highest fill areas proposed are approximately 10 feet in height, consistent with the maximum height allowed in the City's Grading Ordinance. The deepest cut areas are approximately 6 feet deep and located within the northern portion of the site. It is reasonably anticipated that conventional grading practices can be utilized to develop the site without the need for blasting. If blasting is required it would likely be limited to the central portion of the site and the contractor will be required to obtain the necessary permits and follow all City of Escondido procedures.
The site is not located on any active or potentially active fault trace as defined by the California Division of Mines and Geology. The nearest active fault to the site is the Rose Canyon Fault, located approximately 11 miles to the west. Other nearby faults include the Elsinore-Julian Fault and the Newport-Inglewood Fault. The site is not considered to possess a significantly greater seismic risk than that of the surrounding area based on accounts from other geotechnical investigations for projects developed in the area; therefore a significant geology and soils impact would not occur.
Proposed Project
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death 101
Attachment "3"
235
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -24- City of Escondido, California involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Less Than Significant Impact. In 1972, the state passed the Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Zoning Act to help identify areas subject to severe ground shaking. Earthquake faults are categorized as active, potentially active, and inactive. A fault is classified as active if it is included as an Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone (EFHZ), which indicated movement within the past 11,000 years. The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the placement of most structures for human occupancy across the traces of active faults; thereby mitigating the hazard of fault ruptures. EFHZs identify the probability of ground rupture for future earthquakes. Where such zones are designated, no buildings or structures may be constructed on the trace of the fault. No EFHZs exist within the City of Escondido as reported in the City of Escondido General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Section 4.6, Geology/Soils. Impacts related to geology/soils would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. Southern California is a seismically active region likely to experience, on average, one earthquake of Magnitude 7.0, and ten (10) earthquakes of Magnitude 6.0 over a period of 10 years. Active faults are those faults that are considered likely to undergo renewed movement within a period of concern to humans. These include faults that are currently slipping, those that display earthquake activity, and those that have historical surface rupture. The California Geological Survey (CGS) defines active faults as those which have had surface displacement within Holocene times (about the last 11,000 years). Such displacement can be recognized by the existence of sharp cliffs in young alluvium, un-weathered terraces, and offset modern stream courses. Potentially active faults are those believed to have generated earthquakes during the Quaternary period, but prior to Holocene times.
The San Jacinto Fault, Elsinore Fault and Rose Canyon Fault have the potential to result in seismic ground shaking within the proposed project area. Conformance with standard engineering practices and design criteria would reduce the effects of seismic ground shaking to less than significant. Impacts related to geology/soils would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is the loss of strength of cohesionless soils when the pore water pressure in the soil becomes equal to the confining pressure. Liquefaction generally occurs as a quicksand type of ground failure caused by strong ground shaking. The primary factors influencing liquefaction potential include groundwater, soil type, relative density of the sandy soils, confining pressure, and the intensity and duration of ground shaking. According to Figure 4.6-3 in the General Plan EIR, the project area is not susceptible to liquefaction hazards. A less than significant impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study.
iv) Landslides?
No Impact. Landslides are mass movements of the ground that include rock falls, relatively shallow slumping and sliding of soil, and deeper rotational or transitional movement of soil or rock. However, according to the According to Figure 4.6-4 in the General Plan EIR, the project is not located within a landslide hazard area. No impact would occur. A less than significant impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 102
Attachment "3"
236
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -25- City of Escondido, California Less Than Significant Impact. Grading and trenching during the construction phase of the project would displace soils and temporarily increase the potential for soils to be subject to wind and water erosion. The contractor will be required to comply with standard engineering practices for erosion control and implement applicable elements of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during ground disturbing activities. Impacts would be less than significant. A less than significant impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact. Subsidence, which can be caused by groundwater depletion, seismic activity, and other factors, refers to elevation changes of the land whether slow or sudden. The underlying geologic formations in the proposed project area are mostly granitic and have a very low potential of subsidence. No water extractions or similar practices are anticipated to be necessary that are typically associated with project-related subsidence effects. In addition, surface material that would be disrupted or displaced would be balanced and re-compacted on-site or removed. Adherence to standard engineering practices would result in less than significant impacts related to subsidence of the land. The site is generally flat. There are no steep slopes that could cause a landslide. As stated, there is no liquefaction potential in the project area. A less than significant impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? No Impact. As stated in the General Plan EIR, Section 4.6, Geology/Soils, certain types of clay soils expand when they are saturated and shrink when dried. These are called expansive soils and can pose a threat to the integrity of structures built on them without proper engineering. Expansive soils are derived primarily from weathering of feldspar minerals and volcanic ash. The expansion and contraction of the soil varies with the soil moisture content (wet or dry), and can be aggravated by the way a property is maintained or irrigated.
Human activities can increase the moisture content of the soils, and the threat of expansive soil damage.
According to Figure 4.6-5 in the General Plan EIR, there is no known potential for expansive soils occurring in the project area. No impact would occur. No impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The proposed project does not include the implementation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The project would connect to the existing sewer system located along Bernardo Avenue or Hamilton Lane. No impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study. e) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? No Impact. According to the City of Escondido General Plan EIR Figure 4.5-2, the geologic formation on the project site is comprised of granitic and other intrusive crystalline rocks of all ages, mid-Cretaceous. Geologic formations that are composed entirely of volcanic or plutonic igneous rock, such as basalt or granite, do not have any potential for producing fossil remains. No impacts to paleontological resources would occur. No impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result.
103
Attachment "3"
237
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -26- City of Escondido, California
14.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
2007 Initial Study
An evaluation of greenhouse gas impacts was not required under Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines when the 2007 Initial Study was prepared.
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The vast majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to create a project-specific impact through a direct influence to climate change; therefore, the issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a projects contribution towards an impact is cumulatively considerable. Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355). For future projects, the significance of GHG emissions are evaluated based on locally adopted quantitative thresholds, or consistency with a regional GHG reduction plan (such as a Climate Action Plan).
The City of Escondido approved a Climate Action Plan in March 2021. This CAP meets the criteria identified in Section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and, therefore, is considered a qualified CAP and may be used for the specific purpose of streamlining the analysis of GHG emissions for subsequent projects.
Furthermore, a projects incremental contribution to cumulative GHG emissions may be determined not to be cumulatively considerable. The City has established a GHG screening threshold (set at 500 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent [MTCO2e] per year) for new development projects to determine if a project would need to demonstrate consistency with the CAP through the Checklist. New development projects that are consistent with the General Plan and are expected to generate fewer than 500 MTCO2e annually would not have a cumulative impact and would not be required to provide additional analysis.
Construction Emissions
Construction of the proposed project would generate temporary GHG emissions primarily associated with the operation of construction equipment, worker trips and truck trips required for hauling excavation spoils, materials and equipment. Site preparation and grading typically generate the greatest emission quantities because the use of heavy equipment is greatest during this phase of construction. Emissions associated with the construction period were estimated based on the projected maximum amount of equipment that would be used on-site at one time. Air districts such as the SDAPCD have recommended amortizing constructionrelated emissions over a 30-year period to calculate annual emissions.
Operational Emissions
Default values used in CalEEMod version 2022.1 are based on the CEC sponsored California Commercial End 104
Attachment "3"
238
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -27- City of Escondido, California Use Survey (CEUS) and Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) studies. CalEEMod provides operational emissions of CO2, N2O and CH4. This methodology has been subjected to peer review by numerous public and private stakeholders, and in particular by the CEC; and therefore, is considered reasonable and reliable for use in GHG impact analysis pursuant to CEQA. It is also recommended by CAPCOA (January 2008).
Emissions associated with area sources (i.e., consumer products, landscape maintenance, and architectural coating) were calculated in CalEEMod based on standard emission rates from CARB, USEPA, and district supplied emission factor values (CalEEMod User Guide, 2022). Emissions from waste generation were also calculated in CalEEMod and are based on the IPCCs methods for quantifying GHG emissions from solid waste using the degradable organic content of waste (CalEEMod User Guide, April 2022). Waste disposal rates by land use and overall composition of municipal solid waste in California was primarily based on data provided by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle).
Emissions from water and wastewater usage calculated in CalEEMod were based on the default electricity intensity from the CECs 2006 Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California using the average values for Northern and Southern California. The proposed Project would generate 84 MT of CO2e emissions annually including the amortized construction emissions. This would be less than the 500 MT CO2e screening threshold referenced above. A less than significant impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study. b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No Impact. Specific goals and actions included in the City of Escondido CAP and Title 24 that pertain to the proposed project include those addressing energy and water use reduction, promotion of green building measures, waste reduction, and reduction in vehicle miles traveled. The proposed project would also be required to implement all mandatory green building measures for new residential and commercial development under the CALGreen Code. This would require the project be designed to reduce water consumption, increase building system efficiencies, divert construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant emitting finish materials. Implementation of these building and appliance standards would result in water, energy, and construction waste reductions for the proposed project. These requirements are included in the CAP Checklist prepared by the applicant to demonstrate project consistency with applicable elements of the CAP.
Consistency with EO S-3-05 and SB 32
EO S-3-05. This EO establishes the following goals: GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
SB 32. This bill establishes a statewide GHG emissions reduction target whereby CARB, in adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emissions reductions, shall ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to at least 40% below 1990 levels by December 31, 2030.
The City prepared a GHG emissions inventory included in the above-referenced CAP. The Citys Final CAP was adopted on May 8, 2021. The CAP demonstrates that, with implementation of applicable General Plan objectives and policies, coupled with state and federal actions and execution of CAP measures and actions, the City will reduce GHG emissions consistent with state goals established by Senate Bill 32 and maintain a trajectory to meet its proportional share of the 2050 state target identified in Executive Order S-3-05. As stated, GHG emissions would not exceed the screening threshold of 500 MT CO2e annually; and thus, would not conflict with applicable State goals and policies regarding GHG reductions, include SB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05.
CARB has indicated that statewide, California is on track to achieving both the 2030 and 2050 goals. This is confirmed in the 2017 Scoping Plan and 2022 Update, which states that the Scoping Plan builds upon the 105
Attachment "3"
239
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -28- City of Escondido, California successful framework established by the Initial Scoping Plan and First Update, while identifying new, technologically feasible and cost-effective strategies to ensure that California meets its GHG reduction targets.
As stated, the project would not generate enough GHG emissions to cumulatively contribute to global climate change. Measures implemented by the project to reduce overall GHG emissions would also contribute to GHG statewide reduction goals. Thus, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. No impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study.
As stated, this topical issue was not addressed in the 2007 Initial Study. However, based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would result in any significant greenhouse gas impacts.
14.9 HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? 2007 Initial Study
Research for the area was conducted by the County Department of Environmental Health and the site was not identified on the County's list of hazardous waste sites. The County Department of Environmental Health regulates the storage and on-site use of any potential hazardous materials such as fuel oil, motor oil, paints and hazardous cleaning materials to prevent the accidental release of, proper prevention of pollution of the environment. While the site is in the vicinity of the Chatham Brothers Barrel Yard, a State Superfund Site, the proposed project site was not known to store hazardous chemicals. Of the three wells previously installed to monitor groundwater quality beneath the site, two wells (MW27 and MW28) were approved by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) for closure on October 24, 2006. These have subsequently been removed and filled in. The Regional Board also determined the remaining well (MW57), which is located in the northwestern portion of the 6.28-acre site, should remain or that a replacement well, at a location 235 feet to the northwest, and within the proposed private street would be approved if it provides equivalent deep aquifer information.
The property is not adjacent or within two miles of an airport. Any proposed development would not impair the 106
Attachment "3"
240
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -29- City of Escondido, California City's emergency response plan according to discussions with the City Fire Department. The areas will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildfires since the site is in a suburban setting and once developed much of the property surrounding structures will be irrigated. Any impacts from the proposed annexation and subdivision map creation will be less than significant. Any further development projects will be subject to CEQA review.
A mitigation measure related to monitoring well MW57 stated that the well is to remain on the project site and be accessible to the Chatham Brothers RP Group for monitoring purposes until officially released. Upon release, it is to be removed per Regional Board and City of Escondido standards. Alternatively, if a new replacement well is installed nearby and approved by the Regional Board and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), existing well MW57 can also then be released and removed per Regional Board and City of Escondido standards. A letter prepared by the Chatham Site PRP Group (May 21, 2009), provided documentation to the California Department of Toxic and Substance Control, that well(s) MW56 (which is unrelated to the project site) and MW57 were decommissioned. The documentation has been provided as Appendix E.
Proposed Project
Information in this section is in part, based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 1100 Hamilton Lane, prepared by Weis Environmental, April 2025 (Appendix F) a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
No Impact. The proposed project would be comprised of single-family residential development. It would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in a release of hazardous materials into the environment. However, during the short-term period of project construction, there is the possibility of accidental release of hazardous substances such as spilling of hydraulic fluid or diesel fuel associated with construction equipment maintenance. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of these hazardous substances is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials. The contractor will be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures which would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the environment. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The closest school to the site is Bernardo Elementary School located at 1222 Mountain Heights Drive approximately 0.23 south of the site. While located within ¼ mile of the site, the project would be a single-family residential development. Other than common cleaning supplies, no hazardous materials would be used or generated on-site or proximal to Bernardo Elementary School. This specific threshold was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would exceed this threshold. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or 107
Attachment "3"
241
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -30- City of Escondido, California the environment?
No Impact. According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Weis Environmental, Inc., April 2025), the proposed project site is not included on a list of sites containing hazardous materials and would not result in a significant hazard to the public or to the environment. As discussed in the 2007 Initial Study and summarized above, the Chatham Brothers Barrel Yard, a State Superfund Site, is located proximal to the site.
The Phase I ESA prepared for the proposed project states the site is located approximately 700 feet northwest of the site. Further, a water supply well is present on the southern adjoining property of the site and to date, no ground water impacts have been reported in this well. Consistent with the above-referenced mitigation measure, a potentially responsible party is required to complete continued monitoring of groundwater in the area and any future mitigation that may be required should a change in conditions occur. As stated, the onsite MW57 was decommissioned as documented (see Appendix F). Thus, the former Chatham Brothers Barrel Yard is not a recognized environmental condition in connection with the site. This determination would not represent information related to a new or previously undisclosed significant environmental impact. The project would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The proposed project is located approximately 10.7 miles southeast of McClellen-Palomar Airport.
Per Exhibit III-5 of the McClellen-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), the project site is located outside the safety compatibility area. Thus, airport operations would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The proposed project would develop five new single-family residential lots on a 6.02 gross acre site. Both Bernardo Avenue and Hamilton Lane would likely be used by residents for evacuation. The proposed project would have no impact on emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. No revisions to adopted emergency plans would be required as a result of the proposed project. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. The project site is located within a developed area and a Local Responsibility Area for fire services. The project site would be served by the Escondido Fire Department. The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of wildland fires because the project site does not adjoin undeveloped wildland areas. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
108
Attachment "3"
242
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -31- City of Escondido, California a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. Otherwise impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
2007 Initial Study
The existing parcel includes gentle to moderate slopes (generally between 0 to 15% slope.) and primarily drains east to west, although the eastern edge does drain eastward. The amount of run-off from the site would be expected to incrementally increase upon development of the proposed lots due to impervious surfaces associated with the development of the residential structures and paving. The project would be required to comply with latest National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards. The City of Escondido's Engineering Department has determined that because the project is required to have all postconstruction storm water treatment measures in place applicable prior to final occupancy and meet all City of Escondido Stormwater Management Standards thereafter, the runoff from the project would not be considered significant and the project would not materially degrade the existing drainage facilities. The City would provide sewer and water service from mains within the adjacent street or easements; consequently, no significant impact is expected to occur to the groundwater table. The project is outside the 100-year flood plain area as identified on current Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). Therefore, the project site is not subject to potential flooding, landslides or mudflows. Part of the project site is over a once contaminated groundwater, therefore, mitigation will be part of the approval as follows: 1) no drinking water wells shall be drilled on the site; 2) the existing monitoring well on site shall remain until released by DEH; and 3) no excavations shall be allowed on site without proper permits.
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
No Impact. The project would construct five new single-family residences and one stormwater retention basin. The basin would be constructed with an impervious liner over gravel and an underdrain system. The filtration media would be comprised of sand, sandy loam and compost to support native plant material.
Stormwater would drain through the media and convey into the underdrain and outlet pipe which would connect to the existing municipal stormwater system located along Hamilton Lane. A riser pipe would be constructed in the pond to directly convey overflow into the outflow pipe. Stormwater would not violate water quality standards or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. No impact would occur.
Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. 109 Attachment "3"
243
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -32- City of Escondido, California b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? No Impact. The project would increase the amount of impervious area on the site. However, it would not pump groundwater nor is the site over an aquifer recharge area such that the project would substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge in a manner that the project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Further, storm flows not conveyed into the on-site basin would percolate into the ground; thus, providing some recharge post-construction. No impact would occur. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact. The drainage pattern would be altered relative to existing conditions.
Stormwater would be conveyed into a new bioretention basin rather than sheet flow through the site.
However, no stream or river would be altered. Any temporary erosion control measures required per the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan during construction and post-construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) would minimize erosion and transport of sediments off-site. No impact would occur. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; Less Than Significant Impact. As stated, implementation of standard erosion control measures would minimize erosion and transport of sediments off-site. No impact would occur. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
No Impact. As stated, implementation of standard erosion control measures would minimize erosion and transport of sediments off-site. No off-site flooding would occur with implementation of the proposed project.
No impact would occur. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or No Impact. Under the project design, all runoff would convey into the on-site stormwater bioretention basin.
The project will not result in cross-lot drainage or an increase in the rate of off-site run-off in a manner that would exceed the existing capacity of the off-site stormwater system. Further, a riser pipe would be constructed to convey any overflow directly into the municipal stormwater system. No impact would occur.
Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. iv. Otherwise impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. As stated, the downstream point of stormwater discharge from the site will not be altered from the 110
Attachment "3"
244
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -33- City of Escondido, California predevelopment condition. However, all runoff would be conveyed into a new on-site stormwater bioretention basin. The project will not result in cross-lot drainage or an increase in the rate of off-site run-off in a manner that would impede or redirect flood flows. The project is required by law to implement stormwater Best Management Practices during construction to minimize erosion and pollutant discharge associated with stormwater runoff to the downstream drainage system. No impact would occur. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Impact. The project site is not located within a dam inundation area nor are there large open water bodies proximal to the site that would pose a potential seiche impact. The project site is not located within the San Diego County Tsunami Hazard Area as depicted in the California Department of Conservation tsunami map. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/san-diego. No impact would occur. This specific threshold was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would exceed this threshold. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Impact. Per the City of Escondido 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, minimal groundwater sources are found throughout the Citys service area. Groundwater wells are privately owned and maintained. The City does not participate in any groundwater withdrawal, storage, or replenishment programs. No groundwater would be pumped on-site nor would it be used as part of potable water supplies provided to the project by the City of Escondido. Thus, the project would not result in any significant impacts relating to water quality. No impact would occur. This specific threshold was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would occur this threshold.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result.
14.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
2007 Initial Study
The City of Escondido General Plan designates the area as Estate I, allowing single-family residential development. The objective of the Estate I category is to promote single-family development with a maximum density of 1 unit per acre on relatively large lots with minimum 40,000 sq. ft. lot sizes. This designation is often applied in transitional areas between more intensive Suburban and less intensive Rural II development. Public wastewater collection and treatment are required in these areas only if the property cannot accommodate a functional septic system.
The extent of dwelling units permitted on the proposed development by Estate I is dependent on the topography of the site. The General Plan indicates that the maximum development yield of Estate I lands shall be sensitive to topography and be calculated according to the following slope categories:
111
Attachment "3"
245
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -34- City of Escondido, California 0-15%: 1 dwelling unit per 1 acre;
15-25%: 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres;
25-35%: 1 dwelling unit per 4 acres; and
35+ 1: dwelling unit per 20 acres.
The minimum lot size shall be 40,000 square feet, unless the development is clustered. Based on the variable slope provisions contained in the City's General Plan, 6.02 dwelling units would be allowed for a subdivision map, which is consistent with the proposed 5-lot map submitted. The existing zoning of the entire site is proposed to be pre-zoned to RE-40, which is consistent with the General Plan. From a "plan to ground" analysis, the proposal would add five units to the 6.02-acre site. This is not considered significant since the proposed project would be consistent with existing adopted City of Escondido land use policies. No significant land use impact would occur as a result of the proposed project.
Proposed Project
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The proposed project would construct five new single-family residences and one new stormwater basin on a vacant 6.02-acre site zoned RE-40. The RE-40 designation requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet. The residential lots would be designed to meet or exceed the minimum standard. An existing single-family lot is bordered to the north, south and east by the proposed project. This lot would retain its existing access to Bernardo Avenue. The project will not have an impact on the physical arrangement of an established community. Therefore, no impact would occur. This specific threshold was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would occur under this threshold. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact? No Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Elements designation for the project site and with the Official Zoning Map designation of the property. As stated in the General Plan Land Use Element, the Residential Estate designation accommodates detached single-family homes on large lots.
This designation applies to areas that are on the edge of urban development pattern or in areas that are already characterized by an estate development. Clustering is permitted pursuant to General Plan Residential Clustering Policies.
Land Use and Community Form - GOAL 1: A community composed of distinct residential neighborhoods, business districts, and employment centers, whose urban form reflects the natural environmental setting.
Community Character Policy 1.1 New development should serve to reinforce the citys present development pattern of higher-intensity development within the downtown area and lower-intensity development in outlying areas. As a guide toward accomplishing this objective, new development projects shall be at an appropriate density or clustered intensity based upon their compatibility with the majority of the existing surrounding land uses. This policy shall limit density transfers from constrained portions of a property as defined in the land use and open space goals.
Consistent. The proposed project would construct five new single-family residences and one stormwater basin with related infrastructure improvements. The proposed density would be consistent with the current RE-40 zoning.
Community Character Policy 1.2 The boundaries of the Land Use categories depicted on the General Plan are not precise. However, the categories are generally intended to avoid intensification of existing land use or zoning designations where land use compatibility and the objectives of the General Plan are at issue.
Consistent. The proposed project would construct five new single-family residences and one stormwater 112
Attachment "3"
246
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -35- City of Escondido, California basin with related infrastructure improvements. The proposed density would be consistent with the current RE-40 zoning and the surrounding properties. The project would develop a vacant site; however, it would not intensify the intensity of existing development.
Community Character Policy 1.3 Focus development into areas where land use changes achieve the communitys long-term goals. Facilitate development that is consistent with the build out vision for each area through incentive programs and efficient administrative and discretionary approval processes for plot plans, Planned Developments, Area Plans, Specific Plans, and Zoning Overlays.
Consistent. The proposed density would be consistent with the current RE-40 zoning. The project would facilitate development that is consistent with the zoning designation which would support the Citys long-term goals. This specific threshold was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would exceed this threshold.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result.
14.12 MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
2007 Initial Study
No significant mineral resources have been identified on the subject site. The limited size of the project would not substantially increase the use of, or result in the depletion of any nonrenewable natural resources.
Proposed Project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. The Citys General Plan and Zoning Ordinance would not permit any mineral extraction on or within the vicinity of the project site. Further, the site is not designated as area with known mineral resources.
No impact would occur. This would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact. Refer to Response 14.12a, above. No impact would occur. This would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result. 113
Attachment "3"
247
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -36- City of Escondido, California
14.13 NOISE. Would the project:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
2007 Initial Study
The Noise Element in the City's General Plan contains noise policies which outline acceptable noise levels associated with each type of land use. A 60 dBA CNEL exposure is considered normally acceptable for exterior residential land uses and 45 dBA CNEL for interior levels based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.
The City requires that noise levels be presented in terms of Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). CNEL is a weighted sound level during a 24-hour period, after the addition of 5 decibels (dB) to average sound levels at evening hours (7 PM to 10 PM) and 10 dB to the average night hours (10 PM to 7 AM). The addition of 5 and 10 dB is applied to account for noise sensitivity during evening and nighttime hours.
To assess future noise generation associated with the improvement of the City's circulation system, a Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared in August 2000 for the Escondido General Plan Update illustrating existing and future noise contours. Noise levels depicted for the site show the exposure levels for the entire subject site at below the 60 CNEL standard contained in the Noise/Land Use Compatibility Guidelines of the General Plan. Therefore, the exposure to exterior noise levels is within acceptable levels and with proper design of the future residential units, it is anticipated that the exposure to interior noise will also be within acceptable levels. Therefore, no significant long-term noise impacts associated with the development are anticipated.
Future grading and construction on the site would create temporary noise impacts. Modem construction equipment, properly used and maintained, would meet the noise limits contained in the City's Noise Ordinance. All noise generated by the project would be required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance.
Upon completion of the project, all construction noise from the project will cease. Because construction operations would be required to conform to the City's Noise Ordinance and because construction noise is temporary, no significant impact from construction noise is anticipated.
Proposed Project
Regulatory Standards.
State Standards. The State of California has adopted noise compatibility guidelines for general land use planning. Land uses addressed by the State standards and the acceptable noise categories for each land use 114
Attachment "3"
248
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -37- City of Escondido, California are included in the State of California General Plan Guidelines, which is published and updated by the Governors Office of Planning and Research. The level of acceptability of the noise environment is dependent upon the activity associated with the particular land use. According to the State, an exterior noise environment up to 65 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is normally acceptable for single and multi-family residential uses, up to 75 CNEL is conditionally acceptable with special noise insulation requirements, while 75 CNEL and above is identified as "clearly unacceptable" noise levels for residential uses. The maximum allowable interior noise level for residential structures is 45 CNEL.
California Green Building Code. Section 5.507.4.2 of the 2019 California Green Building Code (CALGreen) stipulates that for buildings exposed to a noise level of 65 dB or more when measured as a 1-hour Equivalent Sound Level (Leq), the building façade, including walls, windows, and roofs, shall provide enough sound insulation so that the interior sound level from exterior sources does not exceed 50 dBA during any hour of operation. This applies to non-residential occupancies only. For renovation projects, the requirement only applies to the portion of the project within the scope of the renovation.
California Building Code. Section 1206.4 Allowable Interior Noise Levels of California Building Code 2022, the interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dB in any habitable room. The noise metric shall be either the day-night average sound level (Ldn) or the community noise equivalent level (CNEL) consistent with noise element of the local general plan.
City of Escondido Municipal Code. The Citys Noise Ordinance (Chapter 17, Article 12. Noise Abatement and Control of the Escondido Municipal Code prohibits the making of disturbing, excessive, offensive or unusually loud noises within the City limits. Excessive noise is considered as a detriment to public health, comfort, convenience, safety, welfare, and prosperity of City residents. Table 3-5 provides Section 17.229(a) sound limit levels for stationary sources at any point on or beyond the boundaries of the property from where the sound is originated according to land use type and a permitted time of day.
According to Section 17.234(a-e), construction activities may not exceed more than one hour of 75 dB sound levels and are limited to Monday through Friday between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., or on Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. However, as stated in Section 17.242 (a), the City Manager may waive any or all of the provisions of this subsection in cases where a variance was obtained, and vehicles or equipment used are reduced to the lowest sounds levels while conducting effective operations Table 3 shows the sound level limits based on the district zones. The above regulatory standards for the project are summarized in Table 3:
Table 3
Sound Level Limits Based on District Zones
Base District Zone Time Applicable Limit One
Hour Average Sound Level
(decibels)
Residential Zones 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 50
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 45
Multi-residential Zones 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 55
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 50
Commercial Zones 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 60
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 55
Light Industrial/Industrial
Park
Anytime 70*
General Industrial Zones Anytime 75*
+ - Subject to provisions of Section 17-229 (c)(5).
City of Escondido General Plan Community Protection Element. As shown on Page VI-22 of the General Plan Community Protection Element, 24-hour average (Ldn or Community Noise Equivalent Level [CNEL]) noise levels ranging between 50 and 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA) are normally acceptable for residential uses. Noise levels ranging between 60 and 70 dBA CNEL are conditionally acceptable assuming the 45 dBA interior standard can be met. As shown in Figure VI-14, a project-related increase in ambient noise levels, when ambient conditions reach 65 dBA CNEL, is significant if it is 3 dBA or higher.
Vibration Standard and Guidelines. Vibration is a unique form of noise as the energy is transmitted through 115
Attachment "3"
249
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -38- City of Escondido, California buildings, structures and the ground whereas audible noise energy is transmitted through the air. Thus, vibration is generally felt rather than heard. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second. Vibration impacts to buildings are generally discussed in terms of PPV which describes particle movement over time (in terms of physical displacement of mass). Vibration can impact people, structures, and sensitive equipment groundborne vibration generated by construction projects is usually highest during pile driving, rock blasting, soil compacting, jack hammering, and other high impact demolition and excavation-related activities. Grading also has the potential to cause short-term vibration impacts if large bulldozers, loaded trucks, or other heavy equipment operate within proximity to sensitive land uses. Use of the PPV descriptor is common when addressing potential impacts to structures. Per Caltrans standards, excessive ground-borne vibration would occur if construction-related ground-borne vibration exceeds the severe vibration annoyance potential criteria for human receptors of 0.4 inch per second PPV or the damage potential criteria to older residential structures of 0.3 inch per second PPV for continuous/frequent intermittent construction sources.
a) Would the project cause a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Temporary Construction Noise
Less than Significant Impact. During construction, equipment will be audible at off-site receivers. The closest is located near the center of the development area approximately 35 feet from the property boundary and 150 feet from the center of site. Noise levels associated with the use of common construction equipment are shown in Table 4. As shown, the maximum noise level for all the equipment that could be used on-site would exceed the 75 dBA standard referenced in Chapter 17-234 of the Escondido Municipal Code at 50 feet.
However, the code assumes a one-hour average (Leq) noise levels. Heavy equipment would not operate continuously at the same time and in the same location. Assuming, three pieces of equipment (i.e., scraper, loader and truck) are operating at 75, 100 and 150 feet from the nearest receiver over a one-hour period, the Leq would be 74.2 dBA which is less than the 75 dBA Leq standard. As stated in the 2007 Initial Study, the project would meet construction noise requirements. Impacts would be less than significant.
Table 4
Typical Maximum Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Onsite
Typical Maximum
Level (dBA) 50
Feet from the
Source
Typical Maximum
Level (dBA) 100 Feet
from the Source
Usage Factor
Air Compressor 78 72 40%
Backhoe 78 72 40%
Bobcat Tractor 84 78 40%
116
Attachment "3"
250
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -39- City of Escondido, California Table 4
Typical Maximum Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Onsite
Typical Maximum
Level (dBA) 50
Feet from the
Source
Typical Maximum
Level (dBA) 100 Feet
from the Source
Usage Factor
Concrete Mixer 79 73 40%
Loader 79 73 40%
Bulldozer 82 76 40%
Jack Hammer 89 83 20%
Pavement Roller 80 74 20%
Street Sweeper 82 76 10%
Man Lift 75 69 20%
Dump Truck 77 71 40%
Mobile Crane 81 75 16%
Excavator/Scraper 84 78 40%
Source: FTA Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018), Table 7-1.
Noise levels are based on actual maximum measured noise levels at 50 feet (Lmax).
Noise levels are based on a noise attenuation associated with the usage factor.
Operational Noise
Exterior Traffic Noise. Traffic is the primary noise source that would be generated by operation of the proposed project. As stated, existing noise levels were measured along the northern site boundary on April 25, 2025. The measured Leq during the 15-minute monitoring period was 62.9 dBA Leq, or approximately 63.9 dBA CNEL. Ambient conditions are less than 65 dBA; the normally compatible noise level for residences referenced in the General Plan Community Protection Element policy for exterior noise exposure to transportation related noise at residences and other sensitive properties. A doubling or halving of sound energy is required for the human ear to perceive an increase in noise levels. A change of 3 dBA is associated with the doubling or halving of sound energy; thus, the project would need to double existing volumes on Hamilton Lane and Bernardo Avenue to create a significant traffic noise impact. During monitoring, a total of 55 cars/light trucks passed the monitoring site on Bernardo Avenue and 59 cars/light trucks passed the site on Hamilton Lane. Peak hour volumes would be approximately 220 vehicles on Bernardo Avenue and 236 vehicles on Hamilton Lane. The project would add approximately 0.5 trips per hour which when added to peak hour traffic would have no noticeable effect on noise levels. Operational impacts would be less than significant. This would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Temporary Vibration Impacts
Less than significant. The vibration velocity level for perception by humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels. As stated, the California Department of Transportation uses the following standards when addressing vibration. Excessive ground-borne vibration would occur if construction-related ground-borne vibration exceeds the severe vibration annoyance potential criteria for human receptors of 0.4 inch per second PPV or the damage potential criteria to older residential structures of 0.3 inch per second PPV for continuous/frequent intermittent construction sources, as specified by Caltrans (April 2020) The PPV and accompanying VdB level associated with common construction equipment is shown in Table 5. Based on the project geotechnical study and information from the applicant, heavy impact construction methods that could generate enough vibration to damage buildings proximal to the project site (i.e., pile driving, rock breaking, drilling, blasting) would not be required for the project. 117 Attachment "3"
251
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -40- City of Escondido, California Construction activity on the project site would be temporary and vibration events would be transitory occuring only during equipment pass bys. Using vibration levels associated with a large bulldozer, the piece of grading equipment with the highest vibration level, as a worst-case scenario, groundborne vibration would be approximately 0.089 PPV at 25 feet (see Table 5 below). Similarly, if a hoe ram were required to break rocks during grading, a similar PPV would be expected. The PPV generated by a heavy bulldozer or hoe ram at 25 feet are below the vibration thresholds of significance referenced above.
Table 5
Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity
(inches/second) at 25 feet
Approximate Vibration Level
LV (dVB) at 25 feet
Pile driver (impact) 1.518 (upper range) 112
0.644 (typical) 104
Pile driver (sonic) 0.734 upper range 105
0.170 typical 93
Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Hydromill (slurry wall - soil) 0.008 in soil 66
Hydromill (slurry wall - rock 0.017 in rock 75
Vibratory Roller 0.21 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drill 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, September 2018.
Operational Impacts. The proposed project is a residential development. It would not generate vibration postconstruction. No operational vibration impacts would occur. This issue was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, as stated, vibration during construction and operation would be less than significant. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The proposed project is located approximately 10.7 miles southeast of McClellen-Palomar Airport.
Per Exhibit III-1 of the McClellen-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), the project site is located outside the 60 dB CNEL noise contour. No impact would occur. This issue was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, as stated no impact would occur under this threshold.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result. 118
Attachment "3"
252
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -41- City of Escondido, California
14.14 POPULATION & HOUSING. Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 2007 Initial Study
Population within the City would incrementally increase as a result of developing the proposed five residential lots. The City's General Plan anticipates single-family residential use on the project site and the density of the proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Estate I. The proposed development would incrementally contribute to the City's Regional Share Housing requirements. The development of the site would not be considered growth-inducing since the project site is located within an established community. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant population and housing impact.
Proposed Project
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would construct five new single-family residences and one stormwater detention basin. As stated, the number of housing units in the City was projected to be 54,910 in 2025 and 58,990 in 2035, or an increase in 4,080 housing units. Furthermore, the Citys population was projected to be 165,127 residents in 2025 and 169,122 residents in 2035, or an increase of 3,995 residents over the period. The average household size is 2.8 people per dwelling unit, which translates into approximately 14 residents for the proposed project. The proposed number of units would be within the total projected for the City of Escondido by 2035. Further, because the project is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designation, the project would not induce substantial population growth. A less than significant impact would occur. This is consistent with the 2007 Initial Study. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The proposed project would not require the removal existing housing, and therefore, would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur. This issue was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would occur under this threshold.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result. 119
Attachment "3"
253
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -42- City of Escondido, California
14.15 PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire Protection?
Police Protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
2007 Initial Study
Fire - The City Fire Department has indicated their ability to adequately serve the proposed project. One additional fire hydrant and a fire tum-around are to be located within the project is part of the proposal.
Law Enforcement -The City's Police Department currently serves the area and can easily included the property within a patrol beat. The Department has not expressed concerns regarding its ability to serve the site.
Schools - The site is within the Escondido Union School District and the Escondido Union High School District. Students would likely attend the new Bernardo Elementary School, Bear Valley Middle School, and San Pasqual High School. The incremental impact of the proposed residential developments on the school system would be offset by the impact fees collected upon issuance of building permits.
Proposed Project
1) Fire protection?
Less than significant. The Escondido Fire Department provides fire and emergency medical services to the City of Escondido. Fire Station 5 is the nearest station to the project site. It is located at 2319 Felicita Road approximately 800 feet northeast of the site. Given the nature of the project, demand for fire and emergency service may increase over existing conditions. The project is consistent with the land use designation for the site and would not increase the population beyond what was anticipated in the Escondido General Plan.
Further, the project would be designed and constructed consistent with applicable codes and standards for access and fire suppression infrastructure. The payment of impact fees would fund any necessary improvements to the Escondido Fire Department infrastructure to maintain or improve the efficiency of department operations. The project would not require the construction of a new fire station to maintain service ratios within the service area served by Fire Station 5. Impacts would be less than significant. This determination would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study. 120
Attachment "3"
254
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -43- City of Escondido, California 2) Police protection?
Less than significant. The Escondido Police Department provides law enforcement services to the City of Escondido. The headquarters is located at 1163 North Centre City Parkway approximately 3.2 miles north of the site. Given the nature of the project, demand for law enforcement services may increase over existing conditions. The project is consistent with the land use designation for the site and would not increase the population beyond what was anticipated in the Escondido General Plan. The payment of impact fees would fund any necessary improvements to the Escondido Police Department infrastructure to maintain or improve the efficiency of department operations. The project would not require the construction of a new police station to maintain service ratios within the service area. Impacts would be less than significant. This determination would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study.
3) Schools?
Less than significant. The nearest school to the project site is Bernardo Elementary School located at 1222 Mountain Heights Drive approximately 0.23 miles south of the site. The proposed project would likely provide housing for school-aged children; thus, affecting demand for school services. The applicant would be required to pay a developer fee of $4.46 per square foot (or current rate at the time of assessment) of assessable residential space to support ongoing development of school facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
This determination would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study. 4) Parks?
Less than significant. Felicita County Park is the most directly accessible park from the project site. It is located approximately 0.3 miles south of the project site along the east side of Park Drive. The increase in population living in the area is not expected to impact demand for park facilities. The project would not remove park or recreational facilities that would require replacement elsewhere. This issue was not addressed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, as stated, impacts would be less than significant. 5) Other public facilities?
Less than significant. Other public facilities include streets, libraries, senior centers, community centers, and pools, all of which are intended to serve the general public. No impacts to other public facilities are anticipated to occur with the construction and operation of the proposed project. This issue was not addressed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, as stated, impacts would be less than significant.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result.
14.16 RECREATION. Would the project:
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
121
Attachment "3"
255
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -44- City of Escondido, California 2007 Initial Study
Development of the area would result in an incremental demand on the City's recreational facilities. However, the development fees paid by this project would offset the anticipated impact on the existing facilities. The proposed project would not affect existing recreational opportunities since the site is not used for recreational activities; consequently no significant impact to recreational resources would occur as a result of the project.
Proposed Project
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will not affect any existing park facilities nor increase the demand for additional recreational facilities to the extent that it would result in or increase physical deterioration of the facility. No impact would occur. This is consistent with the 2007 Initial Study. a) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. No additional recreational facilities that could potentially result in an adverse impact on the environment would be constructed. No impact would occur. This is consistent with the 2007 Initial Study.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result.
14.17 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a. Conflict with program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
2007 Initial Study
The project's private street (36' R-O-W) serving four of the proposed lots would connect with Hamilton Lane at a point nearly 300 feet east of the existing intersection of Bernardo Avenue and Hamilton Lane and directly across from the existing intersection of Hamilton Lane and Rancho Diego Court. Hamilton Lane is currently a Local Collector (63' R-O-W). Traffic from the newly proposed private street would either continue west or eastbound on Hamilton Lane. The fifth proposed lot would have access via a proposed driveway connected to Bernardo Avenue approximately 60 feet south of the intersection of Bernardo Avenue and Hamilton Lane.
The project will potentially add traffic to the existing intersection of Bernardo Avenue and Hamilton Lane 122
Attachment "3"
256
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -45- City of Escondido, California (County). Based on San Diego Association of Governments' (SANDAG) traffic generation rates for the San Diego region, the proposed subdivision would generate approximately 12 trips per dwelling unit, or approximately 60 new ADTs. The City's Engineering Department indicated that the increase of 60 additional trips onto this segment of Hamilton Lane will not significantly impact the existing Levels of Service on the adjacent streets and intersections. Stable traffic flow is maintained along the segment and ability to maneuver within the vicinity of the project and along the Hamilton Lane segment is not significantly restricted. The City's Engineering Department further indicated the proposed project is not anticipated to have any significant individual or cumulative impacts to the circulation system or degrade the LOS (Levels of Service) on any of the adjacent roadways or intersections.
Proposed Project
Information in this section is summarized from the Scoping Agreement for Transportation Studies, prepared by Mizuta Traffic Consulting, Inc., March 2025 and provided as Appendix G. a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
No Impact. The project would provide five new single-family residences and one stormwater basin. The project would generate approximately 80 daily trips. The project would not require any improvements to either Bernardo Avenue or Hamilton Lane. There is no existing transit proximal to the site; thus, transit would not be affected by the project. The project would provide curb/gutter/sidewalk frontage improvements which would address existing pedestrian deficiencies in the project area. No bicycle lanes are currently provided; thus, none would be affected by the project. The project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. This issue was not addressed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would occur under this threshold. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact. As stated, the project would generate 80 new daily vehicle trips. The Scoping Agreement for Transportation Studies states that the project would screen out of the need to provide a complete Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis because it does not exceed 200 daily trips. The project would not conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). A less than significant impact would occur. This is consistent with the impact determination in the 2007 Initial Study. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The project would provide five new residences and a stormwater basin. The project would not modify the existing transportation system or introduce incompatible uses. This issue was not addressed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would occur under this threshold. e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact. While the project would increase traffic by 80 daily trips, it would not adversely impact emergency access by providing inadequate site access or otherwise impacting use of local streets by emergency vehicles.
This issue was not addressed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would occur under this threshold.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result. 123
Attachment "3"
257
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -46- City of Escondido, California
14.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. 2007 Initial Study
An evaluation of tribal cultural resource impacts per AB 52 was not required under Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines when the 2007 Initial Study was prepared.
Proposed Project
i)) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? No impact. As stated in Section 14.5, Cultural Resources; the SCIC records search identified three cultural resources studies (SD-8588, -8596, and -10211) that were conducted within the project site and an additional 42 studies within a 0.5-mile radius. None identified any historic resources on-site that are listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR. Further, no historic resources were identified. No impact to historic resources would occur.
ii) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 (In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe)? Less than Significant. As stated in Section 4.15, no Tribal Cultural Resources were identified within the project site through Native American scoping. However, the Native American scoping identified the project 124
Attachment "3"
258
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -47- City of Escondido, California vicinity as highly sensitive for prehistoric/Native American resources. This sensitivity is supported by the five previously recorded resources with prehistoric components within 0.5-mile of the project site, including the CRHR/NRHP-listed multicomponent site P-37-000570 within Felicita Park, which contains a large prehistoric habitation component.
Given the presence of a previously recorded archaeological site within the project site and evidence of archaeological sensitivity indicated by the records search results and responses from tribal contacts, archaeological and Native American monitoring of all project-related earth disturbing activities is recommended as a Condition of Approval (CUL-1) for addressing any discoveries of cultural resources. The discovery of human remains would be addressed by complying with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. With implementation of existing regulations addressing the discovery of human remains, impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant.
As stated, this topical issue was not addressed in the 2007 Initial Study. However, based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would result in any significant impacts related to tribal cultural resources.
14.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projects projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments?
d. Generate solid waste is excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructures, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
2007 Initial Study
Sewer Service. There currently exists a public sewer line in City streets immediately off-site that would accommodate the site's needs. City Public Utilities staff has confirmed that adequate treatment capacity exists to serve the project site.
Water Service. The site is within the Rincon Water District's Improvement District #1. Currently, adequate water delivery is available from water lines in adjacent streets.
Storm Water/Refuse Collection. The proposed project is required to comply with latest National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards, City of Escondido's post-construction storm water treatment measures, and meet all City of Escondido Storm Water Management Standards thereafter to meet state and federal requirements.
125
Attachment "3"
259
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -48- City of Escondido, California Escondido Disposal currently provides solid waste service to the area and the project would not result in a significant increase in solid waste. The proposal would not result in any individual or cumulative impacts to utilities and service systems.
Streets. The annexation will include the portion of Bernardo Avenue west of the project, the portion of Hamilton Lane north of the project (to the centerline plus ten feet) and the intersection of Bernardo Avenue and Hamilton Lane. Road maintenance responsibilities will fall either on the City or the County and it is anticipated that no significant impacts to services will result.
Proposed Project
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded, water or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No Impact. The project would connect to existing water/sewer and telecommunication infrastructure located adjacent to the site. No utility extensions, other than what is required to connect the project to adjacent offsite infrastructure would be required. The project would not require the expansion of existing water, wastewater or other utility systems, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
No impact would occur. This would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less than Significant. The project site is located within the City of Escondido Water Department service area. The City owns, operates, and maintains approximately 44 miles of pipeline, 11 reservoirs, five pump stations, and two dams (and associated lakes). These resources are used to provide potable water to approximately 27,170 metered potable connections. As reported in the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, the supply reliability assessment considered factors that could limit the expected quantity of current and projected water sources through 2045. The Citys water service reliability assessment and Drought Risk Assessment results indicate that no water shortages are anticipated within the next 25 years under normal, single-dry, and multiple dry years conditions.
The proposed project would have an annual water demand of approximately 996,273 gallons (both indoor use and outdoor irrigation demand) or 3.05-acre feet. As stated, the project would be consistent with zoning; thus, water demand has been incorporated into demand projections. No new or expanded entitlements would be required with implementation of the proposed project. Water supply impacts would be less than significant.
This would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projects projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments?
No Impact. As stated in threshold a, the project would connect to existing sewer infrastructure located adjacent to the site. The City owns and operates the Hale Avenue Resource Recovery Facility (HARRF), which has a design flow capacity of 18 million gallons per day (MGD) and the capacity to handle instantaneous flows of up to 36 MGD. Assuming sewer demand is 60 percent of indoor water demand (462 gallons daily), the daily sewer demand would be 277 gallons per day which is well within the daily treatment capacity of the HARRF. No new or expanded entitlements for wastewater treatment would be required with implementation of the proposed project. No impact would occur. This would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study.
d) Generate solid waste is excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local 126
Attachment "3"
260
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -49- City of Escondido, California infrastructures, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? No Impact. The City contracts solid waste collection services with Escondido Disposal. Waste is disposed at the Miramar Landfill in the City of San Diego. The Miramar Landfill is permitted to accept up to a maximum of 2,250 tons of waste per day. According to CalEEMod 2022.1 projections, the daily project demand would be 18 pounds or 3.32 tons annually. Project operation would not generate solid waste; and thus, would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. No impact would occur. This would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. The proposed project would be subject to the Citys Solid Waste and Recycling Code (Chapter 14 of the Citys Municipal Code and 2022 Calgreen section 5.408) which will require that construction debris be recycled. The project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. No impact would occur. This issue was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; no impact would occur under this threshold.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result.
14.20 WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildlife risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildlife or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
2007 Initial Study
This issue was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study. As stated in Section 14.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the area will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildfires since the site is in a suburban setting and once developed much of the property surrounding structures will be irrigated.
Proposed Project
127
Attachment "3"
261
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -50- City of Escondido, California a-d) No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area in southern Escondido and within a Local Responsibility Area under the jurisdiction of the Escondido Fire Department. There are no wildlands located on or within proximity of the project site. No wildland fires would occur in the project area; thus, thresholds a-d would not be applicable. No impact would occur. This is consistent with the 2007 Initial Study determination.
As stated, this topical issue was not addressed in the 2007 Initial Study. However, based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would result in any significant impacts related to wildfires.
6. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM COMPLIANCE As stated above, the following mitigation measures were identified and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as part of the 2007 Initial Study. The proposed project would be required to comply with applicable measures. The follow summarizes the mitigation measures and applicability to the proposed project.
Air Quality
2007 Initial Study Mitigation. Prior to construction and issuance of grading and building permits, a sitespecific analysis shall be prepared to determine equipment and methods necessary to protect adjacent properties.
Proposed Project. A project-specific air quality analysis was prepared for the project and provided as part of the discussion in Section 14.3, Air Quality. The proposed project would have no adverse effect on air quality.
This mitigation measure has been satisfied.
Biological Resources
2007 Initial Study Mitigation. To address direct impacts to non-native grasslands and coastal sage scrub, the proposed mitigation ratio is 0.25:1 through the purchase of habitat credits from an approved mitigation bank for non-native grassland. For impacts to 0.02 acres of coastal sage scrub, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and California Department of Fish and Game approval would be required.
Proposed Project. No non-native grassland or coastal sage scrub vegetation was reported in the Biological Resources Memorandum prepared by Tierra Data, Inc., July 2024. These habitat types no longer occur on the site. However, as stated, mitigation from the 2007 Initial Study pertaining to non-native grassland and coastal sage scrub remains applicable and would be enforced at the Citys discretion. 2007 Initial Study Mitigation. Impacts to native Live Oaks trees will be mitigated by relocating the four Live Oaks on-site and planting four new Live Oak trees on-site.
Proposed Project. As stated, multiple trees would be removed; however, the Project would be in compliance with Citys Municipal Code requirements for trees. Regardless, for each Live Oak tree removed, the tree would be replaced on-site and one additional tree would be planted on-site as so stated in the 2007 Initial Study.
2007 Initial Study Mitigation. A qualified biologist must inspect trees for nests prior to any brushing, grading, tree relocation or construction within close proximity to, or within the existing Oaks discussed in the Biological Report's addendum of 2/14/07. If any active nests of sensitive species are found, no impacts will be allowed until all younq have fledqed.
Proposed Project. As stated, multiple trees would be removed to accommodate the proposed project. A preconstruction nesting survey would be required consistent with the 2007 Initial Study. 2007 Initial Study Mitigation. The applicant shall provide funding to the satisfaction of the City for the five128 Attachment "3"
262
Item9.
Initial Study Addendum -51- City of Escondido, California year monitoring of the oak trees with sufficient reserve for the replacement of any dead/dying stock.
Proposed Project. The proposed project would replace Live Oak trees removed during construction at a 1:1 ratio on-site and plant one additional Live Oak tree as mitigation for impacts to Live Oak tree impacts.
Hazardous Materials
2007 Initial Study Mitigation. Monitoring well MW57 is to remain onsite and be accessible to the Chatham Brothers RP Group for monitoring purposes until officially released. Upon release, it is to be removed per Regional Board and City of Escondido standards. Alternately, if a new replacement well is installed nearby and approved by the Regional Board and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), existing well MW57 can also then be released and removed per Regional Board and City of Escondido standards.
Proposed Project. Monitoring Well MW57 has been removed from the site as documented in the May 21, 2009, letter provided by the Chatham Site PRP Group. This mitigation measure has been satisfied.
Hydrology/Water Quality
2007 Initial Study Mitigation. No drinking water wells are to be drilled on-site and no excavations shall be allowed on-site without proper permits.
Proposed Project. Potable water would be provided by the City of Escondido Water Department. No wells would be drilled on-site. This mitigation measure is no longer applicable.
7. SPECIFIC MMRP ISSUE AREA CONDITIONS/REQUIREMENTS
The project applicant would be required to implement mitigation measures from the 2007 Initial Study that pertain to site conditions and project impacts as defined herein, as well as, current Conditions of Approval that apply to the proposed project. No new significant or adverse environmental impacts requiring mitigation were identified for the proposed project. Implementation of Condition of Approval CUL-1 at the Citys discretion, would address Native American monitoring recommendations during grading and ground disturbance activities.
8. SIGNIFICANT UNMITIGATED IMPACTS
No significant unmitigated impacts were identified in the 2007 Initial Study or the proposed project. The proposed project would not result in any additional significant impacts nor would it result in an increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the previously adopted 2007 Initial Study.
9. CERTIFICATION
Copies of the addendum, the 2007 Initial Study and Addendum, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and associated project-specific technical appendices, may be reviewed by appointment in the City of Escondido Planning Department office.
Melissa DiMarzo, Assistant Planner II
Date
129
Attachment "3"
263
Item9.
Appendix A California Emission Estimator
Model Output File
Exhibit C
130
Attachment "3"
264
Item9.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 1 / 75 Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report Table of Contents 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information 1.2. Land Use Types 1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector 2. Emissions Summary 2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated 2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated 2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated 2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated 3.2. Demolition (2026) - Mitigated 3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated Exhibit C 131
Attachment "3"
265
Item9.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 2 / 75 3.4. Site Preparation (2026) - Mitigated 3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated 3.6. Grading (2026) - Mitigated 3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated 3.8. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated 3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated 3.10. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated 3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated 3.12. Paving (2027) - Mitigated 3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated 3.14. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use 4.1.1. Unmitigated 4.1.2. Mitigated 4.2. Energy 4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated 4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated Exhibit C 132
Attachment "3"
266
Item9.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 3 / 75 4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated 4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 4.3.1. Unmitigated 4.3.2. Mitigated 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.1. Unmitigated 4.4.2. Mitigated 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use 4.5.1. Unmitigated 4.5.2. Mitigated 4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use 4.6.1. Unmitigated 4.6.2. Mitigated 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type 4.7.1. Unmitigated 4.7.2. Mitigated 4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type Exhibit C 133
Attachment "3"
267
Item9.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 4 / 75 4.8.1. Unmitigated 4.8.2. Mitigated 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type 4.9.1. Unmitigated 4.9.2. Mitigated 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated 4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated 4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated 4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated 5. Activity Data 5.1. Construction Schedule 5.2. Off-Road Equipment 5.2.1. Unmitigated 5.2.2. Mitigated 5.3. Construction Vehicles Exhibit C 134
Attachment "3"
268
Item9.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 5 / 75 5.3.1. Unmitigated 5.3.2. Mitigated 5.4. Vehicles 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies 5.5. Architectural Coatings 5.6. Dust Mitigation 5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies 5.7. Construction Paving 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources 5.9.1. Unmitigated 5.9.2. Mitigated 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1. Hearths 5.10.1.1. Unmitigated 5.10.1.2. Mitigated 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings Exhibit C 135
Attachment "3"
269
Item9.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 6 / 75 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment 5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated 5.11. Operational Energy Consumption 5.11.1. Unmitigated 5.11.2. Mitigated 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption 5.12.1. Unmitigated 5.12.2. Mitigated 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated 5.13.2. Mitigated 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 5.14.1. Unmitigated 5.14.2. Mitigated 5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment 5.15.1. Unmitigated 5.15.2. Mitigated 5.16. Stationary Sources Exhibit C 136
Attachment "3"
270
Item9.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 7 / 75 5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps 5.16.2. Process Boilers 5.17. User Defined 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1.2. Mitigated 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1.2. Mitigated 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated 5.18.2.2. Mitigated 6. Climate Risk Detailed Report 6.1. Climate Risk Summary 6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores 6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores 6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures Exhibit C 137
Attachment "3"
271
Item9.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 8 / 75 7. Health and Equity Details 7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores 7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores 7.4. Health & Equity Measures 7.5. Evaluation Scorecard 7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures 8. User Changes to Default Data Exhibit C 138
Attachment "3"
272
Item9.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 9 / 75 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information Data Field Value Project Name Hamilton Lane Escondido Construction Start Date 3/2/2026 Operational Year 2026 Lead Agency Land Use Scale Project/site Analysis Level for Defaults County Windspeed (m/s) 2.20 Precipitation (days) 26.6 Location 33.089247938234934, -117.08811878755569 County San Diego City Escondido Air District San Diego County APCD Air Basin San Diego TAZ 6294 EDFZ 12 Electric Utility San Diego Gas & Electric Gas Utility San Diego Gas & Electric App Version 2022.1.1.29 1.2. Land Use Types Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft) Special Landscape Area (sq ft) Population Description Single Family Housing 5.00 Dwelling Unit 1.62 9,750 58,564 14.0 Exhibit C 139
Attachment "3"
273
Item9.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 10 / 75 1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title Construction C-2* Limit Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling Water W-7 Adopt a Water Conservation Strategy * Qualitative or supporting measure. Emission reductions not included in the mitigated emissions results. 2. Emissions Summary 2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) Unmit. 1.46 12.9 14.5 0.02 0.58 2.85 3.43 0.53 1.36 1.89 2,548 2,548 0.10 0.02 0.33 2,558 Mit. 1.46 12.9 14.5 0.02 0.58 2.85 3.43 0.53 1.36 1.89 2,548 2,548 0.10 0.02 0.33 2,558 %Reduced Daily, Winter (Max) Unmit. 6.22 13.0 15.1 0.02 0.51 2.51 3.01 0.47 1.19 1.65 2,604 2,604 0.11 0.02 0.01 2,614 Mit. 6.22 13.0 15.1 0.02 0.51 2.51 3.01 0.47 1.19 1.65 2,604 2,604 0.11 0.02 0.01 2,614 %Reduced Average Daily (Max) Unmit. 0.64 5.40 6.29 0.01 0.19 0.06 0.25 0.17 0.03 0.20 1,138 1,138 0.05 0.01 0.03 1,143 Mit. 0.64 5.40 6.29 0.01 0.19 0.06 0.25 0.17 0.03 0.20 1,138 1,138 0.05 0.01 0.03 1,143 Exhibit C 140
Attachment "3"
274
Item9.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 11 / 75 %Reduced Annual (Max) Unmit. 0.12 0.99 1.15 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 0.04 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 189 Mit. 0.12 0.99 1.15 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 0.04 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 189 %Reduced 2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily - Summer (Max) 2026 1.46 12.9 14.5 0.02 0.58 2.85 3.43 0.53 1.36 1.89 2,548 2,548 0.10 0.02 0.33 2,558 Daily - Winter (Max) 2026 1.44 13.0 15.1 0.02 0.51 2.51 3.01 0.47 1.19 1.65 2,604 2,604 0.11 0.02 0.01 2,614 2027 6.22 8.28 9.98 0.02 0.26 0.11 0.28 0.24 0.02 0.25 1,829 1,829 0.07 0.02 0.01 1,836 Average Daily 2026 0.64 5.40 6.29 0.01 0.19 0.06 0.25 0.17 0.03 0.20 1,138 1,138 0.05 0.01 0.03 1,143 2027 0.21 0.37 0.49 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 84.0 84.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 84.4 Annual 2026 0.12 0.99 1.15 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 0.04 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 189 2027 0.04 0.07 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.9 13.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.0 2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Exhibit C 141
Attachment "3"
275
Item9.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 12 / 75 Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily - Summer (Max) 2026 1.46 12.9 14.5 0.02 0.58 2.85 3.43 0.53 1.36 1.89 2,548 2,548 0.10 0.02 0.33 2,558 Daily - Winter (Max) 2026 1.44 13.0 15.1 0.02 0.51 2.51 3.01 0.47 1.19 1.65 2,604 2,604 0.11 0.02 0.01 2,614 2027 6.22 8.28 9.98 0.02 0.26 0.11 0.28 0.24 0.02 0.25 1,829 1,829 0.07 0.02 0.01 1,836 Average Daily 2026 0.64 5.40 6.29 0.01 0.19 0.06 0.25 0.17 0.03 0.20 1,138 1,138 0.05 0.01 0.03 1,143 2027 0.21 0.37 0.49 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 84.0 84.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 84.4 Annual 2026 0.12 0.99 1.15 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 0.04 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 189 2027 0.04 0.07 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.9 13.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.0 2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) Unmit. 0.45 0.18 1.79 < 0.005 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.09 2.13 476 479 0.24 0.02 1.31 490 Mit. 0.45 0.18 1.79 < 0.005 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.09 2.06 474 476 0.23 0.01 1.31 488 %Reduced 3% < 0.5% < 0.5% 3% 1% Daily, Winter (Max) Unmit. 0.42 0.19 1.41 < 0.005 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.09 2.13 459 461 0.24 0.02 0.10 472 Exhibit C 142
Attachment "3"
276
Item9.