PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE:
NOVEMBER 2, 2026
SUBJECT:
Title
A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE SAN MARCOS CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN AND CERTIFICATION OF THE ASSOCIATED PROGRAM SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.
LOCATION/APN:
AN APPROXIMATELY 217.3-ACRE PROJECT SITE BOUND BY SAN MARCOS BOULEVARD TO THE NORTH, DISCOVERY STREET TO THE SOUTH AND WEST, AND GRAND AVENUE AND STATE ROUTE 78 TO THE EAST.
CASE NUMBER:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR26-007) AND SPECIFIC PLAN (SP24-0001)
Body
Recommendation
Recommend to the City Council APPROVAL of the following in the order set forth below:
1. APPROVE Resolution PC 26-5248 to certify the Final Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR 26-007), adopting the associated CEQA findings and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations for potentially significant and unavoidable commercial vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts; and
2. APPROVE Resolution PC 26-5249 (Specific Plan Amendment SP24-0001) adopting a comprehensive update to the San Marcos Creek Specific Plan.
Body
Introduction
The proposed project is a comprehensive update to the San Marcos Creek Specific Plan, originally adopted in 2007. The update retains the vision for a distinctive, walkable district that combines housing, businesses, parks, and access to San Marcos Creek, while revising the Specific Plan’s regulatory framework to respond to current market conditions and community needs.
The updated Specific Plan establishes the planning framework for future development within the District. It does not approve individual development projects or authorize grading or construction of buildings or infrastructure. Future projects would require applicable approvals, infrastructure design, and environmental review.
The update focuses on three major changes:
1. Updated land uses and a revised development footprint that reflect existing improvements, environmental constraints, current economic conditions, and community input, while retaining the District’s planned housing capacity.
2. A floodway toolkit that provides coordinated approaches to addressing remaining floodway constraints.
3. An updated mobility element that improves connections and prioritizes safe, convenient travel within the District.
Discussion
The 2007 Specific Plan established a long-term framework for redevelopment of the Creek District. Since its adoption, economic conditions, development patterns, community context, and infrastructure have changed substantially. The financial crisis that began in 2008, the dissolution of redevelopment agencies, the development of North City, and changes in demand for retail and office space have affected the feasibility of the original development program. Growth in online shopping and changes accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic have further influenced this demand. Completed bridges, flood improvements, parks, and habitat areas also provide a different starting point for future development.
The update responds to these conditions while continuing the original Specific Plan’s broader objectives: creating a recognizable community destination, supporting housing and economic activity, improving access to the creek, and coordinating development with necessary infrastructure.
Community Engagement
Between 2015 and 2017, a task force evaluated the San Marcos Creek Specific Plan to consider a possible amendment. In 2019, this effort became part of the General Plan update, which was suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic. In November 2024, the Planning Commission established the Standing San Marcos Creek Specific Plan Update Subcommittee and appointed Steve Kildoo (Subcommittee Chair), Kevin Norris, and Lionel Saulsberry to serve. Concurrently, the City conducted a competitive consultant selection process and selected MIG as the prime consultant for the project.
Beginning in winter 2025, City staff and MIG conducted focus group meetings with property owners, businesses, public agencies, and community groups. The first community workshop, attended by approximately 50 people, was held on April 10, 2024, and focused on understanding the community’s vision for the plan area. Subsequent design charrettes with City staff and workshops with the City Council further refined the vision, addressing the character and scale of future development, opportunities for local businesses and gathering places, access to parks and the creek, traffic circulation, pedestrian and bicycle safety, and the effects of remaining flood constraints on individual properties.
These topics are reflected in the proposed land use framework, floodway toolkit, and mobility element, which are the core elements of the updated Specific Plan. The update provides a coordinated vision for the District while allowing individual properties to develop over time. Community participation also identified differing preferences regarding development intensity and circulation, which the Planning Commission may consider alongside the Specific Plan’s objectives and technical analysis.
A follow-up workshop, attended by approximately 35 people, was held on July 24, 2025, to confirm the plan vision. On September 14, 2026, another workshop, attended by approximately 25 people, was held to present the draft Specific Plan to the community. Pop-up events at the farmers market and online interactive storyboards also provided information about the project throughout the update process. A comprehensive summary of public engagement including meetings, focus groups, and workshops, is included as Attachment G.
Updated Land Uses and Development Footprint
The proposed land use framework adjusts where and how future development may occur to reflect completed infrastructure, creek conservation areas, remaining flood constraints, and surrounding development. Table 1 compares the development program and land use acreages under the current and proposed Specific Plans:
|
Table 1: Land Use Change Summary |
|
Land Use |
Current (2007) Specific Plan |
Proposed Specific Plan |
Change |
|
Residential |
2,300 units |
2,300 units 1 |
No Change |
|
Commercial |
1,854,000 sq. ft. 2 |
655,856 sq ft. |
- 1.1 mil. sq ft. |
|
Open Space |
73.6 acres |
83.45 acres |
+ 9.85 acres |
|
Parks |
20.6 acres |
17.89 acres |
- 2.71 acres |
|
Rights-of-Way |
38.5 acres |
31.39 acres |
- 7.11 acres |
|
Notes: A. Estimated buildout is 2,296 units, based on net developable area and the distribution of residential densities. B. Includes 1,265,000 square feet of retail space and 589,000 square feet of office space. |
The project area remains unchanged. However, during construction of the Bent Avenue and Via Vera Cruz bridges, open space easements were established to preserve sensitive habitat and cultural resources. These conservation easements provided on-site mitigation for the bridge projects and development within the Specific Plan area, while reducing the overall development footprint within the specific plan area. The proposed Specific Plan includes 83.45 acres designated for open space conservation.
The proposed land use framework accommodates existing uses within the plan area, including bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, and other commercial, industrial, and residential uses. As summarized in Table 2, the proposed Specific Plan includes three housing-focused districts (H-1, H-2, and H-3) and three commercial districts (EAC, C, and CSP) to implement the plan vision.
|
Table 2: Residential, Mixed-Use, and Commercial Land Uses |
|
Land Use District |
Residential Density |
Commercial |
Building Heights |
Area |
|
H-1: Lowest Intensity Housing Focused |
12-30 du/ac |
N/A |
3 stories / 45 ft |
15.87 acres |
|
H-2: Medium Intensity Housing Focused |
25-45 du/ac |
Ground floor |
4 stories / 50 ft |
24.42 acres |
|
H-3: Highest Intensity Housing Focused |
40-65 du/ac |
Ground floor |
6 stories / 70 ft |
8.31 acres |
|
EAC: Entertainment, Arts, and Culture |
15 du/ac max. |
2.25 FAR |
4 stories / 50 ft |
9.44 acres |
|
C: Commercial |
N/A |
1.00 FAR |
4 stories / 50 ft |
12.18 acres |
|
CSP: Creekside Promenade |
N/A |
1.00 FAR |
3 stories / 40 ft |
2.47 acres |
|
Notes: du/ac = dwelling units per acre; FAR = floor area ratio. |
On the west side of the plan area, from Discovery Street to just east of Las Posas Road, properties are designated H-1. This lower-density residential district allows 12-30 dwelling units per acre and building heights of up to three stories. It accommodates lower-intensity, smaller-scale residential development without a vertically integrated commercial component and is intended to be compatible with existing single-family homes and mobilehome parks in and around the western portion of the plan area. Permitted housing types include small-lot subdivisions, cottage clusters, townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes. Developments are encouraged to integrate multiple compatible housing types within a single project to respond to site conditions, expand housing choices, and create varied streetscapes that reinforce a cohesive neighborhood character. Limited neighborhood-serving commercial uses are permitted as secondary uses, provided they do not involve late-night operations or activities that generate excessive noise.
East of Las Posas Road, the H-2 district allows medium-intensity housing, including garden apartments, stacked flats, and residential units wrapped around a parking structure. Commercial uses are allowed as secondary uses, limited to those that do not involve late-night operations or activities that generate excessive noise.
At the center of the plan area, around Via Vera Cruz, the H-3 district accommodates the highest residential densities in the District. Housing types include multilevel apartments and condominiums at an urban scale, generally constructed over a podium containing commercial uses and parking. Fully integrated mixed-use buildings are encouraged, with commercial and office uses occupying the ground floor and office uses also allowed on upper floors. The district also accommodates horizontal mixed-use development, in which stand-alone commercial buildings occupy the same site as residential buildings and may share parking facilities.
Farther east, toward Bent Avenue, the H-2 district reduces development intensity and provides a transition to the existing development between Bent and Grand Avenues. In that area, the existing Creek Specific Plan district will continue to regulate the built environment.
Within the plan area, the Entertainment, Arts, and Culture (EAC) district provides areas for live entertainment venues, museums, art galleries, community centers, public plazas, and similar facilities serving the broader community. Complementary commercial uses are also allowed.
The Creekside Promenade (CSP) district connects the two EAC areas along Creekside Drive. This district applies to properties fronting Creekside Drive, while rear portions of those properties may have a different land use designation. Commercial uses are required along the Creekside Drive frontage. Ground-floor uses are intended to benefit from views of the creek, such as restaurants and cafés with outdoor dining. Given the pedestrian-oriented character of this district, drive-through establishments are prohibited. Active rooftop uses are encouraged.
Along San Marcos Boulevard, the Commercial (C) district accommodates a broad range of retail, dining, service, and office uses serving local residents and visitors. The focus is on active commercial uses. Self-storage facilities and drive-through establishments are prohibited. The Commercial district allows existing strip commercial centers to redevelop and expand without the conversion to mixed-use development required under the current Specific Plan.
Overall, the update revises the mix and amount of commercial development to reflect current demand. The proposed framework reduces the retail and office development envisioned in the original Specific Plan and supports a combination of housing, commercial activity, entertainment, arts, and cultural uses. The objective is to create an active district that can develop incrementally as market conditions support investment.
Housing
The update retains the Specific Plan’s original residential capacity of 2,300 units. The approximately 2,296 units identified in the proposed Specific Plan represent an estimated buildout scenario rather than a reduction in residential capacity. The current Specific Plan primarily regulates building design through a form-based code and establishes a shared residential capacity of 2,300 units across the plan area, without allocating residential densities to individual parcels. The updated Specific Plan assigns residential density ranges to land use districts, providing property owners with greater certainty regarding potential residential yields.
The current Specific Plan requires 15 percent of all housing units constructed within the District to be reserved as inclusionary housing, equivalent to 345 lower-income units at full buildout. Existing affordable housing developments within the plan area provide approximately 42 percent of that requirement. In addition, the City has entered into an exclusive negotiation agreement with Affirmed Housing for approximately 260 additional affordable units on two sites within the plan area. If developed, these units, together with the existing affordable units, would fulfill approximately 117 percent of the original 345-unit requirement.
The Financial Feasibility Analysis prepared by Keyser Marston Associates (Attachment E) identified the cost of providing on-site inclusionary units as a constraint on the financial feasibility of market-rate housing development. Under the proposed Specific Plan, new residential development would be subject to the citywide 15 percent inclusionary housing requirement, including the option to pay an in-lieu fee instead of providing units on-site. Housing projects that provide qualifying affordable units on-site may also be eligible for additional units under State Density Bonus Law.
Parking
The proposed Specific Plan updates parking requirements to align more closely with the mixed-use parking standards in the City’s Off-Street Parking Ordinance. The requirements address both motor vehicle and bicycle parking. In general, residential parking requirements are 1.25 spaces per one-bedroom unit, 1.75 spaces per two-bedroom unit, and two spaces per unit with three or more bedrooms. Commercial parking requirements are generally 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet, with 6.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet for limited-service restaurants and eight spaces per 1,000 square feet for full-service restaurants.
The plan continues to have a “park once” concept and allows for the development of parking structures, hidden by buildings and accessed from interior roads (similar to the University District). To encourage shared parking, reductions may be requested where site-specific conditions support a reduced parking supply. For example, uses with different periods of peak demand may share spaces. Parking for electric and alternative-fuel vehicles would be required at the ratios established in the Climate Action Plan (CAP) or the Building Code, whichever is greater, based on the applicable requirements when a development application is processed.
Mobility
The planned internal street network consists of a grid of new collector and local access streets connected to the existing primary, major, and secondary arterials serving the District. The street network is designed to achieve the following objectives:
• Create walkable blocks and intersection spacing that support consistent vehicle flow, lower travel speeds, and controlled pedestrian crossings
• Implement street standards that encourage lower vehicle speeds and provide safe, convenient pedestrian crossings
• Align future streets with existing easements, private roads, and parcel boundaries to support development feasibility and avoid creating parcels that are difficult to develop
• Discourage cut-through traffic
The proposed Specific Plan uses the five street typologies summarized in Table 3 to implement these objectives.
|
Table 3: Creek District Street Classifications |
|
Type |
Type Name |
Vehicle Lanes |
Bike Lanes |
Parking |
Width |
Location |
Description |
|
A |
Boulevard |
4 |
Yes |
No |
90 ft |
Via Vera Cruz between San Marcos Boulevard and Creekside Drive |
Maintains four motor vehicle lanes without on-street parking. |
|
B |
Community Connector |
2 |
Yes |
Yes |
80 ft |
Las Posas Road, Bent Avenue, etc. |
Provides wide sidewalks that accommodate outdoor dining and public gathering spaces adjacent to businesses. |
|
C |
Creekside Link |
2 |
Yes |
Yes |
70 ft |
Creekside Drive between Grand Avenue and San Marcos Boulevard |
Provides the main east-west vehicle route, connecting to San Marcos Boulevard at the signalized Pacific Street intersection. |
|
D |
Flex Street |
2 |
Yes |
No |
55 ft |
New internal streets |
Provides internal circulation among development sites and direct local access to individual properties. |
|
E |
Paseos |
No |
Allowed |
No |
40 ft |
New internal streets |
Provides pedestrian connections and access between destinations. |
To attract and sustain pedestrian activity, streets within the District must accommodate vehicle traffic while providing a safe, attractive, and convenient pedestrian environment. In addition to providing adequate space for pedestrians, the Specific Plan’s design guidelines address sidewalks, on-street parking, street trees and landscaping, streetlights, signs, crosswalks, transit stops, benches, and other streetscape furnishings that contribute to the character and quality of the pedestrian environment.
Safe, convenient, and attractive bicycle facilities would improve connections to surrounding neighborhoods, support reduced motor vehicle travel, and expand access to public open spaces. The planned bicycle network would serve the District and connect to existing and planned facilities identified in the City’s Active Transportation Plan (ATP).
Floodplain and Floodway
Completed flood improvements have reduced longstanding constraints, but additional measures are needed to accommodate flood flows and establish appropriate development elevations as properties develop throughout the District. A significant remaining constraint is an undersized culvert beneath State Route 78 (SR-78), east of the project area, that directs excess storm flows onto San Marcos Boulevard. During a 100-year storm event, up to 3,385 cubic feet per second (cfs) would flow beneath the freeway and west along San Marcos Boulevard. Approximately 1,549 cfs would drain onto and across properties in the central portion of the District, while approximately 1,836 cfs would flow north of San Marcos Boulevard before crossing back into the plan area near Pacific Street.
The preferred approach to accommodating the 1,549 cfs flow through the District is to construct a natural-bottom channel that follows a gently winding alignment to the creek. The channel would generally remain dry and would convey substantial flows during major storm events. An earthen bottom and side slopes could allow the channel to function as a multipurpose open space feature, with recreational trails along the bottom and banks and trees on the slopes.
The Specific Plan includes a floodway toolkit describing an above-ground conveyance channel with a pervious bottom extending from San Marcos Boulevard toward the creek. The toolkit also addresses property-specific approaches to accommodating flood flows and establishing appropriate development elevations. Construction of the channel could allow portions of properties currently constrained by the floodway to be removed from the floodway, facilitating development. Where the channel occupies a portion of a property, the residential development capacity associated with that area would be transferred to the developable portion of the property to minimize the channel’s effect on potential residential yield.
These approaches would require detailed engineering, coordination among affected property owners and agencies, and applicable approvals before construction. Adoption of the Specific Plan would not itself revise Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps or establish that individual properties are free of flood hazards.
Environmental Review
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (PSEIR; EIR 26-007/SCH No. 2025090620) was prepared for the proposed project (Attachment F). The PSEIR updates the environmental review conducted for the 2007 Specific Plan to address changes in the proposed project, changed circumstances, and relevant new information. As a program-level document, it evaluates the reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of implementing the updated Specific Plan over time and identifies mitigation measures. Although adoption of the Specific Plan would not authorize construction, the PSEIR evaluates the effects of future development under the proposed planning framework. Individual projects would remain subject to review to determine whether additional environmental analysis is required.
The PSEIR determined that the project would have no impact or less-than-significant impacts, without mitigation, in the following areas: Aesthetics, Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, and Wildfire.
The PSEIR also identified direct and/or cumulative impacts in the following areas that would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final PSEIR:
1. Air Quality (Thresholds b and c: Violate Air Quality Standards and Criteria Pollutant Emissions [Operational Emissions])
2. Biological Resources (Thresholds a and b: Sensitive Species and Riparian and Sensitive Natural Communities [Sensitive Natural Communities; Special-Status Plants; Special-Status Wildlife]; Threshold c: Federally Protected Wetlands; Threshold d: Wildlife Corridors; Threshold e: Local Policies and Ordinances)
3. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources (Thresholds a and e: Archaeological Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources; Threshold b: Historical Resources; Threshold c: Paleontological Resources; Threshold d: Human Remains)
4. Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Threshold b: Routine Transport, Use or Disposal of Hazardous Materials; Threshold d: Located on a Hazardous Materials Site)
5. Hydrology/Water Quality (Threshold c: Flood Hazard, Tsunami, or Seiche)
6. Land Use and Planning (Threshold b: Conflicts with Applicable Plans and Policies [Mobility Element-Level of Service])
7. Noise (Threshold a: Increase in Ambient Noise [Construction Noise; Noise Compatibility; Stationary Noise])
8. Utilities and Service Systems (Threshold a: Facilities; Threshold c-Wastewater Capacity)
9. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Threshold b: GHG Plans)
The PSEIR identified a potentially significant and unavoidable impact in the following area, even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures:
1. Transportation (Threshold b: Vehicle Miles Traveled [Commercial VMT])
The updated Specific Plan is anticipated to generate 36,734 fewer average daily vehicle trips than the current Specific Plan, primarily because of the reduction in planned commercial development. However, transportation impacts under CEQA are now evaluated using vehicle miles traveled (VMT), rather than vehicle delay or level of service. VMT measures the distance people drive. The transportation study evaluates residential and commercial uses separately because they are subject to different significance criteria. It identifies residential VMT impacts as less than significant and commercial VMT impacts as significant.
Future commercial development proposals would be evaluated against the City’s VMT screening criteria and, where required, undergo project-level VMT analysis and incorporate measures to reduce driving. These future evaluations and measures do not establish that commercial VMT impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels throughout the District. Accordingly, approval of the proposed project would require adoption of CEQA findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations addressing the significant and unavoidable commercial VMT impact. The proposed Statement of Overriding Considerations is included in Attachment F.
The Draft PSEIR was circulated for public review from August 19 through October 5, 2026. The City received seven comment letters: Caltrans (A1), the County of San Diego (A2), three individuals (I1, I2, and I3), the San Diego County Archaeological Society (O1), and the Pechanga Band of Indians (T1). The Final PSEIR includes the comment letters and detailed written responses (Attachment F). A summary is provided below.
San Diego County Archaeological Society (O2). The letter concurs with the impact analysis and recommended monitoring program for Native American and archaeological resources. It also requests confirmation that 1928 aerial imagery was consulted during the cultural resources evaluation. The City’s response confirms that this imagery was reviewed. The comments do not identify new significant environmental impacts or an increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts requiring changes to the PSEIR’s analysis or conclusions.
Caltrans (A1). The comments address freeway interchange safety and operations, VMT, multimodal transportation improvements, drainage and flood management near SR-78, and requirements for future work affecting State facilities. The City’s responses explain that the Specific Plan and PSEIR provide a program-level evaluation, with detailed operational, engineering, and design analyses to occur as individual development projects and infrastructure improvements are proposed. The responses clarify the interchange configurations analyzed, describe requirements for future commercial VMT analysis and mitigation, and explain that the Specific Plan does not depend on expanding drainage capacity beneath SR-78. The responses also identify updates to transportation references and describe continued coordination with Caltrans regarding applicable permits and design requirements. The responses conclude that the comments do not require changes to the PSEIR’s impact conclusions or mitigation measures.
County of San Diego (A2). The comments address hauling permits, previously adopted mitigation measures for channel grade-control structures, stormwater runoff and downstream drainage capacity, and hazardous materials requirements. The responses clarify that adoption of the Specific Plan would not authorize construction and that future development would be subject to applicable permitting requirements, site-specific drainage analysis, stormwater controls, and hazardous materials regulations. The responses also explain that sediment-transport analysis determined that the previously contemplated grade-control structures were unnecessary. In addition, they describe how future drainage review would address stormwater management requirements and 100-year flood flows. The draft responses indicate that the comments do not identify new significant environmental impacts or an increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts requiring changes to the PSEIR’s analysis or conclusions.
The Pechanga Band of Indians (T1). The tribe submitted comments on the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report concerning the identification and protection of cultural and tribal cultural resources, the supporting records search and literature review, proposed mitigation measures, and the consultation process. The Tribe also raised questions about future development on individual properties, and the treatment of a recorded resource. In response, the City provided additional supporting materials, continued consultation with the Tribe, and coordinated revisions to resource protection measures. The City also clarified the programmatic nature of the environmental review and explained that individual development proposals would undergo applicable project-level environmental review and tribal consultation. The revisions to the mitigation measures clarify and refine existing requirements for protecting cultural and tribal cultural resources. These revisions are minor in nature and do not constitute significant new information under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a). Accordingly, the revisions constitute clarifications, amplification, or insignificant modifications to an adequate EIR, and recirculation is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b). Tribe’s comment letter and the City’s written responses are included in the Final EIR.
Individual Commenters (I1-I3). The comments raise questions about sewer capacity and necessary infrastructure improvements, the distribution of residential development and use of South Las Posas Road for access, flood hazards in the eastern portion of the plan area, and whether specific properties are included within the plan boundaries and residential capacity. The responses explain that future development would require sewer studies, coordination with Vallecitos Water District, applicable infrastructure contributions, and environmental review of off-site improvements. They also describe transportation mitigation and floodplain requirements, including FEMA review where applicable, and confirm that the referenced properties are included within the Specific Plan and its 2,300-unit residential capacity. Preferences regarding development distribution and access are included in the record for consideration by decision-makers. The responses identify no new significant environmental impacts or increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts requiring changes to the PSEIR’s analysis or conclusions.
Public Comment
Community engagement included initial stakeholder focus groups, three public workshops, a City Council workshop, pop-up events at the farmers market, a project website with an interactive Esri StoryMap, signs within the plan area displaying QR codes linking to the project website, and meetings with the Planning Commission Subcommittee throughout the planning process. All mailed project notices were provided in English and Spanish. The Stakeholder and Focus Group Interview Summary and Key Findings Report, along with workshop summaries prepared by MIG, are included in the Public Engagement Summary (Attachment G).
Businesses, property owners, and community members participated at various stages of the update process. Staff also held follow-up meetings with property owners and business owners to discuss their specific concerns. Where feasible, the updated Specific Plan incorporates revisions addressing these concerns.
Attachment(s)
Resolutions:
1. Resolution PC 26-5248 (EIR26-007): Recommend to City Council certification of the Environmental Impact Report; and
2. Resolution PC 26-5249 (Specific Plan Amendment SP 24-0001): Recommend to City Council approval of a comprehensive update to the San Marcos Creek Specific Plan;
A. Vicinity Map
B. Requested Entitlements
C. Site & Project Characteristics
D. San Marcos Creek Specific Plan
E. Creek Specific Plan Update Financial Feasibility Analysis
F. Subsequent Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR26-007)
G. Public Engagement Summary
Prepared by: Sean del Solar, Principal Planner / Sustainability Program Manager
Reviewed by: Isaac Etchamendy, City Engineer / Development Services Director
Punam Prahalad, Deputy City Attorney
Submitted by: Joseph Farace, Planning Director