MEETING DATE:
June 23, 2026
SUBJECT:
Title
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-9616 - APPEAL (AA26-0003) OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION PC 26-5201 APPROVING A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (TSM24-0004) FOR THE CREATION OF THREE LOTS ON A 19.83 ACRE SITE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF 202 MULTI-FAMILY CONDOMINIUMS, AND RESOLUTION PC 26-5197 RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL THE ASSOCIATED SUMMARY VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, ALL LOCATED NORTH OF DISCOVERY STREET, WEST OF TWIN OAKS VALLEY ROAD, SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 78 WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
Body
Recommendation
Recommendation
ADOPT resolution to deny the appeal (AA26-0003) and uphold the decisions of the Planning Commission.
Body
Introduction
On May 18, 2026, the Planning Commission voted 6-0-1, (Guerrero abstained) to approve Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM24-0004) to create three lots on a 19.83-acre site to allow the creation of 202 multi-family condominiums located north of Discovery Street, west of Twin Oaks Valley Road, south of Highway 78, and within the University District Specific Plan area, and to recommend to the City Council the associated summary vacation and abandonment of public right-of-way . On May 28, 2026, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed with the City (Attachment B). In accordance with San Marcos Municipal Code (SMMC) Chapter 20.545, the City Council shall hold a hearing on the appeal, and the decision of the City Council shall be the final determination of the City.
Background
The following background contains a summary of the content of the Planning Commission report prepared for the May 18, 2026 meeting. For detailed information relating to the processing of TSM24-0004, please refer to the Planning Commission Report, provided as Attachment D.
The University District Specific Plan (UDSP) was approved by the City Council in November 2009 for an approximately 203-acre urban mixed-use center within the core of San Marcos. The Specific Plan area is comprised of a mixture of residential uses including town homes, multi-family condominiums, apartments, and student housing, as well as various commercial and office uses, park land, and civic/institutional uses.
On January 17, 2019, North City Community Partners, LLC (Shea Homes) submitted an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM19-0002) for a portion of the UDSP located west of Twin Oaks Valley Road and north of Discovery Street, referred to as North City West. The approved map authorized development of up to 480 multi-family condominium units within this portion of North City West; however, only 425 units are being constructed due to the San Marcos School District’s acquisition of Lot 7, which removed 55 units from the original total.
On May 18, 2026, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 6-1, adopted Resolution PC 26-5201 approving Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM24-0004), which creates approximately three additional lots and associated condominium units along the eastern boundary and facilitate the future phase 2 development of the remaining North City West area. The project would allow for the construction of up to 202 additional multi-family units through a separate Site Development Plan approved by the Development Advisory Committee, resulting in a total allowable buildout of 627 multi-family units, consistent with the UDSP. In addition, the Planning Commission approved Resolution PC 26-5197 to recommend approval to City Council for the Summary Vacation (VAC26-0002) and abandonment of public right-of-way for an unnamed road within the boundary of Tentative Subdivision Map (TAM24-0004). If the City Council denies Ms. Santos’ appeal, pursuant to the conditions of approval the Summary Vacation component of the requested entitlements will be considered at a later date, prior to final map recordation of Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM24-0004). If the City Council grants the appeal, Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM24-0004) would not become effective and Resolution PC 26-5197 on the Summary Vacation issue would be rendered moot, as it is tied to the map conditions.
The Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM24-0004) was analyzed to be within the scope of the certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH No. 2008101083), which is in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15162.
During public testimony, appellant Ms. Elizabeth Santos spoke in opposition to the Tentative Subdivision Map and requested that the Planning Commission continue the item until the conclusion of her private litigation with Seabreeze Properties, which she explained is anticipated in September 2026. The Commission sought guidance from Deputy City Attorney Prahalad regarding whether the pending third party litigation affected their ability to take action on the Tentative Subdivision Map that is separate from, and not adjacent to, Ms. Santos’ property located on the east side of Twin Oaks Valley Road. Deputy City Attorney Prahalad advised that the Tentative Subdivision Map is unrelated to the private litigation concerning Ms. Santos’ property located at 140 East Barham Drive, and confirmed that it did not represent an impediment to Commission consideration of the item. Please refer to the Planning Commission Report provided as Attachments C and D for additional details on the project background and environmental review.
Appeal (AA26-0003) Discussion
On May 28, 2026 an appeal was filed by Elizabeth Santos objecting to the Planning Commission’s approval of the project (Attachment B). The appeal sets forth several reasons why the appellant believes the Planning Commission’s decision was made in error as listed below. Staff is providing responses to each of the points of the appeal the appellant provided on her appeal form and its attachments.
Appeal Point No. 1
Administrative Abuse and Bad Faith Litigation: The applicant is the same entity currently using the Superior Court (Case No. 37-2023-00007946-CU-OR-NC) to strip a legacy resident of historic access rights. It is an abuse of discretion for the City to grant this developer the privilege is actively attempting to diminish the private property rights of citizens within the same project footprint.
Jurisdictional Conflicts: The project site is currently subject to active litigation (Case No. 37-2023-00007946-CU-OR-NC). Any administrative action taken by the City prior to a final court judgment is premature and lacks legal basis.
Staff Response:
The appellant is appealing the Planning Commission’s approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM) which is proposed to be located northwest of Twin Oak Valley Road and North of Discovery Street within the University District Specific Plan Area. Appellant has noted in the appeal form that she is involved in litigation against her family east of Twin Oaks Valley Road. The basis of the appeal does not relate to the proposed subdivision. The project site is located west of Twin Oaks Valley Road several hundred feet away from the appellant’s property and is not adjacent to, nor directly affecting, her parcel. The project site subject to the TSM application is not involved in an active litigation related to Case No. 37-2023-00007946-CU-OR-NC. As such, the issues raised in the appeal are unrelated to the physical characteristics, location, or impacts of the Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM) under consideration.
Additionally, the reference to active litigation (Case No. 37-2023-00007946-CU-OR-NC) does not bear on the Planning Commission’s ability or authority to act on the TSM. Ongoing legal proceedings involving the appellant do not restrict the City’s discretionary review of a separate and independently evaluated land-use application. The existence of litigation unrelated to the subdivision does not create a legal barrier to processing or approving the TSM.
These appeal points presented do not provide a valid basis for delaying or denying the project, and the City Council should uphold the Planning Commission’s decision approving the Tentative Subdivision Map.
Appeal Point No. 2
Documented Evidence of Dangerous Operations: Discretionary approvals require findings that a project will not be detrimental to public safety. The Commission was presented with evidence of a significant site hazard: San Diego Sheriff Dispatch Incident #E10351159, involving a tractor operator striking the appellant in defiance of law enforcement warnings. The Commission’s failure to investigate the Applicant’s site-safety protocols renders the safety “Findings” for this Subdivision invalid.
Documented Site Hazard & Administrative Negligence: The applicant has a documented history of safety violations (Sheriff Dispatch Incident #E10351159) confirming physical endangerment of neighbors. Proceeding with the abandonment of public right-of-way without a formal investigation is a direct act of Administrative Bad Faith.
Staff Response:
In its approval of the TSM, the Planning Commission found that “The Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the public health, morals, safety, and welfare in that public facilities and infrastructure including fire, water, sewer, and drainage will be provided.” (PC Resolution 26-5201 Paragraph D.9).
The appellant’s reference to an alleged safety violation (Sheriff Dispatch Incident #E10351159) is unrelated to the findings required to be made for the approval of the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map. The referenced incident pertains to a separate matter involving interactions between private individuals and is not associated with this particular project site, project activities, or any physical conditions created by the subdivision map request. The appellant does not provide any evidence stating that public facilities and infrastructure would not be provided. There is no evidence indicating the dispatch incident reflects any safety issue caused by, connected to, or impacted by the proposed project. Similarly, the appellant does not provide any factual basis for asserting that the abandonment of public right of way would create a “physical endangerment” to neighboring properties.
The matters described by the appellant are not relevant to the approval of the TSM by the Planning Commission and the City Council should uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the TSM.
Appeal Point No. 3
Integrated Project Review: This application is inextricably linked to the systemic issues and ownership discrepancies detailed in the concurrent appeal of CSP19-0003. These must be reviewed as a single, problematic project footprint.
Staff Response:
The appellant’s reference to the CSP19-0003 Sign Program has no bearing on the Planning Commission’s decision regarding the Tentative Subdivision Map. The Sign Program is a separate entitlement application, processed under its own findings, public notice, and staff analysis. It was agendized independently and acted upon by the Commission as a standalone item.
Because CSP19-0003 is unrelated to the subdivision review process, its content, status, or outcome does not influence the required findings or approval criteria for the Tentative Subdivision Map. The appellant’s comments on the Sign Program therefore do not provide a valid or relevant basis for overturning or delaying approval of the TSM.
The Tentative Subdivision Map ownership does not bear on the Planning Commission’s ability or authority to act on the TSM. Ongoing legal proceedings involving the appellant do not impose restrictions on the City’s discretionary review of a separate and independently evaluated land-use application. The existence of litigation unrelated to the subdivision does not create a legal barrier to processing or approving the Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM). This appeal point is not relevant to the Planning Commission’s decision and does not constitute substantial evidence to deny an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map that has no impact on the appellant’s property.
Appellant Requested Action and Demand
The Appellant respectfully requests that the City Council vacate the approval of Resolutions PC 26-5212, PC 26-5201, and PC 26-5197, or in the alternative, stay all items until the developer demonstrates compliance with law enforcement and the civil litigation is resolved.
The Appellant demands that the City Council grant a De Novo hearing and stay all project entitlements, including the abandonment of public right-of-way, until the Superior Court has issued a final order.
Staff Response:
With respect to the request and demand to vacate or stay all project entitlements, appellant has not provided evidence to support vacating or staying all project entitlements.
Pursuant to San Marcos Municipal Code section 19.12.085, “[t]he hearing on an appeal shall be a de novo hearing and the City Council may approve, conditionally approve or deny the subdivision in the Council's discretion.” The appeal hearing is a de novo hearing.
With respect to the abandonment of the public right-of-way, Planning Commission did not take action on the vacation other than to recommend that the City Council approve the vacation of the right-of-way. The abandonment is addressed in the conditions of approval for the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM24-0004); pursuant to said project conditions, that component would be considered by the City Council at a future date, prior to or concurrent with Final Map approval. Accordingly, if the City Council denies the appeal, the vacation issue will come before it at a future date and Ms. Santos may restate her objections at that time. If the City Council grants the appeal, the conditions of Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM24-004) would not become effective and the appeal on this component of the conditions of said Tentative Subdivision Map will effectively be rendered moot.
Attachment(s)
A. City Council Resolution
B. Appeal form and request
C. Planning Commission Resolution 26-5201
D. Planning Commission Staff Report
D.1. Vicinity Map
D.2. Requested Entitlements
D.3. Site & Project Characteristics
D.4. Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM24-0004)
E. Planning Commission Minutes
Prepared by: Scott Nightingale, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Stephanie Kellar, Deputy City Engineer
Submitted by: Isaac Etchamendy, Development Services Director and
Joe Farace, Planning Division Director
Approved by: Michelle Bender, City Manager