The University District Specific Plan (UDSP) was adopted by the City Council in November 2009 with the intent of creating a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly, and active urban center that would serve as a downtown area for the City of San Marcos. According to Section VII.1 of the UDSP, “having a visibly unique identity is essential to creating an active urban center, especially within a city’s downtown core. This identity can be achieved through the use of public art, landscaping, and by creating a hierarchy of sign types that are linked by a consistent theme.” In an effort to further develop the identity of the UDSP area, the applicant requested approval of a Master Sign Program for the portion of the UDSP area known as North City.
On May 18, 2026, the Planning Commission approved by vote of 7-0 the Master Sign Program for the UDSP area known as North City. The proposed Master Sign Program serves to establish sign criteria and regulatory guidelines for wayfinding and district signage throughout the project area on both public and private property. Visitors, residents, students, and new businesses, users will benefit from the wayfinding and district-oriented sign program. While sign types and general locations are regulated by Section VII of the UDSP, the specific architectural details of signs require Planning Commission approval.
In addition, the UDSP amendments approved in 2025 allowed for updates to the general sign guidelines for the District, with the exception of wayfinding and right-of-way signage. Staff worked with the applicant to create the Master Sign Program to address the wayfinding and right-of-way signage and to ensure compliance with the UDSP. This Master Sign Program (CSP19-0003) was found 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. Please refer to the Planning Commission Report provided as Attachment D for additional details on the project background and environmental review.
Appeal (AA26-0002) Discussion
On May 28, 2026, an appeal was filed by Elizabeth Santos objecting to the Planning Commission’s approval of the Master Sign Program project (Attachment C). The appeal sets forth six reasons why the appellant believes the Planning Commission’s decision was made in error, which are presented with staff responses below.
Appeal Point 1:
Administrative Bad Faith & Statutory Nuisance (CA Civil Code SS 3479): The City is knowingly authorizing a private nuisance that directly targets specific private property owners, despite knowing that property lines are currently contested in active litigation (Case No. 27-2023-000007946-CU-OR-NC). Granting discretion to the developer under these circumstances is a calculated infringement on the comfortable enjoyment of my property.
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 a legal basis.
Staff Response:
The University District Specific Plan Sign Program was approved by Planning Commission pursuant to San Marcos Municipal Code Section 20.320.040(I). The approval was limited to visual elements such as construction materials, design details, and the number and spacing of signs in the area. No specific sign locations were approved. Sign locations will be reviewed on an individual basis and require additional permits from the City for construction; separate sign permits, building permits are required for sign construction, as well as encroachment permits for signs proposed in public right-of-way.
California Civil Code Section 3479 states, “Anything which is injurious to health, including, but not limited to, the illegal sale of controlled substances, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway, is a nuisance.” At this time, there are no signs proposed to be installed on appellant’s property. Any future signage on appellant’s property would require a sign permit requested by the property owner and City review. The Planning Commission approval of the Sign Program has not interfered with the comfortable enjoyment of appellant’s property.
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 Sign Program. Ongoing legal proceedings involving the appellant do not impose any restrictions on the City’s discretionary review of a separate and independently evaluated permit application. The existence of litigation unrelated to the Sign Program does not create a legal barrier to processing or approving the Sign Program.
Appeal Point 2:
Unlawful Delegation & Procedural Instability: The City has unlawfully delegated public authority to a private developer, granting them unilateral control over infrastructure in the Public Right-of-Way (ROW) without the required consent of the affected private property owners. This delegation creates procedural instability, as the developer lacks the standing to act on behalf of the underlying Land Owners.
Staff Response:
Any signs proposed to be placed in the public right-of-way are subject to an encroachment permit and cannot be installed without review by the City. The City is not required to obtain private property owner permission for City-approved activities in the public right-of-way. Furthermore, no signs are proposed to be installed on the appellant’s private property.
Appeal Point 3:
Unmitigated Physical Impact (5-Foot Grade Discrepancy): The Commission ignored site-specific topography, approving a 20-foot sign that results in a 25-foot effective height relative to my property. This failure to adjust for the 5-foot grade discrepancy demonstrates a gross lack of substantial evidence to support their findings.
Staff Response:
Staff believes that the sign mentioned by the appellant is Sign A2 of the Master Sign Program (Primary Entry Gateway Sign), which is proposed at a maximum height of 20 feet. The Master Sign Program does not contain a map of proposed sign locations. Therefore, the exact Gateway sign location is unknown, and therefore it is impossible to determine that the sign location failed to consider a 5-foot grade discrepancy. The locations of each sign will be determined once a sign permit/building permit application is filed with the City.
Appeal Point 4:
Objection to Administrative-Only Review: I object to the resolution’s providing allowing “Minor architectural adjustments” to be approved administratively. All discretionary decisions regarding sign location, brightness, and height must be subject to public City Council oversight to ensure transparency and accountability.
Staff Response:
The authority of “Minor architectural adjustments” to be approved administratively is given to the Planning Division Director by the University District Specific Plan (Section IX.7 Minor Deviations). Deviations to the approved Master Sign Program shall only be considered if the change does not result in an increase in the total number of signs, the size and/or height of signs does not increase, and the architectural quality of the colors and materials are found by the Planning Division Director to be equal or superior in quality to the colors and/or materials in the approved Master Sign Program.
Appeal Point 5:
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 this district-wide reconfiguration without a formal investigation is a direct act of Administrative Bad Faith.
Staff Response:
The Sign Program is not reconfiguration but a program to describe the visual elements such as construction materials, design details, and the number and spacing of signs in the area. No specific sign locations were approved with the Sign Program. Sign locations will be reviewed on an individual basis and require additional permits from the City for construction. Appellant has not provided any evidence regarding how the Sheriff Dispatch Incident is relevant to the approval of the Sign Program or the associated design details of signs proposed in the University District.
Appeal Point 6:
Integrated Project Review: This application is inextricably linked to the site hazards, ownership discrepancies, and public safety issues detailed in the concurrent appeal of TSM24-0004. These must be reviewed as a single, problematic project footprint.
Staff Response:
The appellant’s reference to TSM24-0004 has no bearing on the Planning Commission’s decision regarding the CSP19-0003 Sign Program. The Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM) is a separate entitlement application, processed under its own findings, public notice, and staff analysis. It was independently agendized and acted upon by the Commission as a standalone item.
Because TSM24-0004 is unrelated to the Sign Program review process, its content, status, or outcome does not influence the required findings or approval criteria for the Sign Program. The appellant’s comments on the TSM therefore do not provide a valid or relevant basis for overturning or delaying approval of the Sign Program.
Appellant Requested Action and Demand:
The Appellant demands that the City Council grant a De Novo hearing and stay all project entitlements until the Superior Court has issued a final order.
The Appellant respectfully requests that the City Council vacate the approval of Resolution PC 26-5212 and stay all entitlements until the Superior Court has finalized property lines in September 2026. Alternatively, the Council must modify the program to include:
Requirement for verified written consent from all abutting property owners for any ROW signage.
Mandatory City Council Review for all future sign adjustments and location approvals.
Zero-Light-Trespass Standards and height limits strictly adjusted for the 5-foot grade difference
Staff Response:
Pursuant to San Marcos Municipal Code Section 20.545.040, for appeals to a decision of the Planning Commission, the City Council shall consider the appeal and shall either: 1. Affirm the decision of the Planning Commission; or 2. Render its decision de novo on the appeal. With respect to the request and demand to vacate or stay all project entitlements, the appellant has not provided evidence to support vacating or staying all project entitlements.
With respect to program modifications, any signs proposed to be placed in the public right-of-way will be subject to an encroachment permit and will be reviewed by the City before approval. Approval from abutting property owners is not required for City-approved work in the City’s right-of-way. All future sign adjustments and location approvals are governed by the University District Specific Plan and the City’s Zoning Code; they do not currently require City Council review for sign adjustments and location approvals. Modifications of this process would require amendments to the University District Specific Plan and amendments to the City’s Zoning Code. All signs proposed in the University District will be reviewed by the City pursuant to the requirements in the University District Specific Plan, the Comprehensive Sign Program, and the Zoning Code before approval.