Attachment K
Applicant Public Outreach Summary
UDSPA Public Outreach Summary
Numerous opportunities for public input were provided throughout the Specific Plan Amendment process, including:
• A public workshop held at City Hall on November 8, 2021, which was attended by approximately 60 residents;
• An i nformation booth at the Winter Market on December 5, 2021, where 60 people provided signatures in support of the project and 4 6 left contact information to receive updates on the project;
• A public workshop held in North City on February 28, 2022 , which was attended by approximately 30 residents;
• A public workshop held in North City on March 28, 2022, which was attended by approximately 18 residents; and
• An information booth at the Farmer’s Market on May 17, 2022 and May 31, 2022. • An workshop for North City tenants and residents on May 31, 2022.
In addition, articles about the project were published in the Union Tribune and Coast News, and the applicant recorded a podcast with the San Marcos Chamber of Commerce, w hich was released on February 28, 2022. T he applicant also spoke with individuals one -on-one who reached out to express their concerns over building heights. After learning more about the proposal, most of those individuals changed their opinions and are now in favor of the project.
The following is a summary of the input received and how concerns have been addressed:
• There was a mix of concern and support for greater building heights. Some people felt taller buildings would detract from the suburban character of San Marcos while others endorse d the concept and were excited at the prospect of the additional public spaces that would be created. An additional commitment of 1.5 acres of urban open space has been added to the plan due to the increase in building heights. In addition, if the elementary school is not constructed, the applicant has agreed to offer approximately four acres of that site to the City of San Marcos for purchase to expand Knoll Park.
• Many people expressed support for the high-quality buildings that have already been constructed in North City . They appreciate the integrity of the developer and conveyed excitement for the additional development that would occur under the proposed amendments.
• Potential traffic impacts were a major concern, particularly with regards to removal of the SR-78 flyover. It was explained that the proposal decreases vehicular trips due to the reduction in commercial square footage and that the traffic study confirms that the circulation network would function adequately without the bridge.
There was some opposition to removing the pedestrian bridges from the plan. In response to this concern, the bridge over Twin Oaks Valley Road was reinserted into the Specific Plan.
Only the pedestrian bridge over Discovery Street was removed since a landing for the bridge was not provided for in the entitlements for the Discovery Village South development.
School overcrowding was another prominent concern. The amendment does not increase the number of residential units. The Specific Plan already allocates a site for a future elementary school if the district decides to construct a new facility within the plan area. To offset the demand on school services, school impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of building permits.
There was a desire to ensure that affordable housing be provided. It was explained that the project is required to set aside 15 percent of the mixed‐use residential units as affordable for low and moderate income households.
Some workshop participants expressed concern regarding adequate parking for the project.
Several parking structures would be provided. The applicant explained that the market demands a certain amount of parking. The developer will build what is needed to ensure the success of the project. No changes are proposed to the parking requirements in the Specific Plan. Current data demonstrates that more parking has been built to date (approximately 1.7 spaces per unit) than what is actually being utilized (approximately 1.3 spaces per unit). The mix of uses and proximity of the site to public transit allow residents the opportunity to get around without a car and car ownership has been declining.
Attachments:
A. November 8
th Public Workshop Meeting Notes
B. December 5, 2021 Winter Market Sign‐in Sheet
C. February 28, 2022 Public Workshop Meeting Notes
D. March 28, 2022 Public Workshop Sign‐in Sheet and Meeting Notes E. May 17, 2022 Farmer’s Market Sign‐in Sheet
Appendix A
November 8, 2021 Public Workshop
North City Specific Plan Amendment
Community Meeting
11/8/2021 – 6pm
Attendees: Approximately 60 residents and 15 applicant team/city staff
City staff information on the North City Specific Plan and amendment:
PC and CC decision makers on the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. Those noticed for the community meeting will get public hearing notices. Specific Plan Themes: Mixed Use, urban plazas, pedestrian streets. Setup as a form‐based code.
Amendments necessary to react to market trends, traffic, and allow architectural innovation. Goal to create a vibrant urban downtown area.
Adopted in 2009, amended 2014, with minor administrative amendments in ‘14,’16,’17,’18, ’19. Addendum proposed to the EIR for the SP Amendment.
Applicant Presentation:
Specific Plan project started around 2007‐2008.
Goals for an urban node, vibrant, unique, walkable.
Approximately 1 mi across the plan area.
Close to Sprinter rail and bus service.
Focus on sustainability.
Buildings constructed or under construction: Block C, Pima, Urge, Mesa Rim Gym, Student Housing, University Annex.
Farmer’s market currently operating within the plan area.
Proposed Specific Plan Changes
1. Increase open space mainly on the east side.
a. Increase by over 25% compared to 2014 plan.
b. Additional height (building up) to open up at‐grade land for open space. c. Examples are the existing urban plaza, paseo at Block C. d. Potential for more.
2. Traffic Reduction
a. 113,000 ADT estimated in 2009.
b. 61,000 ADT estimated in 2021.
c. Slight decrease in residential density.
d. Decrease in retail results in significant ADT reduction. e. Office less ADT than retail.
f. 53% reduction from original approved SP/EIR.
3. Height flexibility
a. Focus larger buildings in certain area (Twin Oaks/Barham) “Gateway”.
4. No increase in residential density.
5. Reduction in retail.
6. Create Paseo
a. Transform Mid City lane into a green space/paseo area for pedestrians (no vehicles).
7. Reduce planned bridges.
a. Scripps hospital no longer planned.
b. Creekside reduced retail significantly.
c. SR‐78 overpass bridge no longer needed. Benefits are no impact to habitat and no need to condemn homes to construct.
d. Remove pedestrian bridge near Kaiser hospital since Kaiser does not want it on their property.
e. Change pedestrian bridge across Twin Oaks to optional/if needed.
8. SP area expansion on Carmel
a. Expand to area east of Sprinter tracks.
b. Land now controlled by the North City developer.
9. Form Based Code changes.
a. Add variety to create flexibility for topographic and design reasons.
10. Site Development Plan currently in process. Campus Way and North City Dr. a. Phase A
i. Submitted
ii. Residential, Mixed Use, Retail, Restaurants
b. Phase B
i. Submitted
ii. Grocery facing SR‐78
iii. Office above
c. Phase C
i. Not yet submitted
Public Questions/Comments:
Speaker 1
1. Affordable housing considered? What affordability level? a. Applicant: 15% or more.
b. 60‐80% AMI estimated but to be confirmed.
2. Where is the vibrant downtown area?
a. Appears mostly student focused.
i. Applicant: existing uses in Block C successful. Planning for more. ii. Applicant: Parking underground, creating active streets. iii. Applicant: Need more density to create active spaces. iv. Applicant: Mainly east side of Twin Oaks.
v. Applicant: No night club type uses.
3. Office space seems to create a lot of traffic.
4. Looks too commercial and unimaginative.
Speaker 2
1. Moved to San Marcos for the residential community with smaller buildings.
2. Buildings today are already too tall.
3. Opposed to taller buildings.
4. Concerns over parking ratio for residential units.
a. Applicant: Land uses tend to dictate parking requirements/demand.
5. Increased crime with higher density.
Speaker 3
1. 16 story buildings don’t fit here.
Speaker 4
1. Opposed to increased building height. The original, approved plan is acceptable. a. Applicant: Create low stepped back buildings to create more sunlight, view corridors, and create better living spaces and active streets.
2. Traffic is already bad today.
a. Applicant: Not asking for more density or more cars than what is already permitted.
3. Public transit allows criminals to travel in.
a. Applicant: Projects designed with “eyes on the street” via street facing uses. b. Applicant: There needs to be a place for this type of development as opposed to additional suburban sprawl into the back country. Project is in the right location due to services and transit.
4. Parking will overflow onto the surrounding streets.
Speaker 5
1. OK with original plan and 8 stories.
2. Prefer project reduce units to create the open space instead of building up.
3. Fire access concerns on tall buildings.
4. Pedestrian bridge should be located by Ralphs shopping center.
5. Grocery store too small to be significant.
6. Concerns about infrastructure. Traffic is already a nightmare.
7. Other development in San Marcos will only add to stress on infrastructure.
Speaker 6
1. Current development is well done.
2. Proposed needs a lot of work.
3. Height/story concerns as it relates to existing topography. a. Applicant: highest buildings will be at lower topographic areas. b. Applicant: Height allows for view corridors.
4. What is the percent of for‐sale vs rental units?
a. Applicant: Shay/Lennar building 600 for sale. Others to be determined.
Speaker 7
1. Clarify current plan vs proposed. Is it one or the other?
2. OK with current plan without the view corridors created by additional height.
Speaker 8 – Speaker in support of the proposed changes.
1. Like more open space.
2. Understand that the density does not increase.
3. Not thrilled with tall buildings but understand the trade‐off to get better design/function.
4. Previous plans for other areas in the city may have gotten shelved due to recession and changing economy.
Speaker 9
1. Do not need taller buildings to create a “downtown”. Example of Carlsbad Village.
Speaker 10
1. What is open space? Natural?
a. Applicant: Urban sense of open space. Variety that includes natural, public and private spaces.
2. How much additional open space with the proposed plan changes? a. Applicant: Going from approximately 20 acres to 25 acres. The whole plan area is only 35 acres.
Speaker 11
1. Concern to set a precedence for taller buildings.
a. Applicant: This area unique due to rail and university.
Speaker 12
1. Are there FAA/aircraft concerns with 16 story buildings? a. Applicant: The building will be lower than the adjacent mountain. Have consulted with FAA and they have confirmed the building height is acceptable.
Speaker 13
1. Question about the mix of units. Who is going to live here? a. Applicant: 800 student units. 2,600 general residential.
2. Will campus security patrol the student units?
a. Applicant: agreement on some buildings for campus police to patrol.
3. Concern that the affordable housing will be relocated off‐site. a. Applicant: Won’t be pushed around town. It will be built in the SP area.
Speaker 14 – College Student
1. How many will be vacation rentals?
a. Applicant: No vacation rental units proposed. However, residents could rent per city regulations. Hotels may also be constructed.
2. Are there too many student units given changing landscape with pandemic and the trend to work/live/study from home vs campus?
a. Applicant: Confident that the student units are needed for university needs.
Speaker 15
1. Concerns with traffic studies prepared using data during pandemic.
2. How does removing bridges promote walkability?
3. Concerns with reducing circulation across SR‐78.
4. Fire response concerns due to location of Fire Station #1 Speaker 16
1. Moved to San Marcos for suburban, not for urban, walkable.
2. Buildings are tall enough already.
3. Kaiser hospital under construction looks too tall.
Speaker 17
1. What is the vision of the area to the east of the rail where the SP is proposed to be expanded? a. Applicant: No plan yet, but development will dictate in the future.
Speaker 18
1. Residents want more rural neighborhoods.
Speaker 19
1. Schools are already overcrowded as soon as they are built.
2. Where are the kids going to school?
a. Applicant: Required to set aside two, 4‐acre parcels (west and east side) for school district if they want it.
b. City staff: Up to school district to decide where to build new schools.
3. Johnson Street bridge help with school traffic, circulation.
4. Do not take bridges out of the plan.
5. Pedestrians slow down traffic with at‐grade crossings and increased pedestrians will create a bigger impact.
6. High Schools already over capacity and only Mission Hills has room for expansion.
Speaker 20
1. How do we stop this development?
a. City Staff: Planning Commission and City Council are public hearings. Concerns can be raised at those meetings.
Speaker 21
1. The school district is not at this meeting and should be reached out to.
2. How are existing traffic problems being solved?
3. It is unknown if Discovery Street expansion will help or hurt traffic patterns.
4. Will people ride the Sprinter light rail?
5. Public transit is currently unreliable.
6. Support for the development that has occurred at Block C.
Speaker 22
1. Why should my community suffer negative impacts with this development?
2. More people will use local streets as “cut through” streets.
3. The impacts of housing developments under construction are not yet seen.
4. Change of town “flavor”. Doesn’t fit with San Marcos character.
Speaker 23
1. Suggest land donation for urban school area.
Speaker 24 – Speaker in support of the proposed changes.
1. Appreciate the developer’s vision.
2. Not going backwards.
3. Likes the transition to walkable areas.
Speaker 25 – College student
1. Students want to be out of the house.
2. Students want to be in open spaces and active communities.
3. Students are thinking about the future of the world.
Speaker 26 – Previous speaker
1. Changed point of view after thinking about it some more.
2. Project is going to happen one way or another.
3. Schools and infrastructure need to be addressed separately with exception of the bridges.
4. The question becomes which model works better. Taller buildings or shorter buildings.
Speaker 27
1. Solar panels not shown in the renderings.
2. How will EV chargers will be handled in the future?
a. Applicant: Learning that they need more EV charges than previously thought/installed.
3. Do not want to look at any tall buildings.
a. Applicant: Pros and Cons to everything.
b. Applicant: Project team needs to do a better job explaining benefits of increased building height such as open space, view corridors, increased light/reduced shading, etc. c. Applicant: Careful planning by the applicant and not allowing or selling to just anyone to create their vision.
Speaker 28
1. When is the next meeting? The Planning Commission hearing may be the next meeting.
Appendix B
December 5, 2021 Winter Market
Appendix C
February 28, 2022 Public Workshop
San Marcos Public Workshop
University District Specific Plan Amendment
February 28, 2022
Attendance: Approximately 30 residents
Main Discussion Items:
‐ Building Height: There is a perception that greater building heights will result in the developers making more money because they will be building bigger units and providing more amenities. The applicant explained that it costs more to build taller. The point is to create additional opportunities to increase the amount of public space at the ground level and also accommodate the development that has already allowed by the UDSP. There is still a lot to build, and more flexibility is needed to ensure that all of the residential units can be built. There is a shortage of housing in California. We can’t keep building out. It makes sense to concentrate development within this urban core. A speaker commented that this is a residential community and this development would be seen quite clearly from SR‐78. They didn’t see the great benefit of the development for all residents of San Marcos. There was some confusion regarding why Phase A is 12 stories when the UDSP would be allowing up to 16 stories. The applicant clarified that right now they are only proposing a 12‐story building. The amendment would provide additional flexibility to allow for up to 16 stories in certain areas only where it would make sense. It is all hypothetical right now. In the future, a 16‐story building may be contemplated, but it would also need site plan approval.
‐ Parking: Someone commented that it doesn’t seem like there is enough parking being built. Older people don’t come to North City because they have to park so far away. The applicant explained that signage has been an issue and they are working on increasing signage to direct drivers to parking areas. The applicant also explained that the market demands a certain amount of parking.
They will not be successful if they don’t build enough. Car ownership has also been declining.
‐ Setbacks: One speaker indicated that they don’t like the buildings being right up next to the street.
The applicant clarified that the amendment will allow for greater setbacks.
‐ Affordability: A member of the public stated that as building heights increase, rents increase. This development is not going to be affordable. The applicant clarified that they are required to provide 15% of the residential units as affordable. This affordable housing will be distributed throughout the specific plan area. Approximately 200 affordable units are planned on the west side of Twin Oaks Valley Road.
‐ Carmel Street Property: Someone asked whether it was private money that purchased the Carmel Street land. The applicant confirmed, yes.
‐ Student Housing: There was a question regarding how many student housing units there are. The applicant indicated that currently there are about 3,000 beds within 550 units. Today CSUSM has about 18,000 students. The university is working to become a 4‐year college and increase their enrollment. Graduation rates are higher when students live on campus with other students and participate in student life. The goal is for all freshman to live in a dorm. The students enjoy this environment and appreciate how walkable North City is. They can walk to school, meet up with friends at the restaurants, and study together.
‐ SR‐78: Someone mentioned how bad traffic is on SR‐78 and asked when that corridor will be widened. The applicant indicated that it is up to other agencies (like Caltrans) to widen that corridor, but they do have to pay fees. The City communicates with those agencies and shares planned development based on the General Plan.
‐ Live, Work, Play Community: A speaker expressed how much they enjoy living in North City. This is a live, work, play community. You don’t have to get on the 78. You can live and work here. San Marcos is a residential community, and we need to build up to accommodate more housing.
Someone else said that she doesn’t have to have a car to live here. She is a student who only uses her car once every two weeks and is considering taking it back home to her parents’ house because she doesn’t need it anymore.
‐ Discovery Street Bridge: Someone said they are disappointed with the bridge to nowhere. The City should have planned for it. Now there is no safe pedestrian crossing over Discovery. It was clarified that there will still be at grade street crossings at the lights.
‐ Johnston Street Bridge: A speaker indicated that they are opposed to the removal of the Johnston Street bridge. Traffic is horrible. Not everyone will live, work, and play in this community. Where is the data? This person was directed to contact the City’s traffic engineers to discuss the analysis that has been completed.
‐ Open Space: Someone asked how much open space is planned. The applicant indicated approximately 27 acres with about 6.5 planned for the east side. A speaker mentioned that L.A. has an oasis of green space surrounded by tall buildings and it is absolutely stunning. She sees the developer’s vision. She is a business owner in North City and says the developer has always helped her business. She says the applicant has integrity and that is important to her. He does what he says he will do.
‐ Timing: Someone asked when Phase A will be completed. The response was approximately two years. The hope is to start this summer. Phase B would begin approximately six months later. It is an approximately 18‐month process.
Appendix D
March 28, 2022 Public Workshop
Name Number Email
M Walder 8054273760 [email protected]
Stacy Griser 7605809471 [email protected]
Linda Marabian [email protected]
Julia Mellusi 7605180611 [email protected]
Mike Zumbahlen 8054045578
Camille Passon 6199923217
Paul Kneisel
Brandon Esswein
Fr. John Reimann 7608453989 [email protected]
Christina Reiman 7608453968 [email protected]
Michael Winter 760214354 [email protected]
Barbara Smidt 6178287432 [email protected]
Chris Johnson 6178287432 [email protected]
Ashton Nichols 8584371098 [email protected]
Amelua Riehl 7605939081 [email protected]
Madison Cavanna 4088339724 [email protected]
Matthew Babe 9098167581 [email protected]
Javier Ortiz 7603101022 [email protected]
Aletha Wittman 7604103336 [email protected]
San Marcos Public Workshop
University District Specific Plan Amendment
March 28, 2022
Attendance: Approximately 18 residents
Main Discussion Items:
‐ Building Height: We heard that other vibrant walkable downtowns don’t have buildings above 6 stories (e.g. Encinitas, Carlsbad, San Elijo Hills, etc.). Someone asked why we need to build up if we are reducing so much of the square footage. They think we must be making the residential uses bigger. Darren indicated that there is still a lot that needs to be built and the amount of commercial office square footage has increased to accommodate a high‐tech employment center for a company like Apple. Someone also expressed concern that taller buildings will cast shade over the outdoor restaurants. Darren explained that by setting the buildings further back, there will be more opportunities to open up outdoor spaces to sunlight.
‐ Views/Community Character: There was a sense of frustration that the City of San Marcos doesn’t protect views. Darren clarified that the City has a ridgeline protection ordinance that says you can’t build on the ridgelines themselves. This site is nowhere near the ridgelines, it is located in the lowlands. The site sections demonstrate that the proposed buildings appear lower than Kaiser and Marsten Hall because they start at a lower elevation.
‐ Visual Sims: Someone brought up the visual sims that are posted on the City’s website. They are hard to find. The buildings are highly visible. Elevation drawings are included. These weren’t shown in the presentation. He encouraged other residents to go to the City’s website and look at those images. Look at what is actually being proposed. Look at what you are going to have to live with.
‐ Catering to High End Residents: A comment was made that high rise buildings will allow the developer to build larger units with more amenities. There is a perception that we are attracting and only catering to higher income people. What about the average San Marcos resident? Darren again indicated that affordable housing would be provided throughout the development. One of the workshop participants argued that this is different from what he said last time. It seems there was a misconception that all affordable housing would be consolidated on one site on the west side of Twin Oaks Valley Road. Darren clarified that is not the case. What he had said was that there are high and moderate resource zones that are mapped by the State. Currently the west side of Twin Oaks Valley Road is in a high resource zone which makes it easier to get tax credit financing for affordable housing. But that could change.
‐ General Opposition to Change: Someone asked why we are making these changes now when the community already agreed to something else years ago. There seems to be a general discontent with changing the status quo. Darren explained that we are moving into a new era. The desire is to provide more open space on the ground floor, to create more public gathering spaces, to contribute to a healthier environment where people can walk their dogs, enjoy outdoor music/seating, and create amenities for the larger community, not just the residents of the development.
‐ Setting a Dangerous Precedent: There is a perception that allowing taller buildings in North City will spark additional requests for more height in other parts of the community (e.g. Restaurant Row). What is to stop other developers (or this developer) from building other high rises in other areas? The statement was made that this is going to give the developer control over the next ten years and they aren’t going to need to go back to the City for every building. Darren talked about how it makes sense for this area to have higher density because of its location near the Sprinter station and the college. He also said it costs a lot more to build taller. You need more vertical penetrations, and the usable area goes down. You have to build taller to get a return on the investment. The market sets the price. And we have to build affordable housing. We are building starter homes. We are building a variety of housing types. We want to create a community to serve generations to come. Someone said that they think there is already a variety of housing types without having to build taller.
‐ Grocery Store: There is a strong desire for a grocery store like a Trader Joe’s or Sprouts here.
Darren confirmed that they are actively pursuing Trader Joe’s. Someone asked if it is feasible to have a two‐story grocery store with office above. Darren confirmed yes. Someone commented that they were impressed by the grocery stores in Paris and how you can make a nice grocery store in a smaller space.
‐ Traffic: There is concern about how removing the Johnston Street bridge is going to impact things.
Traffic is already bad as it is. Someone questioned where the ADT reduction data comes from.
Darren explained that there are trips associated with each type of land use and the reduction of square footage results in a reduction in trips. Neighboring projects (e.g. Scripps, Kaiser, and Creekside) have also been reduced and the actual trips are lower than what was originally approved. Someone questioned what the percentage of trips are on the west side compared to the east side. Darren confirmed that approximately 2/3rds are on the east side and the remaining 1/3rd is on the west side. Someone stated that whenever you delete an access, those trips need to go somewhere. It would be nice to have another access over the freeway. In 2014, you still needed the bridge. There is concern that it is coming out just because it is too costly. Someone asked about when the onramp will be moved as well as the status of bridges at Bent and Grand.
Darren said he doesn’t know the status of those plans – they are not part of this project.
‐ Fire Department Objections: Someone said that the fire department objects to this project because they don’t have ladders/equipment. Darren said that no fire department has ladders to serve tall buildings. We have to meet their codes and pay fees to the fire department.
‐ Lack of City Representation/Ability to Object at Planning Commission and City Council:
Someone said that they are troubled that a representative from the City is not at the meeting to answer their questions. They feel like we are trying to convince them rather than listening to the community’s concerns. They don’t feel like we are working together, and it leaves a bad taste. It feels like this is a done deal. Others said this is not a done deal. If they object to the proposal, they need to go the Planning Commission and City Council to express their concerns. There is no need to wait until this project is on the agenda. There were questions as to whether they will receive notices of the public hearings for this project and whether it will be posted on NextDoor.
‐ Hotel: Someone asked about the hotel and whether Hampton Inn is a part of this. Darren confirmed there would be a separate hotel and that the Hampton Inn is not a part. The request for the decrease in hotel rooms is simply because the market doesn’t show demand for that many rooms at this time. That could change in the future.
‐ Walkability: Someone said they understand the removal of the Discovery Street bridge. That doesn’t really matter because there will be a signal there. However, they want to make sure that there will be pathways from the single‐family homes to the downtown core. There is a desire for DG pathways as well as wider sidewalks. What about connections to the homes on the south side of Discovery? And the existing condos east of the college? Darren indicated that those are outside of the project boundary.
‐ Comparisons to San Elijo Hills: Someone said San Elijo Hills is too spread out. It is not walkable.
The homes there are too big. People still have to use cars and access is an issue. Anytime someone tries to build homes closer in, they can’t because of the access issues. There’s only one way out.
They think that building higher sounds better than building lower and more spread out.
‐ Parking: Someone asked how the math is done for the parking. Darren said that the requirement is one space per unit. They have built approximately 1.7 or 1.8 per unit, but there are a lot less cars. They are at about 97% occupancy and based on their overnight parking counts, the actual number of spaces needed per unit is around 1.2 or 1.3. People expressed difficulty finding parking when they come to North City. Darren indicated that signage is an issue, and they are working to get more signs to direct people to the parking structures. Someone asked if the parking structures will remain free. Darren confirmed that they are free for two hours and that you can get parking validated for more than two hours. Payment is required for overnight parking. There was also a question regarding how many spaces would be provided for the office uses. Darren indicated that there would be shared parking among residential and office uses. When residents leave in the morning, that frees up space for employees that come in. We can’t keep building more and more parking. Someone asked if there would be parking for Knoll Park. Darren confirmed there would be a parking lot there. There was also concern about students parking off campus where they are not supposed to. Someone mentioned that there is a problem with them parking at the church.
Darren indicated that the college has a lot of parking lots and if the students aren’t parking there, they are paying a lot more to park in North City.
‐ Charging Stations: Someone asked how many EV charging stations there are and whether it is sufficient to meet the demand. How will more stations be provided to meet future demand? Darren confirmed that the structures are pre‐plumbed to provide more EV spaces and that they will be adding more as needed.
‐ Solar: There was a question regarding how glare from solar panels would be handled. Darren confirmed that they are tilted and there would be no impact, particularly on the taller buildings.
‐ School: Someone asked if any land has been allocated to a school. Darren confirmed that yes, there is an eight‐acre site set aside for a school. The school district has the option to buy that land.
If they don’t buy the land, then the City will have the opportunity to purchase four acres to add to Knoll Park. And if they don’t do that, then residential may be built there.
‐ Open Space: Someone asked how much open space is provided. Darren indicated approximately 25 to 30 acres. A follow up question was whether that included the 20‐acre Knoll Park. Darren confirmed yes. Someone asked what the white color represents in Knoll Park. Darren said he didn’t know and would need to ask the landscape architect. This is a very conceptual plan.
‐ Retail Ambitions: Someone asked what kind of retail would be provided and Darren indicated more of what is already here (e.g. locally owned shops, small businesses, restaurants). Someone asked what the developer is most excited about, and Darren said getting a grocer in here. He would like something more boutique. He also said we needed a taco shop.
‐ Truck Deliveries: Someone asked how UPS and Fed Ex deliveries are accommodated in high rise buildings. Darren indicated that there would be dedicated loading areas for those trucks and a mail room. They would use a service like Parcel Pending. This is an automated system. The resident receives a text message when their package arrives and they go to the mail room to claim it. In a dense neighborhood like this, there is one trip rather than trucks driving to multiple addresses throughout the community. Someone said that sounds good in theory, but she had to come here to deliver a package once and the office wouldn’t accept it, so she had to go park in the structure and walk all the way back to the building to deliver it. Darren said she could have parked in a loading zone. She replied that those spaces were taken. She also complained about how the streets in her neighborhood are not built to handle daily truck traffic and they are torn up.
‐ What Younger People Want: One of the older gentlemen in the audience asked the younger college students if this is really their lifestyle and where they want to live in the future. They confirmed that they do live here and go to CSUSM. They like the atmosphere. They enjoy being able to walk to the restaurants and brewery. They said this is what we need. He asked them if they would still want to live here in the future when they get married and start a family. A student responded that the developer is building a variety of homes for changing lifestyles. The older man said that all the single‐family homes being sold in his neighborhood are being bought up by investors and being rented out. He doesn’t see how younger people are ever going to be able to purchase a home in the future.
‐ Poor Transit: Someone said that he looked up the transit score for San Marcos and it is bad. There are still going to be a lot of people driving cars and trying to get out. Someone else complained about how there aren’t any buses either. They don’t believe that people are going to give up their cars.
‐ Live/Work Environment: Someone said this is one of the most impressive presentations she has seen in a long time and she truly believes the developer is trying to create a live/work environment here. Someone else said he is a real estate broker who lives in Discovery Hills and works in the area. He would be really sad if this area developed with all 8‐story buildings. No one would tear those down in the future to create more walkable open space. It is best to build up now and create that vibrant live/work environment. The density has already been approved. How can anyone be against more open space?
Appendix E
May 17, 2022 Farmer’s Market