Attachment L
City Workshop Summary & Comment Cards
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.