ATTACHMENT F
Public Comment Letters
1 del Solar, Sean
From: Jennifer Benson
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 11:54 AM
To: Planning Commission; del Solar, Sean; Jackson, Gina Subject: Jan 18 meeting -- CUP 21-0004 and EX21-030 -- public comment CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi,
I understand that a renewal for CUP 21-0004 and EX21-030 will be addressed at the planning commission meeting on 1/18/21.
I understand that this is the current sports complex/former landfill or recycling dump located just south of San Elijo Hills.
If I recall correctly, the CUP was approved without requiring the developer to install the traffic signal originally in the development plans at the entrance and exit to the facility. Instead, San Marcos approved a plan to steer all exiting traffic north/east on San Elijo Road by installing a "pork chop" and right turn only signs at the exit to the complex.
Before renewing the CUP, I am requesting that the city monitor and revisit this issue to determine if the traffic light is necessary—I believe it is. I often drive by this entrance/exit and there are cars lined up in the lanes meant for traffic inbound to the complex (the left side of the pork chop) waiting to make a left turn to the south/westbounds lanes of San Elijo Road. Twice I've had to stop abruptly because cars have cut me off to make this left turn lane to San Elijo Road. This is the only place on San Elijo Road that cars are making unprotected left turns into traffic. It might have seemed like a good compromise before the complex was so well used, but it has turned into a dangerous situation—one that should not be compromised to save the developer some money. Users of the complex clearly want to be able to make left turns onto San Elijo Road as they exit the complex, so it should be the responsibility of the developer to provide it in a legal and safe manner, as originally planned. Please consider the traffic light installation as a requirement of the CUP renewal.
Thank you,
Jennifer Benson
1 del Solar, Sean
From: Frances Donnelly
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 1:49 PM
To: del Solar, Sean
Subject: RE: Loma San Marcos CUP, planning commission meeting cancelation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Sean,
Thank you for the reply it was thorough and helpful. I will keep an eye on my mailbox and check in on the planning commission agendas. I recently changed to a stand up desk in my home office and the change in perspective gives me a view to the driveway at the site. Fortunately with Covid, if anything can be considered fortunate about Covid, there has not been the stream of school kids crossing that driveway for many months, which obviates the need for the signal. But now they are all back in school and safety is once again a concern.
Frances Donnelly
Director Product Development and Sales
Horizons International, Inc.
Quality Essentials Suite
Affordable Improvement for Any Organization
www.qualityessentialssuite.com
www.hzs.com
From: del Solar, Sean <SdelSolar@san‐marcos.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 12:50 PM
To: Frances Donnelly
Subject: RE: Loma San Marcos CUP, planning commission meeting cancelation
Hi Frances,
Thank you for your patience, I have been out of the office and just returned this afternoon.
You are correct that the Loma San Marcos CUP Renewal (CUP21‐0004) project will renew the permit to allow the continued operation of the facility for a term of 3 years (i.e. 2025). The Permit is consistent with the City’s past decisions on the project, in that the stop light is required to be installed with Phase 1B of the project. Since this project continues to be consistent with the previously adopted environmental document, an EIR is not required. This project is tentatively scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing on February 7. Please note that due to the COVID‐19 situation, this meeting will be conducted virtually. I have verified that you are on the mailing list and will receive a public hearing notice when a hearing date is scheduled and confirmed for this project.
I believe the other project referenced in your email is the Edenpark project (SP19‐0003) which proposes to replace the Loma San Marcos CUP and redevelop the site differently, as a “sports lifestyle center,” as the applicant (Jason Simmons) has described it. The application filed for that project was deemed incomplete on January 3, 2020 and has been inactive since that time.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any follow‐up questions or want to discuss either project further.
2 Thanks,
Sean del Solar | Senior Planner
T: (760) 744‐1050 ext. 3223 | C: (760) 205‐9036
sdelsolar@san‐marcos.net | www.san‐marcos.net
City offices are open from 7:30 am to 5:30 pm Monday‐Thursday, and every other Friday. Public counters at City Hall and Public Works are currently closed. For real‐time updates about the City’s response to COVID‐19, visit www.san‐marcos.net/covid19.
From: Frances Donnelly
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 9:49 AM
To: del Solar, Sean <SdelSolar@san‐marcos.net>
Subject: Loma San Marcos CUP, planning commission meeting cancelation
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Sean,
I see that the planning commission meeting is cancelled for tomorrow night and am wondering if the above item is automatically moved to the next meeting. As you know this is a project of significance for me and I am trying to be diligent about staying aware.
I want to confirm that I properly understand that the agenda item was to renew the existing CUP and not issue a new one based on the plans that are being submitted and going through EIR? Or is this a result of the EIR being completed.
You have and the rest of the staff have been very good about responding to my questions and I do appreciate it. Thank you.
Frances Donnelly
This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection.
For more info visit www.bullguard.com
This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection.
For more info visit www.bullguard.com
1 del Solar, Sean
From: Jennifer Timm
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 1:40 PM
To: del Solar, Sean
Subject: Extension for movie studio CUP
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To whom it may concern,
My name is Jennifer and I live in the Old Creek Ranch neighborhood just down the street from the old recycling center and movie studio, now named Edenpark. I am concerned about the traffic issues already occurring at the intersection.
Please take a closer look at that before approving.
I didn't see any notice for this and I didn't receive any notice in the mail. I didn't see any sign for this hearing like I usually did for the other hearings. Please don't approve an extension without more careful consideration and giving the public a chance to review and comment.
All the big trucks and in and out of the site is troubling and sometimes they drive the wrong way illegally. Why isn't there a traffic light required for this? Are those big trucks and giant RV's even allowed there?
1 del Solar, Sean
From: Jeff Deitch
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 3:08 PM
To: del Solar, Sean
Subject: CUP21-0004 and EX21-030
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mr. DelSolar,
I am writing regarding the CUP extension for Loma San Marcos. I have lived in San Elijo Hills for a few years and I am concerned about the recent application for “phased expansion of the operations into the existing 179,535 square foot facility”. This was written in the 1st page of the Agenda. While I am in general support of the Edenpark concept that was being processed and feel we have a need for sports and recreation uses for our community due to the lack of planning by the original developer and foresight by the City to see we would need more recreation amenities, I don’t see how the semi‐trucks parked out back and amazon style storage and delivery is relevant to this, or even legal?. I have also witnessed massive RV storage and large semi trucks being loaded and stored at the facility. Some in the fire lane! I have also seen these same trucks illegally make a left out of the facility driveway instead of the mandatory right that is in place. I don’t see how RV Storage and warehouse and distribution are related to the movie industry or this application.
With a proper traffic light it might be ok to have those things but right now it is highly dangerous activity, not only the illegal driving on the roads but add in the kids playing there and running around the streets and it’s a disaster waiting to happen.
Lastly I am concerned about the noticing process that took place or rather the lack of noticing that has taken place for this application. I have friends that have done some property development and they say there are rules that have to be filed for notifying the public. Was there proper CEQA notification? In the past I have seen the large sign on the fence on the street to announce the applications many months ahead of a hearing, but this time I didn’t see anything until just a few weeks ago and it was a little tiny notebook size sign that wasn’t visible from the street. I am not sure if mailers were sent but I haven’t heard about this from anyone. Was the HOA notified directly of this application?
I would urge the planning commission to postpone this hearing until the proper notification has been done and examine the dangerous situation being created by the illegal uses in the building without a proper traffic light.
I appreciate your time and hope you follow thru appropriately. I don’t have emails for the planning commission so please distribute my email to them prior to the hearing because I don’t think I can attend tonight due to work obligations.
Concerned Citizen
Jeff Deitch
1 del Solar, Sean
From: del Solar, Sean
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 11:10 AM
To: Jeff Deitch
Cc: Quezada, Jonathan
Subject: RE: Official Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Loma San Marcos CUP 21-004 Ext 21-030
Mr. Deitch,
Staff from the Fire Department, Building Division, Code Compliance Division, Engineering Division, Watershed Program, Construction Engineering Division, and Planning Division have all been on the site and conducted multiple inspections to thoroughly investigate the concerns you have identified and to the extent there was corrective action necessary, it was taken.
The purpose of the requested meeting, is for you to meet with the team of City staff that are investigating your concerns and have a dialogue with us about the issues you have identified and the results of our investigation. Many of the issues you’ve expressed concern about do not relate to the CUP, for which you have filed an appeal. It is for these reasons that we’d like to meet with you and have that discussion. Typically applicants are not present at these meetings but if you’d like to meet with the applicant, we can reach out to invite them to participate in the meeting (if that is your preference).
If you are not available during the suggested meeting times, please provide a few dates and times that you are available for a meeting and we’ll set it up. Until that time, please find brief responses to the questions/statements you provided embedded in the original email below, in bold typeface.
Thank you,
Sean del Solar | Senior Planner
T: (760) 744‐1050 ext. 3223 | C: (760) 205‐9036
sdelsolar@san‐marcos.net | www.san‐marcos.net
Public Counters at City Hall and Public Works are open from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm Monday‐Thursday, and every other Friday. For real‐time updates about the City’s response to COVID‐19, visit www.san‐marcos.net/covid19.
From: Jeff Deitch
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 9:30 AM
To: del Solar, Sean <SdelSolar@san‐marcos.net>
Cc: Quezada, Jonathan <JQuezada@san‐marcos.net>
Subject: Re: Official Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Loma San Marcos CUP 21‐004 Ext 21‐030
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Sean,
Have you met with the developer and will he be in the meeting? Prior to any meeting could you please provide answers and feedback to my previous questions and concerns, in writing, via email. I travel a lot for work so those dates don’t work. Regardless, I would like to have the City answer the following questions or provide feedback to these questions via email prior to any meeting. At some point I may consider withdrawing the appeal, but I prefer not to waste a lot of time
2 meeting until I know what the answers are or what you have done to address my concerns. I feel like these concerns have been glossed over by the City and explanations have not been satisfactory so far. Here are some of the questions I have asked in the past but to be sure there are no mistakes I have listed them again.
1. What is the status of ALL the illegal and dangerous tenants onsite? Have they been asked to leave? If so, which ones? If not, why not? What would the reason be for any of them to stay except the basketball and sports uses since that’s what the original CUP allowed for. The explanation that the RV storage with large gas tanks full of explosives is for “movie studio executives” is ridiculous. And to say that the storage of equipment or boxes stacked 15 feet in the air is for “taking pictures of the equipment” and say that’s studio use, when its clearly distribution, and even if it was considered studio, that’s not allowed in a “storage” area under the CUP anyways.
Is there a lease with a production company for these uses? Do they have business licenses and do they show they are “production” companies? I just don’t understand how any of these can be allowed to continue.
The CUP regulates the youth sports filming and future expansion of the facility. Onsite storage and office uses are consistent with the Loma San Marcos Specific Plan and do not require a CUP. A Fire Department walkthrough of the facility has determined that the fire sprinkler system meets the design and density requirements (Extra Hazard Group 1) to allow storage of materials at the observed heights, and vehicles. The system has a robust design, to protect its prior use commodity. To our knowledge all businesses operating onsite have business licenses or are in the process of obtaining licenses (some storage uses didn’t have licenses at this site, since their business operations were conducted offsite—those issues are being corrected).
2. Please explain why the City said in the hearing that the RV storage and other storage uses were counted in the trip study done for the original CUP in 2018. I did not see that in the report and the number of trips a day seems to be exceeded greatly. Can you provide evidence to the contrary? My understanding is that any traffic beyond the sports uses would require a new traffic light? The rest of the site was empty to the best of my knowledge, and if it wasn’t empty, that was illegal and the City was culpable in that action since there was not an occupancy permit. Again these explanations that the RV was already there or that any of this was already there doesn’t make any sense since there was no occupancy permit. Was the City allowing uses to occupy the building prior to the CUP occupancy permit. If not, then they couldn’t be counted in the study. If so, why? Is there even an occupancy permit for any other location in the building except the sports use?
There was not a statement during the hearing that RV storage was being conducted at the site prior to the adoption of the Loma San Marcos CUP and Specific Plan on November 13, 2018. There were statements in the hearing indicating that the 2018 traffic study did attribute vehicle trips to the proposed uses of the facility (i.e. youth sports filming, storage, and office space) in its analysis of traffic impacts from the project. After the Specific Plan amendment and Conditional Use Permit for the site were approved, a second traffic study dated February 11, 2020 was prepared and conducted actual driveway traffic counts in December 2019 (prior to the pandemic). At that time, the RV and trailer storage use was operating at the site. The conclusion of the 2020 traffic study was that the actual trips at the driveway were less than the trips anticipated in the 2018 study and that a traffic signal was still not warranted in Phase 1A.
3. Are the current uses and current configuration of the site 100% compliant with the original CUP requirements, I took a read and was wondering if it meets the requirements for parking and striping, the methane sensors, lighting or lack thereof, landscaping, ADA, the traffic counts, etc. Please confirm these have been checked off recently and are in compliance.
Based on our observations of the site, there were some compliance issues related to the Specific Plan and the property owner is resolving those issues.
4. When is the traffic light going to be put in? Wouldn’t this CUP extension trigger that light?
3 The CUP permits the expansion of the facility through phase 2 and requires the installation of the traffic signal at Phase 1B of the project. Operation of the site in conformance with phase 1A of the Specific Plan does not require the installation of the traffic signal.
5. How can this developer put sales materials out there that say the property is available for rent or sale as “Industrial or Manufacturing Space” when that isn’t true and he states in the hearing that he doesn’t know what the future use is going to be but yet he is advertising for industrial use. Seems disingenuous. What actions have been taken to let the developer know that the property is zoned movie studio and can’t be used for ANY industrial uses.
The City does not regulate the content of real estate marketing materials. The City has been in discussions with the property owner and they are aware of the allowed uses of the Loma San Marcos Specific Plan.
Regardless of the content of a real estate advertisement, if an unpermitted use was established onsite, then the City would take corrective actions to address the situation.
6. I don’t understand the SDGE situation? How can they run all those trucks in and out of there and store all that material in the back of the site and the CUP be in compliance? Just doesn’t seem possible. In the hearing the City stated that they can’t control SDGE but it seems like a cop out as the City CAN control whether or not the developer is compliant with City rules. And those trips are still trips so if it triggers a light, then the developer should have to put it in to have that use there. Or restrict the other uses or, even though I don’t want to see this, restrict the sports uses without the parking spaces.
The City and you are in agreement that the temporary SDG&E use of the site is not ideal. To that end, when the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) circulated the environmental document for the SDG&E line tie project that identified this site as a material staging area, the City submitted comments in protest. In its response to those comments, the CPUC stated “The Commission considered the comments […] and no modifications have been made to the proposed decision.” The CPUC approved SDG&E’s Permit to Construct (PTC A.17‐11‐010), which includes the use of 1601 San Elijo road for a temporary staging site. The only regulatory authority the City has in relationship to the SDG&E project is when work is being conducted within the City’s right‐of‐way.
Please answer these questions and get back to me with your detailed response.
Sincerely,
Jeff
On Apr 8, 2022, at 7:41 PM, del Solar, Sean <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Jeff,
In follow‐up to the email below, please see the attached letter.
Thank you,
<image001.png>
Sean del Solar, AICP | Senior Planner
City of San Marcos | 1 Civic Center Drive, San Marcos, CA 92069 T: (760) 744‐1050 ext. 3223 | C: (760) 205‐9036
sdelsolar@san‐marcos.net | www.san‐marcos.net
4 FREQUENTLY REQUESTED INFORMATION:
Zoning Map | Municipal Code | Planning Applications
Public Counters at City Hall and Public Works are open from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm Monday‐Thursday, and every other Friday. For real‐time updates about the City’s response to COVID‐19, visit www.san‐marcos.net/covid19.
From: del Solar, Sean
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 6:52 PM
To: Jeff Deitch
Subject: RE: Official A ppeal of Planning Commission Decision Loma San Marcos CUP 21‐004 Ext 21‐030
Hi Jeff,
As follow‐up to the email below, I wanted to get your availability for an in‐person meeting at City Hall to discuss your concerns in the appeal. To that end, if you could let me know your availability on the following dates/times, that would be appreciated:
Fri 4/8 @ 10:00 am or 1:00 pm
Mon 4/11 @ 1:00, 1:30, or 2:00 pm
Or alternatively, let me know your general availability on the week of April 18.
Thank you,
Sean del Solar | Senior Planner
T: (760) 744‐1050 ext. 3223 | C: (760) 205‐9036
sdelsolar@san‐marcos.net | www.san‐marcos.net
Public Counters at City Hall and Public Works are open from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm Monday‐Thursday, and every other Friday. For real‐time updates about the City’s response to COVID‐19, visit www.san‐marcos.net/covid19.
From: del Solar, Sean <SdelSolar@san‐marcos.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 12:36 PM
To: Jeff Deitch
Cc: Scollick, P hil <PScollick@san‐marcos.net>; Jackson, Gina <GJackson@san‐marcos.net> Subject: RE: Official Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Loma San Marcos CUP 21‐004 Ext 21‐030
Hi Jeff,
The next step in the process is that I’ll be reaching out, likely next week, to schedule a meeting the following week with you, myself, and other City staff to discuss your concerns in the appeal and the City’s response to those concerns.
At the current time, we are further investigating the appeal points you provided. To that end, do you have additional information you can provide me about the other requests to City departments that were referenced in the appeal? I do have the emails you’ve sent me starting on February 7, 2022 but if there were other requests submitted to the City, if you could forward them to me (or if you used the City’s app/online portal to make the requests, if you can provide the approximate dates of those requests), we’ll be able to look into these further and discuss them during our meeting.
Please feel free to continue to reach out to me if you have any other concerns before our meeting.
5 Thank you,
<image001.png>
Sean del Solar, AICP | Senior Planner
City of San Marcos | 1 Civic Center Drive, San Marcos, CA 92069 T: (760) 744‐1050 ext. 3223 | C: (760) 205‐9036
sdelsolar@san‐marcos.net | www.san‐marcos.net
FREQUENTLY REQUESTED INFORMATION:
Zoning Map | Municipal Code | Planning Applications
Public Counters at City Hall and Public Works are open from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm Monday‐Thursday, and every other Friday. For real‐time updates about the City’s response to COVID‐19, visit www.san‐marcos.net/covid19.
From: Jeff Deitch
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 9:53 AM
To: del Solar, Sean <SdelSolar@san‐marcos.net>
Cc: Scollick, Phil <PScollick@san‐marcos.net>; Jackson, Gina <GJackson@san‐marcos.net> Subject: Re: Official Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Loma San Marcos CUP 21‐004 Ext 21‐030
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I’m wondering what the next steps are and when they will occur.
Thanks!
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 17, 2022, at 11:52 AM, del Solar, Sean <[email protected]> wrote:
Mr. Deitch,
In accordance with San Marcos Municipal Code (SMMC) 20.545.020 and as indicated in the public notice for the project, a fee of $20 (for residents) is required to file an appeal.
An appeal fee can be paid at City Hall, located at 1 Civic Center Drive before 4:30 pm today. If you are coming between the hours of 4:30 and 5:30 pm today to pay the required fee, please let me know so that we can make arrangements to have staff available to accept the payment after normal business hours (the public counter/cashiering hours are 8:30 am – 4:30 pm).
Thank you,
<image001.png>
Sean del Solar, AICP | Senior Planner
City of San Marcos | 1 Civic Center Drive, San Marcos, CA 92069 T: (760) 744‐1050 ext. 3223 | C: (760) 205‐9036
sdelsolar@san‐marcos.net | www.san‐marcos.net
6 FREQUENTLY REQUESTED INFORMATION:
Zoning Map | Municipal Code | Planning Applications
Public Counters at City Hall and Public Works are open from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm Monday‐Thursday, and every other Friday. For real‐time updates about the City’s response to COVID‐19, visit www.san‐marcos.net/covid19.
From: Jeff Deitch
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 8:39 PM
To: del Solar, Sean <SdelSolar@san‐marcos.net>; Scollick, Phil <PScollick@san‐ marcos.net>
Subject: Official Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Loma San Marcos CUP 21‐004 Ext 21‐030
CAUTION: This email
originated from outside of
the organization. Do not
click links or open
attachments unless you
recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
To Whom it May Concern
As a San Marcos Resident living at I would like to formally submit an appeal of the decision made by the Planning Commission regarding the Loma San Marcos CUP 21‐004 for the following reasons.
After several requests to multiple City departments including the code enforcement department no corrective action has taken place to deal with the illegal and dangerous uses on the site. Piles of dirt everywhere, gas filled RV’s and mechanics shops all operating without business licenses. These uses should require a new traffic light before any operations based on the traffic study. The City Council should vote to deny this until the traffic light goes in and all these illegals uses are removed.
I am not sure what’s going on with that Edenpark project but the applicant in bad faith said that he didn’t know what his next uses were but he has it listed for Industrial use right now. In fact it was listed in February prior to the hearing as available Industrial property.
See attached flyer.
Let me know if I need to provide anything else to make this appeal official.
Respectfully,
Jeff Deitch
<AA22-0001 - Meeting Letter.pdf>