ATTACHMENT I
Appeal Correspondence
From: Frances Donnelly
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 5:08 PM
To: City Clerk General Email <[email protected]> Cc: del Solar, Sean <[email protected]>
Subject: Challenge to CUP for Eden park on public hearing agenda for June 28, 2022
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.
Dear Members of City Council,
I would like to support Mr. Deitch's challenge to the granting of an extension of the CUP. I believe my data will support the opinion that the applicant has not demonstrated sufficient reliability of performance that granting an extension is a reasonable action, specifically in regards to the applicants efforts to safely manage traffic on the site.
a. The Site originally zoned as a "movie studio" required the installation of a traffic signal before use of the site but in their application in 2018 the applicant requested to not comply with that requirement on the basis that
i. The use of a 'kidney' and right turn only restriction of traffic leaving the site would be sufficient to manage expected traffic. This has not proven to be the case, please see below.
ii. The modified phasing of the use of the site would not reach the state where such a restriction would be necessary initially. The community members who attended the council meeting for the initial CUP clearly did not agree with this finding and as a result the CUP was originally granted with the condition that a light be installed within 18 months. The applicant has failed to meet this condition.
At the council meeting on Nov 13th 2018(approx.) when the council approved the CUP conditional on the installation of the traffic light, the applicant committed to meeting that requirement within an 18 month window. They failed to meet that commitment and then to cover their failure they applied to the planning commission to have the condition removed. This removal happened during Covid when only limited community involvement could be demonstrated and only occurred AFTER the applicant was out of compliance with the condition and should have been shut down. I believe this avoidance of responsibility supports the challenges of Mr. Deitch
In addition, a review of the effectiveness of the "kidney" will show that not only does it not operate as intended but it actually introduces a new, and possible more dangerous hazard by creating a situation where consistent wrong way driving is occurring by vehicles exiting the site who are by passing the kidney control. The applicants own traffic study which was done on a limited time frame acknowledges that these wrong way movements were occurring. Observation of the site traffic on weekends when tournaments or other larger events occur will show this is quite a dangerous on going situation.
There have been a number of traffic accidents also related to the need for traffic to make left turns across San Elijo road at a point where there is low visibility and traffic moving at high speed. An investigation of data from the sheriff's department can substantiate this.
Every school day, now that school is in regular session a large number of students must walk across the entrance to this facility unprotected. They have no other method of travel as there are no crosswalks available from the other side of the road when they get to their homes. This safety concern created a significant community response back in 2018 and the inability to have public gatherings to continue to demonstrate this concern has allowed the applicant to continue to ignore these safety issues that can only be addressed with the use of a traffic signal.
My name is Frances Donnelly,
My address is ************** San Marcos, CA
From: Jeff Deitch
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 3:08 PM
To: del Solar, Sean <[email protected]>
Cc: Quezada, Jonathan <[email protected]>
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.
Mr. Desolar,
This is my formal request to postpone the hearing to July or August so that I can attend and plead my case. While I appreciate your efforts to get me information, it doesn’t explain how the other uses (not the sports uses) can occupy a building without an occupancy permit. The permit provided was only for one space. If it was a solid waste plant once it became movie studio it would have needed an occupancy permit to be used, right? I have been saying they are using those spaces illegally and you have yet to prove me incorrect. And slapping an occupancy permit on them now does not satisfyanything since they have been operating illegally for many years now. I have asked for this 10 different ways, so now you are passing me onto the building department and an SDGE hotline at the 11th hour? This is another reason for postponement.
If it turns out there are no occupancy permits what is the recourse for years of illegal use that that the City is culpable in? The storage area doesn’t have an occupancy permit for movie storage or media offices or movie production. How can you allow this to move forward if you don’t have any proof the occupancy permits were issued for those businesses that I still proclaim are illegal and don’t meet the zoning. They are not movie related storage. Its just not true. It does affect the sports uses when people like my friend can’t use part of the sports space due to the other uses taking up parking and causing traffic. Its also not safe for kids to be next to these dangerous uses.
Please ask the building department to produce the occupancy permits that were issued for movie storage for all those buildings and the out buildings. If the hearing is continued please let me know the new date.
Sincerely,
Jeff Deitch
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 28, 2022, at 1:43 PM, del Solar, Sean <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Jeff,
An appeal requires a formal public hearing before the City Council which has statutory public noticing requirements. At the time we received your initial reply on June 14, the public notices for the hearing had already been circulated. Additionally, it was our understanding that if you could not make the 6/28 hearing date, you would be sending someone in your place to read a statement.
Since the appeal hearing is scheduled to occur at the City Council meeting this evening, if you would like to provide a formal request to continue the hearing, please email it to me as soon as possible. It will be presented to the Council this evening for consideration. The Council will decide whether to proceed with the hearing or continue it to another meeting date. Please keep in mind that the Council will also consider the applicant’s preferences for the appeal hearing, as they have committed to be being present at tonight’s meeting.
Regarding your other questions, please find the Certificate of Occupancy issued for Edenpark attached to this email. This was required because that use changed the occupancy of a portion of the existing building to allow assembly. As you are aware, the facility was originally intended to process solid waste and the structure exceeds the standards for storage due to its design for those former operations. The Building Division and Fire Department have inspected the facility and based on what has been observed at the site, the uses of the structures comply with the occupancy requirements. Certificates of occupancy are issued by the Building Division and you can follow-up directly with them to discuss the occupancies of the facility at [email protected] (or 760-744-1050, ext. 3205). You may recall that we attempted to setup a meeting with you to discuss these concerns with the Building Official and Fire Marshal, however that request was declined. As a result, the City’s exploration of these issues were limited to our observations during site visits, your written emails, and statements from the owner.
To clarify the relationship of the Loma San Marcos Specific Plan and CUP, the Specific Plan establishes that the use of the facility during phase 1A is limited to the following: 61,650 sq.ft. of movie studio, 108,135 sq.ft. of storage area, and 9,750 sq.ft. of office area. The conditional use permit that was renewed for another 3-year term (and is the subject of your appeal) allows the 61,650 sq.ft. of movie studio space to be used for youth sports filming and also identifies improvements (like the installation of the traffic signal) as the facility expands. The CUP does not regulate other uses of the property which are conducted in conformance with the Specific Plan, which appear to be the focus of your concerns.
Relating to traffic, a traffic study was prepared for the 2018 Loma San Marcos Specific Plan and CUP that forecasted vehicle trips associated with the allocation of floor area identified in the specific plan (see above). The conclusion of that traffic study was that the installation of a traffic signal was not warranted. Despite this conclusion, in response to public concern over the speculative trip generation of the site, the applicant agreed to install a traffic signal in phase 1A of the project. During this time, prior to the pandemic (in December of 2019, when RV storage was conducted at the site), a traffic analysis was conducted to study actual trips at the project driveway. That traffic analysis is included as Attachment E to the staff report prepared for the appeal and concludes that based on measurements of actual trips entering and leaving the site, a traffic signal is not warranted. In 2020, the applicant requested that the Loma San Marcos CUP be modified to again place the requirement of installing a traffic signal at phase 1B of the project. That request was approved and the traffic signal continues to be required in phase 1B of the project (when it is warranted). We continue to be available to meet with you to discuss the traffic studies but again, you have previously declined that meeting request.
As previously indicated, the Loma San Marcos CUP allows the 61,650 sq.ft. of the facility allocated for a movie studio to be used for youth sports filming. There is a licensed business, Play by Play Productions, that operates at the site and organizes the youth sports activities. To the extent that the youth sports are operating within the 61,650 sq.ft. of the facility allocated for movie studio uses and during the allowed days and times, the operations conform to the CUP. It is regretful to hear about the situation you described about friend’s teams being denied access to the facility but those are private decisions that do not involve the City’s administration of the CUP.
Again, the City has completed a number of site visits to the facility, as recently as June 16 and all businesses observed operating at the site have business licenses and conform to the Loma San Marcos Specific Plan (again, uses that are not youth sports are not regulated by the CUP). The property owner has informed the City that SDG&E intends to conclude their staging yard use of the overflow parking lot at the end of summer. I know that their use of the property has been an issue you have identified, so I wanted to provide you with a hotline established by SDG&E to report concerns about the project:
Project information line: (844) 765-6388
San Marcos to Escondido 69 kV Power Line | San Diego Gas & Electric (sdge.com)
Kevin O’Beirne
SDG&E Regional Project Affairs Manager
[email protected]
Let me know if you have any follow-up questions and if you desire to request that the appeal hearing be continued, please provide a formal request that can be presented to the City Council at tonight’s meeting for consideration.
Thank you,
Sean del Solar | Senior Planner
T: (760) 744-1050 ext. 3223 | C: (760) 205-9036
[email protected] | 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, June 27, 2022 5:02 PM
To: del Solar, Sean <[email protected]>
Cc: Quezada, Jonathan <[email protected]>
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.
Mr. DelSolar,
I wanted to follow up on my last email as I had not heard back. I’m unavailable to attend the meeting tomorrow but would like to if it’s possible to reschedule.
Thank you,
Jeff Deitch
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 14, 2022, at 5:25 PM, Jeff Deitch wrote:
Mr. DelSolar,
Thank you for the detailed response. This is helpful and certainly begins to answer my questions in writing as requested, but does not satisfy my frustrations. I have been observing this project for a while and just don’t see that all the pieces have come together like they were supposed to. Can you provide proof that every space or area of ALL the buildings has been permitted via the specific plan, and has had an occupancy permit and has a current business license. I would like to see the occupancy permit for each and every building and each office space to prove it has been permitted appropriately since the CUP was in place, as the City claims. Every building there has been being used, but I don’t believe they have been permitted for that use. If they have, you should be able to provide me occupancy permits for all spaces including the out buildings and those occupancy permits should be dates from at least 2018.
You should be able to provide me business licenses for all the current spaces being occupied, which is every space in the industrial areas, maybe not the offices. Accepting the owners word that a space isn’t being used or is going to be vacated eventually is not satisfactory. Have you been in ALL the buildings? My frustration stems from the differences in what the City has told the public and the sports tenants in the past and what is being allowed now. And I am frustrated at the fact that the traffic light is still not in, with all these other illegal uses happening. I have been given no evidence from the City that shows that these additional cars and trucks caused by the “storage” uses are even allowed in this Phase 1 without a traffic light. I read the traffic study that stipulated that if the sports use was going full steam with events, that the storage uses would have to be limited because that would cause too much traffic and require a traffic light. There were never any uses permitted prior to the CUP being approved. Please show me where I am incorrect.
In the past it was suggested that the other spaces could not be used at all because they would need a lease directly with a media company just as the Play by Play folks had to be a production company. We have friends that were denied sports uses because they said it had to be a filming media company. My understanding is that the City asked to see those leases from Play by Play. Have you asked to see these leases with these current tenants? Are they legitimate media companies? And now the basketball and other uses are restricted because all these other uses are taking up space including parking areas. And some areas are not even in the Phase 1a allowed uses, including the parking lot for outside storage.
While I would like to see more sports uses, it seems the most appropriate thing to do is shut down all uses except the basketball area allowed under the CUP. It is not clear to me that occupancy permits for ANY other space has ever been issued. Issuing them now would not solve the issue. The City has a history of saying things are solved and yet they are not, so proof that there were occupancy permits issued for ALL buildings would go a long way to satisfying my frustration and I may consider dropping the appeal and if you can provide this proof ASAP, I will consider that. Otherwise, I will let you know if I can attend the hearing on the 28th as I currently have a vacation planned. Is it a requirement of the appeal to be in person? I can send someone to read my statement into the record if need be.
Jeff Deitch
Sent from my iPhone
1 del Solar, Sean
From: del Solar, Sean
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 3:34 PM
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,
The City has concluded its investigation into the points of your appeal and wanted to provide you with an updated response to your concerns stated in the appeal (below). Also, an appeal hearing before the City Council has tentatively been scheduled for June 28 at 6:00 pm, unless the appeal is withdrawn. Can you please confirm that you will be in attendance at that hearing? The format of the hearing will generally be a presentation by staff on the project, the appeal, and Staff’s recommendation. Following staff’s presentation, there will be time allotted to both the appellant (you) and the applicant to provide information to the City Council to consider in their decision on the appeal.
Updated Project Status:
Applicant has submitted a permit to construct further improvements to the intersection of the driveway and San Elijo Road. These improvements will include, but are not limited to:
o Addition striping on the driveway to delineate the lane directions and intersection limit lines o Add signage to denote left turns from the driveway are prohibited o Replace existing lane delineators with new type to provide enhanced visibility and durability o Add lane delineators (flexible posts) in the median of San Elijo road (on the lateral side of the left turn pocket) to provide a physical barrier preventing left turns out of the project driveway The applicant has decided to discontinue RV storage use at the site. Removal of the stored RV’s and trailers has been occurring and is anticipated to be completed by the end of June.
Appeal Points Response:
As required by San Marcos Municipal Code (SMMC) § 20.545.020, your appeal provided the following points upon which the appeal is based:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
Since you declined to meet with our staff to further discuss these points, our investigation and response was limited to the information you had already provided us in writing. Here are the conclusions of that investigation:
2 1. Uses observed operating at the site comply with the Loma San Marcos Specific Plan, in that RV and trailer storage and comic book storage are both conducted in the portion of the building that is allocated for storage and both have a relationship with the entertainment industry. Since the initial approval of the CUP Renewal, the property owner has discontinued the lease of the RV and trailer storage tenant (who is expected to cease all operations at the site by the end of June). In its place, the comic book memorabilia tenant will expand their storage use of the facility and occupy the onsite offices to produce multimedia marketing materials for the merchandise stored onsite. Since both of these tenants only used the project site for storage (both tenants had central operations based offsite), they did not have business licenses at the project site. SMMC Section 3.08.050 requires separate business licenses for all locations of a business and after being informed, the businesses submitted license applications and the property owner agreed to pay back taxes (business license registration fees).
Staff was unable to validate the automotive work complaint and the appellant did not provide any additional details about the location of this activity. Based on information provided by the property owner, at one time a vehicle vinyl wrap business was using one of the auxiliary buildings for storage and on occasion, that user may have installed vinyl wraps on vehicles at the site. That use has since ceased and there were no signs of automotive work observed onsite by City staff, during multiple site visits. Staff did observe that there was some accumulation of cardboard on the property and the owner is coordinating with the waste hauler to provide a larger bin so that this issue is prevented. Additionally, the comic book toy company had difficulties getting truck trailers removed from the site, due to logistics issues at the ports. Outdoor storage at the site, including the storage of truck trailers, is prohibited and the property owner is working to resolve these issues.
As previously discussed, SDG&E has approval from the CPUC to temporarily use the project site as a staging yard for the line tie project. Their use of the site includes stockpiles of both fill and export materials from excavation activities occurring off‐site. At the time of the visits by City staff, the materials stored onsite were secure and in compliance with stormwater requirements to prevent runoff. The inspection and compliance of the temporary staging yard is overseen by permits issued by the CPUC.
Lastly, the Fire Department conducted a site visit and confirmed that the fire sprinkler system works properly and meets the design and density requirements (Extra Hazard Group 1) to allow the storage of the materials and vehicles observed at the site. The system has a robust design, to protect its prior use commodity (solid waste processing). No storage of hazardous materials or fuel were observed onsite and the property owner confirmed that no refueling activities occurred onsite.
2. As previously discussed, the 2018 traffic study prepared for the project analyzed anticipated traffic volumes from the youth sports filming, storage, and office uses of the site that were a part of the Specific Plan Amendment. The conclusion of that study was that a traffic signal was not warranted at the project driveway. A second traffic study conducted in 2019 analyzed actual operational traffic and determined that a traffic signal is not warranted at the driveway based upon the current use.
During the Planning Commission hearing for this CUP renewal, the Commission requested that the property owner take additional measures to prevent traffic exiting the site from making left turns onto San Eijo Road. The property owner agreed and is currently in the process of obtaining a Right‐of‐Way Permit from the City for these improvements. The improvements will include new striping on the project driveway, directional arrows on the onsite travel lanes, new signage to denote the prohibition of left turns from the project driveway, and the installation of additional delineators extending the median on San Elijo Road and creating a physical barrier to prevent left turns from the driveway. Collectively, these improvements are anticipated to further reduce unpermitted left turns from the project site driveway onto westbound San Elijo Road. It is important to note that the area in front of the driveway gate is not within the control of the property owner and is used by the public for parking to access nearby hiking trails. These vehicles are also a source of left turns from the project site driveway and will be equally mitigated by the improvements currently being processed by the property owner.
3 3. The Edenpark project application has been inactive since January 3, 2020. To the City’s knowledge, the Edenpark applicant is not currently associated with the ownership of the property. The current property owner has submitted a “property owner initiated request” to the General Plan Advisory Committee to consider in the General Plan Update process.
If you would like to discuss these conclusions further please contact me and we can setup an in‐person meeting.
Alternatively, if you would like to withdraw the appeal, you can do so via a reply to this email. If you would like to continue the appeal, please confirm you’re available to attend the June 28 City Council Hearing at 6:00 pm.
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
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 11:10 AM
To: Jeff Deitch
Cc: Quezada, Jonathan <JQ uezada@san‐marcos.net>
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
4 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 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 5 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?
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:
6 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
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,
7 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.
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.
8 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
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.
9 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>