AA26-0003
DEVELORMANT SERVICES
MAY 28 2026
SAN MARCOS
RECEIVED
DISCOVER LIFE'S POSSIBILITIES
CITY COUNCIL APPEAL APPLICATION FORM
Appeal of a Prior Planning Commission Decision
APPELLANT INFORMATION
Appellant Name: _ _Elizabeth Santos
Organization/Company (if applicable):
Mailing Address: _ _PO BOX 1561, San Marcos, CA 92079
Phone Number: 760-943-9132
Email Address: _ [email protected]
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name: North City West Tentative Subdivision Map & Public Right-of-Way Vacation Project Address/Location:_Northwest of the intersection of Twin Oaks Valley Road and the Future North City Drive..
Planning Commission Application/File No.: _ISM24-0004 & ROW VAC26-0002 Planning Commission Hearing Date: _ May 18, 2026
Date of Planning Commission Decision: _ May 18,2026
Type of Approval/Decision Being Appealed:
• Conditional Use Permit
• Site Development Plan
* Tentative Map
www.san-marcos.net
CITY OF SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 1 Civic Center Drive San Marcos, CA 92069 (760) 744-1050 • Variance
• Design Review
• Environmental Determination
Other: _Street Vacation - Resolution PC26-5201 & PC26-5197_
BASIS FOR APPEAL
Please clearly state the specific basis for the appeal and the reason(s) the Planning Commission decision should be overturned, modified, or reconsidered. Attach additional sheets if necessary.
While the physical vacation occurs west of Twin Oaks Valley Road. The Applicant is the same entity currently engaged in aggressive land litigation against my family east of Twin Oaks Valley Road.
It is an abuse of discretion for the City to grant this developer the privilege of public road vacation and subdivision while the developers documented site conduct includes physical battery and property damage against neighbors within the same North City project footprint.
SEE ATTACHED LETTER FOR FULL DETAILS
REQUESTED ACTION
Please describe the action you are requesting the City Council take regarding this appeal.
Lrequest that the City Council overturn the approval and deny the map and street vacation until final property lines are established by the court.
City of San Marcos | 1 Civic Center Drive | San Marcos, CA 92069 | (760) 744-1050 | www.san-marcos.net
SUPPORTING MATERIALS
Please check all materials submitted with this appeal application:
*Written Statement/Letter of Appeal
Supporting Exhibits/Documents
• Project Plans
• Environmental Information
•Other: _
APPELLANT CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the information provided in this appeal application and any attached materials is true and corregato the best of my knowledge.
Appellant Signature:
Date: May 28, 2026
CITY USE ONLY
Date Appeal Received: _ 5/28/26
Appeal Deadline: _ 5/28/26 @ 5:30p.m
Appeal Fee Paid: $100
Received By:SN
Appeal Determined Complete: _
City Council Hearing Date:
City of San Marcos | 1 Civic Center Drive | San Marcos, CA92069| (760) 744-1050 www.san-marcos.net
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
• Appeals must be filed within the time period established by the Municipal Code. • Appeals submitted after the filing deadline will not be accepted. • Additional information may be required to process the appeal. • Filing an appeal may require payment of an appeal fee pursuant to the City's adopted fee schedule.
City of San Marcos 1 Civic Center Drive | San Marcos, CA 92069| (760) 744-1050 | www.san-marcos.net SUBJECT: ATTACHMENT TO APPEAL FORM - TSM24-0004 & VAC26-0002 DATE: May 28; 2026
APPELLANT: Elizabeth Santos
RESOLUTIONS UNDER APPEAL: Resolution PC 26-5212, PC 26-5201, & PC 26-5197 Pursuant to San Marcos Municipal Code Chapter 20.545, the Planning Commission's approval constitutes an abuse of administrative discretion and a failure to protect the public interest based on the following:
Administrative Abuse and Bad Faith Litigation: The Applicant is the same entity currently using the Superior Court (Case No. 37-2023-00007946-CU-OR-NG) to strip a legacy resident of historic access rights. It is an abuse of discretion for the City to grant this developer the privilege of public infrastructure vacation and subdivision as a right, while that same developer is actively attempting to diminish the private property rights of citizens within the same project footprint.
Documented Evidence of Dangerous Operations: Discretionary approvals require findings that a project will not be detrimental to public safety. The Commission was presented with evidence of a significant site hazard: San Diego Sheriff Dispatch Incident #E10351159, involving a tractor operator striking the appellant in defiance of law enforcement warnings.
The Commission's failure to investigate the Applicant's site-safety protocols renders the safety "findings" for this subdivision invalid.
REQUESTED ACTION:
The Appellant respectfully requests that the City Council vacate the approval of Resolutions PC 26-5212, PC 26-5201, and PC 26-5197, or in the alternative, stay all items until the developer demonstrates compliance with law enforcement and the civil tigation is resolved.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
KEEPING THE PEACE SINCE 1850
INCIDENT F
E1035/159
SAN MARCOS SHERIFP'S STATION
182 SANTAR PLACE
SAN MARCOS, CA 92069
OFFICE (760) 510-5200
Kelly A. Martinez NON-EMERGENCY (858) 868-3200
SHERIFF www.sdsheriff.gov
STATEMENT OF LEGAL NECESSITY
SUBJECT: ATACHMENT TO APPEAL FORM - TSM24-0004 & VAC26-0002 DATE: May 28, 2026
APPELLANT: Elizabeth Santos (Owner of APN: 221-110-17 & 221-110-18) RESOLUTIONS UNDER APPEAL: Resolution PC26-5201 & PC26-5197
STATEMENT OF BASIS FOR APPEAL
This appeal is submitted as formal notice of Administrative Bad Faith and potential Administrative Liability. The City is hereby put on notice that granting discretionary entitlements to the Applicant while the following conditions remain unresolved constitutes a breach of the City's Duty of Care. • Jurisdictional Conflicts: The project site is currently subject to active litigation (Case No. 37-2023-00007946-CU-OR-NC). Any administrative action taken by the City prior to a final Court judgment is premature and lacks a legat basis. • Documented Site Hazards & Administrative Negligence: The Applicant has a documented history of safety violations (Sheriff Dispatch Incident #E10351159) confirming physical endangerment of neighbors. Proceeding with the abandonment of public right-of-way without a formal investigation is a direct act of Administrative Bad Faith.
Integrated Project Review: This application is inextricably linked to the systemic issues and ownership discrepancies detailed in the concurrent appeal of CSP19- 0003. These must be reviewed as a single, problematic project footprint.
DEMAND: The Appellant demands that the City Council grant a De Novo hearing and stay all project entitlements, including the abandonment of public right-of-way, until the Superior Court has issued a final order.
Signaturè Date: 5282024