Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident alleges city favored developer, asks council to correct parcel maps
Summary
A San Marcos property owner accused the city of enabling a developer’s project and leaving tentative parcel maps active, which she says has allowed the developer to sue and harass her family; she urged the council to correct maps and protect property rights.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At the April 14 City Council meeting, Liz Santos delivered an extended public comment accusing the city of favoring a private developer identified in the record as Gary Levid (name spelled in the transcript as Levid/Levit) and of allowing tentative parcel maps to remain active instead of expiring, which she said enabled the developer’s legal action against her family’s property.
Santos said the city “continued to act as a private broker for one developer, Gary Levid,” and that amendments extending purchase agreements as recently as 2022 bear the mayor’s original signature. She told the council she and her family are keeping their property at Barham and Twin Oaks, but that approved plans placed private improvements over their real estate and left them facing “aggressive harassments” from the development team.
Santos asked the council to “correct the map” and to stop the harassment and timeline-driven favoritism she described; she also said no councilmember had reached out to her family about the dispute. The council did not respond with a staff report or a direct commitment to change the parcel map during the April 14 meeting.
Why it matters: Santos frames the issue as a dispute over land use, developer approvals and the municipal handling of tentative parcel maps and purchase agreements. Correcting or clarifying parcel maps and the city’s processing history could affect property rights and pending litigation.
What’s next: The comment is on the public record; the council or staff would need to place the matter on a future agenda for formal review, mapping corrections, or legal counsel input.

