San Marcos City Council
September 8, 2026

Document # 18,503
recommending to City Council the summary vacation and abandonment of the easement for public right-of-way for a portion of unnamed road; and WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled and duly noticed meeting held on September 8, 2026, the City Council did consider the proposed summary vacation and abandonment of said right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did review and consider the certified Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH No. 2008101083) pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with respect to such proposed summary vacation; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to vacate and abandon said public right-of-way, pursuant to the authority granted by Streets and Highways Code sections 8300, et seq.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Marcos does hereby resolve and order as follows:

A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct, and they are hereby incorporated by reference into this Resolution.

B. The City Council’s decision is based on the following findings and determinations:

1. The City Council hereby finds and declares that the portion of public rightof-way proposed to be vacated and abandoned as described and depicted in Exhibits A and B is in excess and not required for street or highway purposes, and that it is not reasonably foreseeable that the property would be used for future public street or highway purposes.

2. The proposed right-of-way summary vacation would have no effect on existing improvements or utilities.

3. The proposed right-of-way summary vacation will not be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare.

4. All requirements of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been met in that the proposed street vacation will not have a significant effect on the environment, as reviewed and analyzed in the certified 164
Resolution No. 2026-AAAA
VAC26-0002
September 8, 2026

Document # 18,503
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (Sch No. 2008101083) for North City West project. Further, the proposed vacation and abandonment is deemed Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15305 Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), in that this is a minor realignment of right-of-way.

C. The proposed right-of-way vacation is within the scope of the certified Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (Sch No. 2008101083) and no new environmental information or documentation was presented revealing any new unidentified environmental impacts which have not been previously mitigated.

D. The City has complied with all statutory requirements for the summary vacation and abandonment of a street, highway, or public service easement.

E. Under the authority vested in it by Streets and Highways Code Sections 8334, the City Council does hereby order the vacation and abandonment of the portion of right-ofway, as described and depicted in Exhibits A and B.

F. From and after the date this Resolution is recorded, the portion of public street rightof-way shall no longer constitute highways for public purposes.

G. The City Clerk is directed to record this Resolution with the San Diego County Recorder’s Office, which recordation shall be at no cost to the City pursuant to Streets & Highways Code section 8336 and Government Code section 27383.

PASSED, APPPOVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of San Marcos, California, at a regular meeting held on the 8
th day of September, 2026, by the following
roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
____________________________
Rebecca D. Jones, Mayor
City of San Marcos
165
Resolution No. 2026-AAAA
VAC26-0002
September 8, 2026

Document # 18,503
ATTEST:
____________________________
Phillip Scollick, City Clerk
City of San Marcos
Exhibit(s):

Exhibit A – Legal Description of Street Vacation
Exhibit B – Plat of Street Vacation
166
J-17932
EXHIBIT "A"

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

STREET VACATION
That portion of Unnamed Street lying Southeasterly of Lot 2 in Block 62 of Rancho Los Vallecitos de San Marcos, in the City of San Marcos, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 806, on file in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County December 21, 1895, and Northeasterly of the following described line:

BEGINNING at the Southwest Corner of said Lot 2; thence South 16°49'04" East 66.26 feet to the Northwest Corner of Lot 21 in Block 63 of Rancho Los Vallecitos de San Marcos and the POINT OF TERMINUS.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion lying Northerly of the Southerly Right of Way line of California State Highway X1-SD-78, according to California Division of Highways Right-of-Way Maps 27564.1A.

Containing 12,564.65 square feet (0.2884 acres), more or less. __________________________________
Geoffrey H. Dye, L.S. 8150 Date
167
c
2026
Rick
Engineering
Com
pany
SHEET OF 2
05-MAR-2026 08:04
\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C_SD_M\17932-A_NorthCity Specific Plan\Survey\Exhibits\StVacations\TM2_Par1_StVac\SD CorpStds 2005.dscript \\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C_SD_M\17932-A_NorthCity Specific Plan\Survey\Exhibits\StVacations\TM2_Par1_StVac\17932_NCity_TM2_StVac_exb.dgn SAN DIEGO, CA 92110
5620 FRIARS ROAD
619-291-0707
rickengineering.com
J. 17932-A
EXHIBIT "B"
MARCOS
SAN
1 LEGEND BASIS OF BEARINGS
POT

POB INDICATES POINT OF BEGINNING

INDICATES POINT OF TERMINUS

VICINITY MAP
S
TW
IN
O
AKS
VALLEY
RD
RU
SH
D
R
78 NO SCALE
E.BARHAM DR
SITE
CONTAINING 12,564.65` SQ. FT. (0.288 ACRES)

INDICATES STREET DEDICATION HEREON

OVERY ST
ISC D
22014, I.E. N73°07'46"W
SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY NO.

THE TIE BETWEEN POINTS A & B AS

BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS PLAT IS
L

ICENSED LAND SURVEYOR

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
No. 8150
EYD
H.

REY
FFOEG
GEOFFREY H. DYE, LS 8150 DATE
168
c
2026
Rick
Engineering
Com
pany
SHEET OF 2
05-MAR-2026 08:04
\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C_SD_M\17932-A_NorthCity Specific Plan\Survey\Exhibits\StVacations\TM2_Par1_StVac\SD CorpStds 2005.dscript \\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C_SD_M\17932-A_NorthCity Specific Plan\Survey\Exhibits\StVacations\TM2_Par1_StVac\17932_NCity_TM2_StVac_exb.dgn SAN DIEGO, CA 92110
5620 FRIARS ROAD
619-291-0707
rickengineering.com
J. 17932-A
EXHIBIT "B"
POB
POT
100 50 0 100
GRAPHIC SCALE 1" = 100'
DEED 2022-0077808
ROS 16707 MS 975
ROS 1962
MAP 806
BLOCK 62
BLOCK 63
LOT 21
LOT 2
LOT 3
HIGHWAY 78
BLOCK 62
S73°02'01" W
139.90'
S16°49'04"E

66.2 6'
N73°14'21"W
119.34'
N73°02'01"E 239.33'

VALLEY ROAD
TW IN
OAKS
ROAD

UNNAMED
(VACATED)
BLOCK 63
LOT 20
66'
2 169
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS

DECLARING THAT THE TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS

A PORTION OF UNNAMED ROAD TO THE PROPERTY OWNER OF
ADJACENT ASSESSOR’S PARCEL 221-100-03-00 IS EXEMPT FROM THE SURPLUS LAND ACT; AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO SEEK

ASSISTANCE FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WITH RESPECT TO SUCH EXEMPTION;

AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY TO

NEGOTIATE, FINALIZE, AND EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY

FOR THE TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY AND TO PROCESS AND

IMPLEMENT SUCH TRANSFER IN THE EVENT SAID EXEMPTION FROM

THE SURPLUS LAND ACT IS CONFIRMED BY THE CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City of San Marcos (“City”) is the fee owner of vacant real property for public right-of-way purposes identified as a portion of unnamed road (“the Real Property”), which was dedicated by Map 806 recorded December 21, 1895, in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, and which is located adjacent to Assessor’s Parcel Number 221-100-03-00; and
WHEREAS, the portion of the Real Property proposed to be transferred (“Transfer Area”) is depicted in the aerial vicinity map attached hereto as Exhibit A, incorporated herein by reference, and is not needed by the City for public right-of-way purposes; and WHEREAS, the City Council has approved Resolution 2026-AAAA, ordering the summary vacation and abandonment of said Transfer Area; and
WHEREAS, the Transfer Area has been determined to be in excess to public right-of-way purposes and does not serve a public benefit; and
WHEREAS, the Transfer Area is proposed to be transferred to North City Community Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“NCCP”), the owner of the adjacent real property located at Assessor’s Parcel Number 221-100-03-00; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that such Transfer Area portion of the Real Property meets an exemption to requirements of the Surplus Land Act, which would permit transfer of the Transfer Area to NCCP; and
WHEREAS, the entirety of the Transfer Area is approximately 12,565 gross square feet (0.29 acre) in size and is not located within the coastal zone, adjacent to a historical unit of the State Parks System, listed as a state or federal historic resource, or within the Lake Tahoe region; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code (“GC”) section 54221(f)(1)(B) includes within its definition of “exempt surplus land” property that is “less than one-half acre in area and is not 170
Resolution 2026-XXXX
September 8, 2026

contiguous to land owned by a state or local agency that is used for open-space or low- and moderate-income housing purposes,” which description is consistent with the Transfer Area; and WHEREAS, given the above-described characteristics of the Transfer Area, the City desires to implement the transaction accordingly and transfer the entirety of the Transfer Area to adjacent property owner NCCP for $280,000.00 (Two Hundred Eighty Thousand and Zero Cents); and
WHEREAS, the City and NCCP have agreed in principle to the material terms and provisions necessary to complete the contemplated transaction, as described in the Agenda Report relating to this Resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Marcos that:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. The City Council hereby declares that the sale and transfer of the Transfer Area to NCCP is exempt from and not subject to Surplus Land Act requirements, as it would be consistent with the “exempt surplus land” description contained in California Government Code section 54221(f)(1)(B), consisting of property that is “less than one-half acre in area and is not contiguous to land owned by a state or local agency that is used for open-space or low- and moderate-income housing purposes,” and is not located within the coastal zone, adjacent to a historical unit of the State Parks System, listed as a state or federal historic resource, or within the Lake Tahoe region.

3. The City Manager and City Attorney are hereby authorized to negotiate, finalize, implement, and facilitate the proposed transfer of said Transfer Area to adjacent property owner NCCP for value as contemplated by this Resolution, provided HCD has confirmed the above-referenced declaration of exemption of such transaction from the Surplus Land Act.

4. The City’s agreement to undertake the transactions described herein is also expressly conditioned and contingent upon NCCP bearing any and all costs and expenses whatsoever associated with the contemplated transfer, HCD assistance process, and real property transfer including, but not limited to, costs of escrow, issuance of a policy of title insurance, staff time, and attorneys’ fees and costs, and is further contingent on NCCP defending, holding harmless, and indemnifying the City against any and all claims of whatever nature may arise from any and/or all of the transactions described herein, which obligation shall survive any and all potentially applicable limitations periods.
171
Resolution 2026-XXXX
September 8, 2026

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of San Marcos this 8 th
day of September, 2026, by the following roll call vote:
__________________________
Rebecca D. Jones, Mayor
City of San Marcos
ATTEST:
_________________________
Phillip Scollick, City Clerk
City of San Marcos
Exhibit(s):

Exhibit A – Aerial Vicinity Map
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
172
173
City of San Marcos
Staff Report
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
File #:TMP-2506
MEETING DATE:

September 8, 2026
SUBJECT:

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-9656 - ADOPTION OF THE DISCOVERY STREET LEVEE SYSTEM EMERGENCY

RESPONSE PLAN
Recommendation
ADOPT a resolution adopting the Discovery Street Levee System Emergency Response Plan for the San Marcos Creek District Infrastructure Capital Improvement Program CIP Projects Board or Commission Action
Not applicable
Executive Summary
The purpose of this Emergency Response Plan is to define monitoring, communication, inspection, and emergency-response procedures for the Discovery Street Levee System and associated nearby interior drainage facilities along the San Marcos Creek for the San Marcos Creek District Infrastructure Capital Improvement Program CIP Projects. Formal adoption of the plan is necessary to obtain FEMA levee accreditation.

Discussion
As part of the San Marcos Creek District Infrastructure CIP Projects (CIP #88263, 88264, 88265, 88505, 88507, 88529) (“Project”) the City designed and implemented a levee that paralleled the San Marcos Creek and Discovery Street. The levee protects the adjacent roadway and community between Bent Avenue and Via Vera Cruz from flooding as it had in the past. Because the levee functions as a flood control structure, the City must maintain and monitor the levee into the future.

The City is in the process of closing out the Project. As part of that work, the City will be garnering required approvals from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to have the levee accredited. Additionally, the City is seeking to remove adjacent properties from the floodplain, as they will no longer flood as a result of improvements installed by the Project. FEMA requires the City develop and adopt an Emergency Response Plan (ERP) in order to obtain a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) to revise the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) to reflect the completed flood protection improvements installed by the Project.

The Emergency Response Plan (ERP) is a document that defines the monitoring, communication, inspection, and emergency-response procedures for the Discovery Street Levee System and associated interior drainage facilities along the south side of San Marcos Creek between Via Vera Cruz and Bent Avenue. The plan is City of San Marcos Page 1 of 2 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™174
File #:TMP-2506
intended to support FEMA levee accreditation review for the LOMR by addressing emergency preparedness and operation criteria for an accredited levee system. As part of this process the Discovery Street Levee System ERP requires formal adoption by the City.

Environmental Review
The San Marcos Creek District Infrastructure Capital Improvement Program Projects (CIP #88263, 88264, 88265, 88505, 88507, 88529) already obtained prior environmental clearance; therefore, the preparation of this Emergency Response Plan (ERP) is an administrative process. Additionally, as this action is not a “project” as defined under Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines, it is not subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15060(c)(3).

Fiscal Impact
Preparation of the Emergency Response Plan was included within the consultant scope of work for the San Marcos Creek District Infrastructure Capital Improvement Program CIP Projects (CIP #88263, 88264, 88265, 88505, 88507, 88529). There is no fiscal impact due to the adoption of this resolution.

Attachment(s)
Resolution
Discovery Street Levee System Emergency Response Plan
Prepared by: Darra Woods, Principal Civil Engineer
Submitted by: Darra Woods, Principal Civil Engineer
Reviewed by: Isaac Etchamendy, Development Services Director Approved by: Michelle Bender, City Manager
City of San Marcos Page 2 of 2 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™175
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XXXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS FOR THE

ADOPTION OF THE DISCOVERY STREET LEVEE SYSTEM EMERGENCY

RESPONSE PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of San Marcos is committed to maintaining high standards of safety, preparedness, and regulatory compliance for all projects; and WHEREAS, the San Marcos Creek District Infrastructure Capital Improvement Program CIP Projects (CIP #88263, 88264, 88265, 88505, 88507, 88529) were completed in accordance with approved plans and specifications; and
WHEREAS, as part of the projects closeout and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) requirements the City develops and adopts an Emergency Response Plan (ERP); and
WHEREAS, the Discovery Street Levee System ERP identifies monitoring, communication, inspection, and emergency-response procedures relating to the San Marcos Creek District Infrastructure Capital Improvement Program CIP Projects; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Marcos hereby:

1. Adopts the Discovery Street Levee System Emergency Response Plan PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of San Marcos, California, this 8th day of September 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Rebecca D. Jones, Mayor
City of San Marcos
ATTEST:

Phillip Scollick, City Clerk
City of San Marcos
176

DISCOVERY STREET LEVEE SYSTEM

EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN
August 2026
Prepared by:

RICK
Water Resources Division
Prepared for:

City of San Marcos
177

DISCOVERY STREET LEVEE SYSTEM

EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN
Final Draft for FEMA LOMR / Levee Accreditation Support San Marcos Creek District - Phase 1
City of San Marcos, California
Prepared for Prepared by Date Status
City of San Marcos RICK August 2026 Final Draft
Document Contents
• 1. Plan Purpose and Regulatory Basis
• 2. Levee System and Interior Drainage Description
• 3. Roles and Responsibilities
• 4. Flood Warning, Monitoring, and Activation Triggers • 5. Emergency Response Actions
• 6. Interior Drainage Operations
• 7. Evacuation Coordination and Public Warning
• 8. Training, Inspection, Documentation, and Updates
• 9. FEMA Requirements Crosswalk
• 10. Source Go-Bys and Justification Matrix
• 11. References

1. Plan Purpose and Regulatory Basis
The purpose of this Emergency Response Plan (ERP) is to define monitoring, communication, inspection, and emergency-response procedures for the Discovery Street Levee System and associated interior drainage facilities along the south side of San Marcos Creek between Via Vera Cruz and Bent Avenue.

The plan is intended to support FEMA levee accreditation review for a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) by addressing emergency preparedness and operation criteria for an accredited levee system.

This plan is organized to directly address the FEMA review comment requesting documentation of: (1) the flood warning system used to trigger emergency operations; (2) a formal plan of operation for closures and mechanized interior drainage features; (3) the responsible person by name or title; (4) public evacuation planning for communities within the levee system; and (5) official adoption by the community or responsible agency.
178
Regulatory / guidance source Requirement or guidance used in this plan 44 CFR 65.10(c)(2), Interior
drainage systems
Requires documentation of the flood warning system, formal operating actions and responsibility assignments, manual backup for automatic systems, and periodic inspection/testing of interior drainage systems associated with levees.
44 CFR 65.10(c), Operation
plans and criteria
Requires closure devices or mechanical drainage systems to be operated under an officially adopted operation manual and under the jurisdiction of a federal, state, or NFIP-participating community agency.

FEMA Guidance for Flood Risk
Analysis and Mapping: Levees,
Guidance Document 95
Provides FEMA mapping/accreditation procedures for levees and explains documentation expectations for accredited levee systems.

DHS/FEMA Emergency
Preparedness Guidelines for
Levees: A Guide for Owners and
Operators
Recommends emergency preparedness plan content including roles, communication protocols, warning triggers, feature maps, training, exercises, and flood-fighting preparation.

Cal OES Flood Preparedness
Guide for Levee Maintaining
Agencies
Provides California levee-maintaining-agency planning guidance using SEMS/ICS, local/operational-area coordination, flood-fight preparation, and documentation practices.

2. Levee System and Interior Drainage Description
The Discovery Street levee and drainage system are part of the San Marcos Creek District Phase 1 Project. A Technical Memorandum titled “San Marcos Creek District – Phase 1, Discovery Street Interior Drainage System Study” dated May 5 and prepared by Parsons summarizes the hydraulic improvements to Discovery Street between Via Vera Cruz and Bent Avenue. The Technical Memorandum (the memo) has been utilized for this Emergency Response Plan. The project includes a levee on the south side of San Marcos Creek between Bent Avenue and Via Vera Cruz and replacement/bridge improvements at Via Vera Cruz and Bent Avenue designed to convey the ultimate 100-year flood event.

Feature Description for ERP use
Watercourse San Marcos Creek, an east-to-west trending perennial watercourse entering the project area near SR-78 culverts and exiting under Discovery Street near San Marcos High School.

Levee / flood protection
feature
Levee along the south side of San Marcos Creek between Bent Avenue and Via Vera Cruz, intended to protect public and private facilities from the 100-year San Marcos Creek floodplain.
179
Feature Description for ERP use
Bridge interfaces Via Vera Cruz bridge and Bent Avenue bridge are associated Phase 1 hydraulic improvements. Bridge openings should be inspected during flood events for debris, obstruction, scour, or damage that could affect conveyance.

Interior drainage system Series of inlets, headwalls, drainage pipes, and junction structures along Discovery Street routing onsite and offsite runoff by gravity flow to San Marcos Creek.

Interior drainage critical
locations
Upstream headwall/ditch locations H-5 and H-6 within or adjacent to LakeView Mobile Estates, identified in the memo as critical upstream hydraulic locations.

Mechanical systems /
closures
The memo describes a gravity system and explicitly states that it does not utilize a tide gate structure. No pump station, mechanical closure, or automatic control feature is identified in the reviewed memorandum. If such features exist in the as-built system, this plan must be revised to include operating instructions, manual backup, and annual testing.

2.1 Key Hydraulic Information from Technical Memorandum Item Value / finding Use in ERP
Ultimate 100-year
FEMA WSE at
proposed interior
outfall, Creek Sta.
50+67.637
534.23 ft NAVD88 Primary high-water trigger and exterior tailwater condition for field monitoring.

Ultimate 50-year
FEMA WSE at
proposed interior
outfall, Creek Sta.
50+67.637
533.46 ft NAVD88 Early action trigger / elevated tailwater monitoring threshold.

Coincidental-event
basis
Area ratio approximately
275; 25-year interior flow
used with 100-year San
Marcos Creek condition
per San Diego County
hydraulic guidance cited in
memo.

Supports ERP emphasis on simultaneous creek
tailwater and interior drainage monitoring.
180
Item Value / finding Use in ERP
H-5 HGL, 100-year
Creek / 25-year local
coincidental
condition
534.85 ft Field check point for maximum interior HGL in LakeView engineered ditch area.

H-6 HGL, 100-year
Creek / 25-year local
coincidental
condition
535.08 ft Field check point for maximum interior HGL in LakeView engineered ditch area.

Interim FEMA
backwater
conclusion
Interim 100-year WSE
531.55 ft; H-5 and H-6
upstream inverts 531.78 ft
and 532.54 ft; backwater
cannot reach private
properties in interim
condition.

Supports monitoring emphasis on ultimate
condition and private-property interface.

Ultimate FEMA
backwater
conclusion
At ultimate 100-year WSE
534.23 ft, backwater may
reach LakeView Mobile
Estates property if there is
no positive interior flow,
but is contained within
existing engineered
concrete ditches.

Supports ditch inspection, alerting, and public
notification trigger if water approaches top of
ditch/property elevations.

3. Roles and Responsibilities
Function Responsible title /
agency
Primary responsibilities
Plan owner / levee
operator
City of San Marcos Public
Works Director or
designee
Maintain and implement this ERP; ensure
annual inspections, training, and updates;
coordinate with engineering, maintenance, and
emergency management staff.

Field operations lead Public Works Operations
Manager / Maintenance
Superintendent
Mobilize field crews; inspect levee, bridges,
storm drain outfall, inlets, headwalls, and
LakeView ditches; initiate debris removal and
flood-fighting actions when safe.
181
Function Responsible title /
agency
Primary responsibilities
Emergency
management
coordination
City Emergency Services /
San Marcos Fire
Department / County
Operational Area
Coordinate emergency notifications, evacuation
warnings/orders, sheltering, public information,
and SEMS/ICS activation.

Engineering support City Engineer or retained
civil engineer
Provide technical evaluation of levee distress,
seepage, erosion, bridge scour, storm drain
backwater, and post-event condition
assessments.

Public information City Public Information
Officer
Issue public messaging in coordination with
emergency management and public safety
officials.

Law enforcement /
traffic control
San Diego County Sheriff /
local law enforcement
Support evacuation, road closures, and access
control if directed by incident command.

3.1 Activation Authority
The Public Works Director, Emergency Manager, Incident Commander, or authorized designee may activate this ERP when any trigger in Section 4 is met. Activation may be partial (monitoring only), operational (field response), or emergency (incident command and public protective action coordination).

4. Flood Warning, Monitoring, and Activation Triggers
Because the interior drainage system is hydraulically controlled by San Marcos Creek tailwater and gravity drainage, flood warning should combine regional forecast information, local field observations, and project-specific water-surface elevations from Section 2.1 of this ERP. Final implementation should include a surveyed staff gage or equivalent reference at/near the interior system outfall and field-check points at H-5 and H-6.

Trigger level Trigger condition Required actions
Level 0 - Normal /
readiness
No flood watch or heavy-rain
forecast affecting San Marcos
Creek; system in normal condition.

Maintain annual inspections and update
contact list. Confirm access to outfall,
levee patrol route, bridge crossings, and
LakeView ditch inspection points before
rainy season.

Level 1 - Flood
Watch /
preparedness
NWS forecast, local forecast, or
City/County alert indicates potential
significant rainfall or San Marcos
Creek rise; or field crews observe
Notify Public Works operations lead.

Review staffing and equipment. Inspect
bridge openings, inlets, headwalls, and
outfall when safe. Prepare to monitor
182
Trigger level Trigger condition Required actions
rising creek levels, debris
accumulation, or nuisance ponding.
outfall tailwater and H-5/H-6 ditch
locations.

Level 2 - High
Water / active
monitoring
Observed or forecast San Marcos
Creek water surface approaches
the 50-year/early action tailwater at
the Discovery outfall (approx.
533.46 ft NAVD88), or interior
drainage ditches show sustained
ponding/backwater.

Activate field monitoring. Patrol levee and
bridge interfaces. Check for debris,
erosion, seepage, blocked inlets, outfall
obstruction, and water in H-5/H-6 ditches.

Coordinate with emergency management
and document conditions with photos and
logs.

Level 3 -
Emergency
operations
Observed or forecast San Marcos
Creek water surface reaches or
exceeds the ultimate 100-year
tailwater at the outfall (approx.
534.23 ft NAVD88), or backwater
reaches LakeView ditch areas, or
observed levee distress, seepage,
sand boils, erosion, bridge
obstruction, roadway flooding, or
imminent overtopping occurs.

Activate incident coordination. Increase
patrol frequency. Notify City emergency
management, Fire, law enforcement, and
County Operational Area as appropriate.

Prepare public warning/evacuation
messaging for areas landward of the
levee. Conduct flood-fighting only where
safe and under qualified supervision.

Level 4 - Failure /
uncontrolled
flooding
Confirmed levee breach,
uncontrolled overtopping, structural
distress creating imminent failure
potential, or interior flooding
threatens occupied structures.

Public safety incident command leads
response. Issue evacuation
warnings/orders through appropriate
authorities. Close unsafe roads and
bridges. Maintain life safety priority; defer
engineering repairs until safe access is
available. Begin damage documentation
and recovery planning.

4.1 Monitoring Sources
• National Weather Service watches, warnings, and quantitative precipitation forecasts for the San Marcos Creek watershed.
• County of San Diego Operational Area alerts and emergency management notifications. • City field observations of San Marcos Creek water level, bridge debris, levee condition, storm drain outfall condition, and interior drainage ponding.
• USGS or other available stream/rain gage information for San Marcos Creek or nearby watershed indicators, if applicable and confirmed by the City.
• Project-specific surveyed staff gage or reference mark at the Discovery Street interior drainage outfall, recommended for final plan implementation.
183

5. Emergency Response Actions
Phase Actions
Preparedness /
pre-season
Review ERP and contact list; inspect levee, bridge interfaces, outfall, inlets, headwalls, and LakeView ditches; confirm access routes; clear sediment/debris as needed; verify availability of barricades, pumps if used by City, sandbags, rock, plastic sheeting, lighting, radios, PPE, and traffic control devices.

Initial response Upon Level 1 activation, assign a field lead, initiate situation log, confirm forecast and field conditions, and inspect the Discovery outfall, H-5/H-6 ditch areas, Via Vera Cruz bridge, Bent Avenue bridge, Discovery Street drainage inlets, and levee slopes/crest.

High-water patrol During Level 2 or higher, patrol at intervals set by the field lead based on rate of rise, weather, daylight, access, and safety. Inspect for seepage, sand boils, sloughing, erosion, animal burrows, cracking, settlement, low spots, debris blockage, bridge scour, and storm drain backwater.

Flood fighting Use sandbags, temporary diversion, inlet clearing, erosion protection, and emergency pumping only when directed by the incident/field lead and only where safe. If a pump is used temporarily, document location, capacity, start/stop times, discharge point, and observed performance.

Public safety
coordination
If observed or forecast conditions could affect residences, mobile homes, Discovery Street, bridge approaches, or evacuation routes, notify emergency management and public safety officials immediately. Public warning or evacuation decisions remain with the appropriate emergency authority.

Post-event Inspect entire levee and drainage system after water recedes. Document highwater marks, erosion, sediment deposition, debris, blocked drains, damaged slopes or pavement, and ditch/backwater extent. Complete corrective maintenance and update this ERP based on lessons learned.

6. Interior Drainage Operations
The 2016 memorandum describes the Discovery Street system as a gravity interior drainage system discharging to San Marcos Creek. It does not describe pumps, tide gates, flap gates, sluice gates, or other mechanized drainage features. Therefore, this draft ERP treats the operational plan as a monitoring, inspection, debris-removal, and emergency-response plan rather than a mechanical-closure operating procedure. If levee internal drainage systems are updated or changed to mechanical components, this section must be revised before adoption. 184
Condition Expected system behavior Operational response Normal rainfall / low
creek tailwater
Runoff captured by inlets and
headwalls and routed through
pipes/junction structures by gravity
to San Marcos Creek.

Maintain inlets, pipes, headwalls, and
outfall free of debris and sediment.

High San Marcos Creek
tailwater with positive
interior runoff
Interior HGL rises but modeled
trunk-line HGL/EGL remain
subsurface for the selected
design; H-5/H-6 ditches are the
critical locations for localized
impacts.

Monitor outfall tailwater and H-5/H-6
ditch water levels. Confirm drainage
remains within engineered ditches
and does not threaten residential
structures.

Ultimate 100-year creek
tailwater without
positive interior flow
Backwater from San Marcos
Creek can extend into the
LakeView Mobile Estates ditch
area under ultimate conditions, but
the memo states it remains
contained in existing engineered
concrete ditches.

Coordinate with emergency
management if backwater
approaches top of ditch, occupied
structures, or evacuation/access
routes. Document extent and highwater marks.

Obstruction / blocked
inlet / bridge debris
Hydraulic performance may be
reduced, potentially increasing
interior ponding or localized
flooding.

Remove debris only if safe. Barricade
hazardous areas. Notify emergency
management if blockage threatens
structures or public access.

System distress or
unexpected flooding
Observed conditions exceed
assumptions in technical
memorandum.

Escalate to Level 3 or 4, notify City
Engineer/emergency management,
and consider evacuation coordination
if occupied structures may be
affected.

6.1 No-Mechanical-System Statement for FEMA Review
Based on the reviewed 2016 technical memorandum, the Discovery Street interior drainage system is a gravity drainage system and “does not utilize a tide gate structure.” No mechanized pump station or automatic closure is identified in that memorandum. Therefore, the FEMA requirement for operation/testing of mechanized portions is addressed by documenting that none are identified in the available technical basis, while retaining inspection and response procedures for the gravity outlets, headwalls, inlets, and bridge/levee interfaces.
185

7. Evacuation Coordination and Public Warning
This ERP does not independently order evacuations. It establishes when the levee operator should notify emergency management and public safety officials so that protective actions can be implemented under the City/County emergency management system.

Evacuation planning
element ERP provision
Area of concern Areas landward/south of the Discovery Street levee and interior drainage system, including LakeView Mobile Estates ditch interface and adjacent public/private facilities protected by the levee. Final evacuation limits should be confirmed by City emergency management using current parcel, roadway, and inundation information.

Evacuation triggers Level 3 or Level 4 activation; backwater or interior ponding approaching occupied structures; levee seepage/sand boils/erosion or imminent overtopping; bridge or road closure affecting access; or direction by incident command.

Public warning channels AlertSanDiego / County emergency alert systems, City public information channels, law enforcement/fire notification, reverse 911/WEA if authorized, door-to-door notification where required, and accessible messaging for mobile home park residents. Confirm final channels with City/County OES.

Evacuation routes Use routes designated by incident command based on current road/bridge conditions. Potential local routes include Discovery Street, Via Vera Cruz, Bent Avenue, and connecting arterials, subject to closure status and field conditions.

Special populations Coordinate with mobile home park management and public safety officials for residents requiring additional notification or evacuation assistance.

7.1 Sample Public Warning Message Templates
Condition Draft message
High water advisory San Marcos Creek is rising near Discovery Street. City crews are monitoring the levee and drainage system. Avoid the creek, drainage ditches, and closed roads. Monitor official City and County emergency information.

Evacuation warning Flooding or levee/drainage-system concerns may affect the Discovery Street area. Prepare to evacuate if directed. Gather essential items, 186
Condition Draft message
medications, pets, and important documents. Follow instructions from public safety officials.

Evacuation order Evacuate the affected Discovery Street / LakeView area now as directed by public safety officials. Use designated routes and avoid flooded roads, San Marcos Creek, and drainage channels.

8. Training, Inspection, Documentation, and Updates
Program element Minimum procedure
Annual pre-season review Review ERP, contact list, access routes, flood-warning sources, and field inspection locations before the rainy season.

Annual inspection Inspect levee, bridge interfaces, outfall, inlets, headwalls, pipes as accessible, and LakeView ditch interface at least once per year and after significant storm events.

Training / tabletop exercise Conduct annual tabletop or field exercise covering activation triggers, inspection assignments, communication, public warning coordination, and documentation.

Mechanized features If later confirmed, operate/test pumps, gates, or automatic systems at least annually and document manual backup procedures.

Logs and documentation Maintain logs of forecasts, field observations, water levels, photos, public notifications, maintenance actions, pump use if any, and postevent findings.

Plan updates Update after any significant event, physical modification, change in responsible personnel, new as-built information, or FEMA/City review comment.
187

9. FEMA Requirements Crosswalk
FEMA reviewer item / 44
CFR element
Where addressed in
ERP Justification
Flood warning system used to
trigger emergency operation
activities
Sections 4 and 4.1 Uses NWS/County/City monitoring plus project-specific hydraulic elevations from
the technical memorandum.

Recommends a surveyed staff gage at
the outfall to convert model WSEs into
practical field triggers.

Formal plan of operation for
closures and mechanized
portions of interior drainage
system
Sections 5 and 6 The memo describes a gravity drainage
system and states no tide gate is used;
no pumps/mechanical systems were
identified. The plan therefore provides
formal inspection/response procedures
and flags need for revision if as-built
mechanical features exist.

Person by name or title
responsible for emergency
operation activities
Section 3 Assigns roles by title: Public Works
Director, Operations
Manager/Maintenance Superintendent,
Emergency Services, City Engineer, PIO,
law enforcement. Names can be added
for adopted version.

Plans for public evacuation
covering communities within
the levee system
Section 7 Provides evacuation coordination triggers,
affected area description, potential routes,
public-warning channels, and specialpopulation coordination. Final routing must be confirmed by City emergency
management.

Documentation showing plan
has been officially adopted
Cover page and Section
8 / adoption placeholder
Adoption language and
resolution/approval documentation must
be added by the City or responsible
levee-maintaining agency prior to final
submittal.

Applicable federal, state, and
local laws/regulations
Sections 1, 3, 7, 8, 11 References FEMA levee accreditation criteria, California SEMS/ICS planning
framework, and City/County emergencymanagement coordination. 188

10. Source Go-Bys and Justification Matrix
Source / go-by How it was used Reasonable adaptation for Discovery Street
44 CFR 65.10(c)(2) Interior
Drainage Systems
Core organization for flood
warning, formal operations,
responsible titles, manual
backup/mechanical testing, and
inspections.

Discovery system appears gravityonly; therefore the plan documents monitoring/inspection
and requires revision if
mechanical features are
confirmed.
44 CFR 65.10(c) Operation
Plans and Criteria
Used to state that levee
operations must be under an
appropriate agency and that
adopted operation documentation
is needed.

Responsible City titles and
adoption placeholder included.

FEMA Guidance for Flood
Risk Analysis and
Mapping: Levees
(Guidance Document 95)
Used as FEMA
mapping/accreditation context and
to align plan terminology with
accredited levee review.

ERP structured to respond directly
to FEMA review comment
language.

DHS/FEMA Emergency
Preparedness Guidelines
for Levees
Used for plan elements: projectfeature mapping, activation authority, communication
protocols, supplies, training,
exercises, patrols, flood-fighting
actions, and public outreach.

Converted broad national
guidance into a small local
levee/gravity-drainage plan.

Cal OES Flood
Preparedness Guide for
Levee Maintaining
Agencies
Used for California SEMS/ICS,
levee-maintaining agency
responsibilities, local/operationalarea coordination, flood-fight preparedness, and
documentation.

Plan assigns local field and
emergency-management roles
and relies on City/County
Operational Area coordination.

Discovery Street Interior
Drainage System Study
(Parsons, May 5, 2016)
Used for project facts, watersurface elevations, drainage operation, H-5/H-6 critical
locations, backwater behavior,
and no-tide-gate statement.

ERP trigger elevations and
inspection locations are tied
directly to the hydraulic memo
rather than generic thresholds.
189

11. References
• 44 CFR 65.10, Mapping of Areas Protected by Levee Systems, Electronic Code of Federal Regulations / Legal Information Institute. Accessed June 2026.
• FEMA, Guidance for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping: Levees, Guidance Document 95, November 2019. • DHS/FEMA, Emergency Preparedness Guidelines for Levees: A Guide for Owners and Operators, 2018 FEMA edition / 2012 USACE public-domain edition.
• California Governor's Office of Emergency Services, Flood Preparedness Guide for Levee Maintaining Agencies, Flood Emergency Action Team guidance.
• Parsons, San Marcos Creek District - Phase 1, Discovery Street Interior Drainage System Study, Technical Memorandum, May 5, 2016.
• Fuscoe Engineering, Drainage Study, San Marcos Creek District Phase 1, November 2015, included as Attachment F to the Parsons memorandum.

Appendix A - Adoption / Approval Record Placeholder
Attach City Council resolution, Public Works Director approval memorandum, agency board action, or other official adoption/acceptance documentation here. FEMA review comment item (v) should not be considered complete until adoption documentation is included or the FEMA reviewer accepts a schedule/commitment for adoption prior to accreditation.

Appendix B - Field Inspection Log Template
Date/time Inspector Location Observed condition Action taken Photo/file reference

190
City of San Marcos
Staff Report
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
File #:TMP-2507
MEETING DATE:

September 8, 2026
SUBJECT:

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-9657 - DELEGATING TO AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE, FINALIZE, AND EXECUTE CONTRACT AMENDMENTS FOR THE 2026 SURFACE SEAL PROJECT (CIP# ST011-2)
Recommendation
ADOPT a resolution delegating to and authorizing the City Manager to negotiate, finalize, and execute contract amendments for the 2026 Surface Seal Project (CIP# ST011-2).

Board or Commission Action
Not Applicable
Executive Summary
The purchasing provisions of the San Marcos Municipal Code authorize the City Manager to issue and execute contract change orders up to the amount of $250,000 for contracts having an initial value of $2,500,000 or less, or up to ten percent of the initial contract value for contracts having an initial value of more than $2,500,000. Cumulative changes to a contract exceeding these two criteria require approval by the City Council.

Discussion
The 2026 Surface Seal Project (CIP# ST011-2, “Project”) is currently under construction and includes pavement repairs and preventative maintenance activities along Borden Road, Melrose Drive, Montiel Road, and Questhaven Road, as well as numerous residential streets throughout the city. The Project contract was awarded to American Asphalt South in the amount of $2,096,747.57. The Project includes removing and replacing localized failed pavement areas, crack sealing, slurry sealing, pavement striping, and enhancing bike lanes by adding buffers where feasible.

Since the time of project design and contract award, many of the roads included in this project have experienced further deterioration due to continued substantial vehicle use, weather impacts, and utility trenches, resulting in higher quantities of repairs than originally anticipated. Additionally, there have been several Vallecitos Water District (VWD) water line breaks on roads that are included in this year’s surface seal project which require localized road repairs. In an effort to streamline construction activities and reduce impacts to the public, the City is partnering with VWD to address these road repairs. Per the cost sharing agreement between the City and VWD, VWD will reimburse the City for the costs associated for these road repairs done by the City’s contractor relating to these water line breaks.

City of San Marcos Page 1 of 2 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™191
File #:TMP-2507
These changes and additional work are necessary for the project; however, they necessitate a contract change order above the City Manager’s authorization amount set forth in San Marcos Municipal Code section

2.30.030(c). The proposed resolution would delegate to the City Manager the authority to negotiate, finalize, and execute amendments to the existing contract more than ten percent of the original amount, and still within the project budget.

Environmental Review
The proposed delegation and authorization comprising this action is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines and is therefore not subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15060(c)(3).

Fiscal Impact
The funds for this action are budgeted as CIP# ST011 in the approved FY 2026-27 Capital Improvement Program budget. Approval of this action does not result in a change to the project budget. Authority will be given to the City Manager to execute change orders as necessary to complete the project within the approved budget and project appropriations, in conjunction with any other obligations of the project budget.

Attachment(s)
Resolution
Prepared by: Emad Elias, Senior Civil Engineer
Submitted by: Darra Woods, Principal Civil Engineer
Reviewed by: Isaac Etchamendy, Director of Development Services Approved by: Michelle Bender, City Manager
City of San Marcos Page 2 of 2 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™192
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XXXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS DELEGATING

TO AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE, FINALIZE, AND EXECUTE CONTRACT AMENDMENTS FOR THE 2026 SURFACE SEAL PROJECT (CIP# ST011-2) WHEREAS, the 2026 Surface Seal Project (Project) is a construction project to repair and maintain pavement and other improvements within the City of San Marcos; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the construction documents and delegated authority to the City Manager to award, finalize, and execute the construction contract documents for the Project on February 24th 2026; and
WHEREAS, due to ongoing pavement deterioration following contract award the City will revise and increase the pavement repair and preservations limits and methodology for portions of the Project to avoid delays in repairing the road; and WHEREAS, several Vallecitos Water District (VWD) water line breaks occurred on roads that are included in this year’s surface seal project which require localized road repairs; and WHEREAS, in an effort to streamline construction activities and reduce impacts to the public, the City is partnering with VWD to address these road repairs under an existing cost sharing agreement in which VWD will reimburse the City for the costs associated for these road repairs done by the City’s contractor relating to these water line breaks; and WHEREAS, the Project budget has sufficient funds to accommodate these additional roadway repair costs; and
WHEREAS, the purchasing provisions of Chapter 2.30 of the San Marcos Municipal Code permit the City Manager to authorize change orders for a contract up to ten percent of the original contract amount; and
WHEREAS, this additional work will exceed the City Manager’s authority under the San Marcos Municipal Code.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows:

The City Council hereby delegates to and authorizes the City Manager to negotiate, finalize, and execute amendments to the construction Contract in excess of ten percent limit contained in the San Marcos Municipal Code section 2.30.030(c), provided that no combination of such 193
amendments of the Contract or other allocated expenses will exceed the approved and appropriated Project budget.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of San Marcos, California, this 8th day of September 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Rebecca D. Jones, Mayor
City of San Marcos
ATTEST:

Phillip Scollick, City Clerk
City of San Marcos
194
City of San Marcos
Staff Report
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
File #:TMP-2511
MEETING DATE:

September 8, 2026
SUBJECT:

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-9658 - REPEALING RESOLUTIONS 2002-5865 AND 2022-9034 RELATING TO

SAN MARCOS BOULEVARD RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION AND EXCAVATION WORKING HOURS

AND ASSOCIATED WAIVER PROCESS
Recommendation
ADOPT a resolution repealing Resolutions 2002-5865 and 2022-9034 limiting construction and excavation working hours within the San Marcos Boulevard right-of-way and providing a waiver process relating to the same.

Board or Commission Action
Not applicable
Executive Summary
Resolution 2002-5865 limits routine maintenance, repair and/or installation work along the San Marcos Boulevard public right-of-way, from Knoll Road to the westerly city limits, that necessitates a lane closure, in either direction to night time off-peak hours or on weekends. Resolution 2022-9034 provides a waiver process relating to the restrictions. The proposed resolution would repeal Resolutions 2002-5865 and 2022-9034 in their entirety.

Discussion
On May 14, 2002, City Council executed Resolution 2002-5865 which limited routine maintenance, repair and/or installation work along the San Marcos Boulevard public right-of-way, from Knoll Road to the westerly city limits, that necessitated a lane closure, in either direction to night time off-peak hours (7:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.) or on weekends. This resolution was enacted to help address traffic congestion and delays resulting from this type of work due to the significant residential and commercial growth and increased traffic in the City.

However, in doing so the Resolution limited City staff’s ability to perform repairs and other types of routine maintenance along San Marcos Boulevard due to the increased cost and complexity of completing these tasks during the designated off-peak hours. Therefore, on June 28, 2022, City Council approved Resolution 2022- 9034 allowing a permanent waiver for City staff and designated City contractors performing these types of routine maintenance, to work weekdays during the City’s typical standard daytime working hours. However, these waivers have become a more common and frequent item as it is more cost-effective and time-efficient to complete these projects during typical standard daytime working hours. Additionally with advances in traffic signal timing, detection, and coordination software and technologies traffic congestion and delays on San City of San Marcos Page 1 of 2 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™195
File #:TMP-2511
Marcos Boulevard can be mitigated thereby still adhering to the intent of the original Resolution.

With these factors in consideration, and in an effort to better align and provide consistency on City policies pertaining to construction related activities and working hours on San Marcos Boulevard and other arterial roadways, the recommended Resolution would repeal Resolutions 2002-5865 and 2022-90234. Repeal of the same would not alter the ability of the City Manager, or their designee, to review and require projects, at their discretion, that are deemed to substantially impact traffic conditions along San Marcos Boulevard to be constructed during night time off-peak hours or weekends on a project However -by-project basis. This would apply to the construction working hours relating to private land development projects and right-of-way encroachment permits on San Marcos Boulevard. Additionally, permits and other approvals found to affect traffic will continue to be conditioned to perform work during off-peak times or at night.

Environmental Review
The proposed action is not a “project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 - 15387), and is therefore not subject to environmental review pursuant to Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3).

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact directly associated with this Resolution, however, by repealing Resolutions 2002- 5865 and 2022-9034 allowing typical standard daytime working hours for City related CIP public works projects, should result in reduced construction related costs which would reduce costs to CIP budgets associated for work on San Marcos Boulevard.

Attachment(s)
Proposed Resolution
Resolution 2002-5865
Resolution 2022-9034
Prepared by: Darra Woods, Principal Civil Engineer
Submitted by: Darra Woods, Principal Civil Engineer
Reviewed by: Isaac Etchamendy, Director of Development Services Approved by: Michelle Bender, City Manager
City of San Marcos Page 2 of 2 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™196
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XXXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN MARCOS REPEALING RESOLUTIONS 2002-5865
AND 2022-9034 (LIMITING CONSTRUCTION AND

EXCAVATION WORKING HOURS WITHIN THE SAN

MARCOS BOULEVARD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PROVIDING

A WAIVER PROCESS RELATING TO THE SAME)
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2002, the City Council of the City of San Marcos (City) adopted Resolution 2002-5865 which specified that work within the San Marcos Boulevard public right-of-way, from Knoll Road to the westerly city limits, which necessitated a lane closure, in either direction, occur during night-time off-peak hours (7:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.) or on weekends; and
WHEREAS, City Council enacted Resolution 2002-5865 in an effort to address traffic congestion and delays resulting from work necessitating a lane closure on San Marcos Boulevard due to the significant residential and commercial growth and increased traffic in the City; and
WHEREAS, due to the City’s various routine maintenance and repair projects which could potentially require lane closures to perform the work, Resolution 2002-5865 was amended on June 28, 2022 by Resolution 2022-9034 to provide a permanent waiver for this type of work during the weekdays; and
WHEREAS, work relating to City Capital Improvement Program (CIP) public works projects was not included as part this permanent waiver, therefore City staff have been required to bring waivers to City Council for approval on a project-by-project basis; and
WHEREAS, these CIP public works project waivers have become a common and frequent item as it is more cost-effective and time-efficient to complete these projects during typical standard daytime working hours; and
WHEREAS, with advances in traffic signal timing, detection, and coordination software and technologies traffic congestion and delays on San Marcos Boulevard due to construction related activities can be mitigated; and WHEREAS, Resolution 2002-5865 and Resolution 2022-9034 are deemed to be no longer necessary, and the City Council now desires to formally repeal each of the same in their entirety; and
197
WHEREAS, the City Council declares that the City Manager, or their designee, continues to have the ability to review and require projects at their discretion that are deemed to substantially impact traffic conditions along San Marcos Boulevard occur during night time off-peak hours or weekends on a project-by-project basis.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Marcos hereby:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full.

2. Resolutions 2002-5865 and 2022-9034, adopted by the City Council on May 14, 2002 and June 28, 2022, respectively, are hereby each repealed in their entirety.

3. The repeal of Resolutions 2002-5865 and Resolution 2022-9034 shall not invalidate or otherwise affect any action lawfully taken pursuant to said Resolutions, or either of them, prior to the effective date of this Resolution.

4. Delegates to and authorizes the City Manager, or their designee, the authority and discretion to require projects that are deemed to substantially impact traffic conditions on any major roadway to occur during night time off-peak hours or on weekends.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of San Marcos, California, this 8
th of September, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Rebecca D. Jones, Mayor
City of San Marcos
ATTEST:

Phillip Scollick, City Clerk
City of San Marcos
198
RESOLUTION NO. 2002 - 5865

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN

MARCOS LIMITING CONSTRUCTION AND EXCAVATION WORK

WITHIN THE SAN MARCOS BOULEVARD RIGHT -OF -WAY TO

NIGHT TIME HOURS WHEN LANE CLOSURE IS REQUIRED OR

ANTICIPATED
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution, and the police powers and public works authority inherent in its status as a chartered municipal corporation, the City of San Marcos ( " the City ") has the right to adopt regulations designed to promote the public convenience or the general prosperity, to promote public health, public morals or the public safety, and to make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws; and
WHEREAS, during the past few years, the City and its surrounding communities have experienced significant residential and commercial growth, a result of which is increased traffic throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, the public convenience, health and safety are adversely affected by work being performed in the rights -of -way of the City' s major roadways during daylight hours and peak traffic times by public and/ or private persons, entities, utilities and agencies; and
WHEREAS, the congestion and delay associated with right -of -way work constitutes a real and substantial hazard as well as an irritant to pedestrians and motorists traveling over, above, along and /or across San Marcos Boulevard in particular, as it is one of the most heavily traversed rights -of -way within the City' s jurisdictional boundaries; and
199
Resolution 2002 -5865

WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that said congestion and delay would be reduced if routine maintenance, repair and /or installation work necessitating a lane closure on San Marcos Boulevard, from Knoll Road to the westerly city limits, be performed during night time off -peak hours or on weekends; and WHEREAS, the City desires to impose such a limitation and direct the City Manager, or his designated representative, to implement the same.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

1. The City Council finds and determines that the above - described recitals are true and correct.

2. The City' s regulations, policies and procedures are hereby modified to require that routine maintenance, repair and /or installation work in the San Marcos Boulevard public right -of -way, from Knoll Road to the westerly city limits, that necessitates a lane closure, in ether direction, must occur during night time off -peak hours ( 7: 00 p. m. to 6: 00 a. m.) or on weekends.

3. The City Manager or his designated representative shall include this requirement for any routine maintenance, repair and /or installation work being performed in the San Marcos Boulevard public right -of -way, from Knoll Road to the westerly city limits, that necessitates a lane closure, in either direction. This requirement will be included, without limitation, for any applicable routine maintenance, repair and /or installation work along San Marcos Boulevard right -of -way, from Knoll Road to the westerly city limits.

4. In the event that emergency work within the specified segments of the San Marcos Boulevard public right -of -way is required because the health, safety and /or 200
Resolution 2002 -5865

welfare of the public is at stake, such work shall constitute an exception to the restrictions set forth in this Resolution 2002 -5865 during the length of the emergency if the City Manager or his designated representative is notified at the earliest feasible time with respect to said emergency and the expected duration thereof .

5. If any term, provision or condition of this Resolution 2002 -5865 is to any extent determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the remaining terms, provisions or conditions of this Resolution 2002 -5865 shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.

6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

7. This Resolution shall be returned to the City Council for review three years from the date of adoption to determine the necessity of the above limitations.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of San Marcos, State of California, at a regular meeting thereof, this 14th day of May, 2002, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: HARRIS, MARTIN, ROZMUS, SMITH
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: THIBADEAU
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
F. H. " Corky Smith yor
City of San Marcos
ATTEST:

Susie Vasquez, City
City of San Marcos
201
202
203
City of San Marcos
Staff Report
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
File #:TMP-2505
MEETING DATE:

September 8, 2026
SUBJECT:

ORDINANCE NO. 2026-1582 - ADDING CHAPTER 20.270 TO THE SAN MARCOS MUNICIPAL CODE AND

AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO ESTABLISH A SENIOR MOBILEHOME PARK OVERLAY ZONE OVER

SEVEN EXISTING NON-RESIDENT-OWNED SENIOR MOBILEHOME PARKS IN SAN MARCOS Recommendation
INTRODUCE (First Reading) Ordinance 2026-1582, an Ordinance adding Chapter 20.270 (Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone) to the San Marcos Municipal Code and amending the Zoning Map to establish a Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone, and Notice of Exemption (EX 26-042).

Board or Commission Action
Not Applicable
Executive Summary
Staff recommends that City Council amend the San Marcos Municipal Code (“SMMC”) to create a Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone (“Overlay Zone”) in seven existing senior restricted (55+) mobilehome parks in the City of San Marcos. The proposed ordinance would add Chapter 20.270 to the SMMC, establishing the Overlay Zone. Additionally, the proposed ordinance would modify the San Marcos Zoning Map to identify the areas subject to the Overlay Zone. S-RMHP (Senior Residential Mobilehome Park) will appear as a designation over the seven identified parks.

LOCATION/APN:

SEVEN MOBILEHOME PARKS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, LOCATED AT:

1. EL DORADO, 1515 CAPALINA RD., SAN MARCOS, CA, 92069, APNS: 219-116-02-00.

2. LAKEVIEW ESTATES, 809 DISCOVERY ST., SAN MARCOS, CA 92078, APNS: 221-062-09-00; 221-062- 10-00.

3. PALOMAR ESTATES EAST, 650 S. RANCHO SANTA FE RD., SAN MARCOS, CA 92078, APNS: 221-023- 03-00; 221-023-04-00.

4. PALOMAR ESTATES WEST, 1930 W. SAN MARCOS BLVD., SAN MARCOS, CA 92078, APNS: 221-023- 15-00.

5. RANCHO VALLECITOS MOBILE ESTATES, 3535 LINDA VISTA DR., SAN MARCOS, CA 92078, APNS:
219-023-01-00; 219-241-30-00; 219-241-34-00.

6. SAN MARCOS MOBILE STATES, 1145 E. BARHAM DR., SAN MARCOS, 92078, APNS: 228-310-66-00.

City of San Marcos Page 1 of 6 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™204
File #:TMP-2505

7. VALLE VERDE ESTATES, 1286 DISCOVERY ST., SAN MARCOS, CA 92078, APNS: 221-041-74-00.

Discussion
Housing shortages, instability, and demographic trends in California highlight the critical need to preserve senior housing opportunities in communities such as the City of San Marcos. The population aged 55 and older is projected to increase by 12.5% between 2020 and 2050 and is expected to comprise nearly 40% of San Diego county’s population by 2050. As the senior population grows, the need for age-restricted housing will continue to increase. The Economic Research Institute identified San Marcos as a high-cost community based a review of the cost of food, transportation, health services, rent, utilities, taxes, etc.; as such, protecting housing for vulnerable populations is even more essential. The average monthly rent for a 2-bedroom apartment in San Marcos, as of August 2026, is $2,953. Risk of homelessness is also a growing concern, as one in three individuals experiencing homelessness in San Diego county is age 55 or older, and the numbers of seniors in the county experiencing homelessness for the first time rose by 5% in in 2025.

Given these demographic and housing trends, preserving the existing inventory of age-restricted housing is an important strategy for maintaining housing options for older adults. One category of housing that serves this need is senior mobilehome parks, which provide relatively affordable housing opportunities for residents on fixed or limited incomes.

A senior mobilehome park is a mobilehome park with an occupancy requirement that ensures at least one resident in 80% of the units is 55 years of age or older. Some parks may impose additional age restrictions through their park Rules and Regulations.

There are currently 7 non-resident-owned senior mobilehome parks in San Marcos that are potentially at risk of conversion to non-age-restricted housing; resident-owned parks have an ability to make age restriction decisions collectively:

1. El Dorado Mobilehome Park,

2. Lakeview Mobile Estates,

3. Palomar Estates East,

4. Palomar Estates West,

5. Rancho Vallecitos Mobile Estates,

6. San Marcos Mobile Estates, and

7. Valle Verde Estates.

The proposed Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone would establish a zoning regulation requiring compliance with the senior occupancy standards in the seven parks identified above. The seven mobilehome parks consist of 1804 total mobilehome spaces combined. The proposed ordinance will preserve at least eighty percent of those spaces (1,443), for housing for seniors 55 and older. The other 9 mobilehome parks within the city that are either currently operated as all ages parks or resident-owned parks will not be affected.

City of San Marcos Page 2 of 6 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™205
File #:TMP-2505
Statutory and Regulatory Support
Federal law permits senior housing, such as the proposed Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone, pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, the Housing for Older Persons Act, U.S. Department Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations, and applicable federal case law. The California Unruh Civil Rights Act also permits agerestricted mobilehome housing when the applicable occupancy requirements are consistent with the Fair Housing Act.

Senior housing developments are generally permitted when the following elements are met:
· At least 80% of the occupied units are occupied by at least one person who is 55 years of age or older, and
· The housing facility or community publishes and adheres to policies and procedures that demonstrate City of San Marcos Page 3 of 6 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™206
File #:TMP-2505
the necessary intent to operate as housing for older persons, and · The housing facility or community verifies occupancy through established means of compliance.

HUD has previously interpreted the elements to allow a municipality to function as the housing facility or community and to allow an ordinance or other municipal action to demonstrate the required intent. HUD regulations identify several factors that may demonstrate such intent, including:
· Zoning maps containing the “senior housing” designation are available to the public; · Literature distributed by the area describes the area as “senior housing”; · The “senior housing” designation is recorded in accordance with local property records or other applicable procedures; and
· Zoning requirements include the 55-and-older occupancy requirement or a similar provision.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has confirmed the municipal authority to protect senior housing through local regulation; however, that authority is currently being challenged in pending litigation, in part because the underlying concept of judicial deference to regulatory agency interpretations of federal law has been called into question. The ultimate disposition of these challenges and the timing of any final decision that may affect senior housing overlay zones is currently unknown; it may be some time until a final determination is made. In the interim, senior housing represented by mobilehome units remains at risk for conversion to all-age occupancy.

In addition to the current legal challenges, state legislation in the form of AB 2596 was introduced, inter alia, to reference state and local requirements in the event a park owner fails or elects not to comply with federal requirements, and to provide municipal authority to conduct age verification surveys if the park owner refuses to comply with federal requirements including, but not limited to, the Housing for Older Persons Act. AB 2596 has passed both the Assembly and the Senate, and awaits the Governor’s signature as of the date this report was entered.

Community Benefits
Creation of the Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone will protect a vulnerable population and will aid the preservation of housing stability within the City of San Marcos. The Overlay Zone will help ensure that existing senior mobilehome parks, as well as any future senior parks, continue to provide age-restricted housing opportunities for older adults. It will also provide greater certainty for residents who chose to live in these communities based on their established senior status.

Mobilehome residents often face significant barriers to relocation. Moving a mobilehome can be prohibitively expensive, and available spaces within other mobilehome parks are often limited or unavailable. As a result, displacement can create substantial housing challenges, particularly for older adults living on fixed incomes.

Senior mobilehome parks provide a unique housing option that supports aging in place by offering relatively affordable housing opportunities in communities designed for older adults. These communities promote independent living while fostering social connections, stability, and a living environment tailored to the needs and expectations of senior residents.

City of San Marcos Page 4 of 6 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™207
File #:TMP-2505
Environmental Review
The proposed amendment to the San Marcos Municipal Code, which would add Chapter 20.270 establishing a Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone, does not constitute a “project” as defined under section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) set forth at California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15060(c)(3), the proposed action is not subject to CEQA and no environmental review is required.

In addition, if the proposed action were determined to be a project under CEQA, it would be exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), the common sense exemption, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility of a significant effect on the environment. The proposed amendment establishes occupancy requirements for existing senior mobilehome parks and does not authorize or require new development, physical changes to the environment, and/or changes in land use.

Rather, it recognizes and preserves existing age-restricted mobilehome park communities. Therefore, the proposed action would not result in any potential environmental impacts.

Fiscal Impact
The proposed ordinance is not anticipated to cause a significant fiscal impact.

Planning Commission
This proposed ordinance was presented to the Planning Commission on July 6, 2026, where it was recommended to City Council for approval by a unanimous vote.

Following the Planning Commission’s recommendation to City Council for approval of TA24-0005 on July 6, 2026, a change to the proposed text amendment to Title 20 has updated the ordinance text to simply describe the seven subject mobilehome parks by their underlying Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN), removing the individual coach owner APNs, to ensure the overlay runs with the land in case of any County Assessor changes to coach ownership APNs. Please see Attachment F reflecting the errata changes. The change does not affect the reach and/or scope of the proposed ordinance, nor does it change the operational provisions of the ordinance.

Public Comment
A publicly noticed community workshop regarding the proposed Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone was conducted on September 4, 2025. Eighty-three members of the public signed in as attendees.

Comments received during the workshop primarily requested information regarding the legal challenges that had delayed consideration of the proposed overlay ordinance and sought clarification regarding the purpose and effect of the proposed Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone. Workshop participants generally expressed support for the proposed action, citing the importance of preserving senior housing opportunities and maintaining the existing age-restricted status of mobilehome parks that provide affordable housing options for senior residents.

In addition to comments received at the workshop, three written public comments were submitted in response City of San Marcos Page 5 of 6 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™208
File #:TMP-2505
In addition to comments received at the workshop, three written public comments were submitted in response to the workshop notice, and three additional comments were received following notice of the Planning Commission hearing. These comments are included as Attachment D.

City staff contacted two residents to clarify the intent of the Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay action proposed, as their comments showed they initially interpreted the proposed action as a conversion of senior mobilehome parks to all-ages parks. Staff clarified that the proposed Residential Mobilehome Park Senior Overlay is intended to preserve and protect the existing senior age restrictions within the affected mobilehome parks and to prohibit their conversion to non-age-restricted communities. Responsive communications are also included in Attachment D.

Eight speakers provided public comments at the July 6, 2026, Planning Commission hearing. Comments were generally supportive of the proposed Text Amendment and establishment of the Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay as a means of preserving the age-restricted status of the existing non-resident-owned senior mobilehome parks.

Some commenters requested clarification of the project description included in the Planning Commission Notice of Public Hearing, indicating that the description was interpreted by some residents as allowing conversion of the affected parks to all-age occupancy. City staff subsequently revised the project description for the City Council Notice of Public Hearing to clarify that the proposed amendment would preserve the 55- and-older age-restricted status of the seven affected mobilehome parks.

Attachment(s)

1. Ordinance 2026-1582 - Adding SMMC Chapter 20.270
A. Clean version of Ordinance Adopting SMMC Chapter 20.270 B. Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Map
C. Notice of Exemption (EX 26-042)
D. Public Comment
E. Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
F. Errata to proposed SMMC Chapter 20.270 following Planning Commission Approval Prepared by: Jacqueline Paterno, Deputy City Attorney
Sarah Cluff, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Sean del Solar, Principal Planner / Sustainability Program Manager Sylvia Daniels, Housing and Neighborhood Services Director Joseph Farace, Planning Division Director
Isaac Etchamendy, Development Services Director / City Engineer Submitted by: Helen Holmes Peak, City Attorney
Reviewed by: Michelle Bender, City Manager
City of San Marcos Page 6 of 6 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™209
ORDINANCE NO. 2026-1582

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS,
CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 20.270 TO THE SAN

MARCOS MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDING THE

ZONING MAP TO ESTABLISH A SENIOR MOBILEHOME

PARK OVERLAY ZONE OVER THE SEVEN EXISTING

NON-RESIDENT-OWNED SENIOR MOBILEHOME PARKS

IN SAN MARCOS, AND FINDING THAT SAID

AMENDMENTS ARE EXEMPT FROM REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
TA24-0005
City of San Marcos
WHEREAS, the City of San Marcos (“City”) General Plan Housing Element includes policies and goals for senior oriented development, and establishes the City’s objective to maintain housing for special needs groups, such as seniors, as well as provide additional housing for senior residents; and
WHEREAS, affordable senior rental housing in the City of San Marcos is insufficient, senior-oriented housing accounts for only 5.8% of the City’s total housing stock – 2,024 units out of 34,817. This significant disparity demonstrates a clear dearth of housing options available to the City’s senior population; and WHEREAS, according to the California Department of Finance, the share of people in the 55 and older age group is anticipated to continue to grow in the decades ahead, projected to increase by 12.5% from 2020-2050 and comprising almost 40% of the population in San Diego County by 2050; and
WHEREAS, housing vulnerability due to high cost of living is particularly egregious in the City of San Marcos, a high cost of living city; and WHEREAS, as of August 2026, the average rent in the City of San Marcos for a two-bedroom unit was $2,953; and
WHEREAS, as of 2019, 483 senior households in the City of San Marcos are below the poverty level when the median income of households aged 65 and older is $57,054, significantly less than the overall median household income of $80,814; and WHEREAS, a significant number of mobile home park residents in the City of San Marcos are senior citizens with fixed incomes, limiting their ability to maintain a dignified standard of living, respond to housing instability, or a financial crisis; and WHEREAS, according to the San Diego Regional Task Force on Homelessness, one in three people experiencing homelessness in San Diego County are age 55 and 210
Ordinance No. 2026-1582
TA24-0005
July 6, 2026

older; and
WHEREAS, as noted in the above resource, seniors experiencing homelessness for the first time rose 5% in San Diego County in 2025; and WHEREAS, the new regulations are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City, particularly those tenants or residents who are over 55 years of age in mobilehome parks within the special needs group; and WHEREAS, senior restricted mobilehome parks are faced with the threat of converting those facilities to all-age mobilehome parks which would allow residents of any age to reside in that community, and such conversions to non-age restricted housing would result in the loss of existing predominantly senior only housing and would have detrimental impacts on the senior citizens of the community; and WHEREAS, mobilehome park conversions to non-senior housing results in a loss of existing senior only housing available within the City, and this loss of affordable senior housing in the City creates a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the seniors in the City; and
WHEREAS, mobilehome residents face unique hardship in finding alternative housing as relocation of a mobilehome coach is difficult or impossible, creating an acute reliance on the availability of an existing mobilehome rental space; and WHEREAS, in contrast to other senior housing in the City, mobilehome parks afford seniors the ability to live in their own homes rather than in apartments and provide a senior living community in a low-rise setting that typically provides a clubhouse for community events and socializing as well as recreational facilities inside the park so that residents can easily walk to these facilities and events; and WHEREAS, the decision to purchase mobilehomes in senior-only parks was often based on the understanding that these parks would only accept residents who meet the age requirement of being 55 years of age or older, which would be significantly changed were the park(s) in question to become all-ages parks; and WHEREAS, the existing amenities and services in the park may change or be reconfigured to cater to the needs of all-age residents and this could mean a reduction in amenities tailored to seniors, affecting their quality of life; and WHEREAS, some seniors may have chosen to live in a senior-only park because of health-related reasons and the stress or disruption caused by the conversion could potentially impact their health and well-being; and
WHEREAS, the use of Civil Code Section 798.25 to convert senior mobilehome 211
Ordinance No. 2026-1582
TA24-0005
July 6, 2026

parks without the consent and despite the objections of the senior residents undermines the protections that seniors relied upon prior to entering into their existing leases in the self-designated senior parks; and
WHEREAS, it is essential to recognize the unique needs and vulnerabilities of senior citizens and to ensure that they are not subject to housing instability, and emotional distress due to sudden changes in park regulations; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to protect the rights and quality of life of its senior residents, recognizing their contributions to the community and the importance of meeting their unique housing needs; and
WHEREAS, the California Mobilehome Park Residency Law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and the Federal Fair Housing Act each recognize the need for and value of senior housing by expressly exempting facilities in which 80 percent of the units are occupied by at least one person who is 55 years of age or older from the requirement to rent to families with children; and
WHEREAS, in enacting this ordinance, the City Council would rely on the City’s police power and home rule authority pursuant to Article XI, Sections 5 and 7 of the California Constitution to enact and enforce ordinances and regulations for the public health, safety, and welfare of the City and its residents; and WHEREAS, the Housing for Older Persons Act amendments to the Federal Fair Housing Act, 47 U.S.C.§3607(b), and the provisions of the implementing regulations set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (24 CFR 100.304(b)(4)) and the Appendix thereto (64 Fed.Reg. 16331) provide that a senior housing facility or community includes a municipally zoned area and that an area zoned by a unit of local government as "senior housing" satisfies the intent requirement of the senior housing exemption from the provisions of the Fair Housing Act prohibiting discrimination based on familial status; and WHEREAS, the Federal Fair Housing Act, California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and California Mobilehome Park Residency law each legislatively permit local regulation of mobile home park housing to provide "housing for older persons" to include housing that is restricted to occupancy of at least 80 percent of units by at least one person who is age 55 or older; and
WHEREAS, the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 51 et seq.) allows establishment of mobile home housing that is age-restricted where such restrictions are consistent with the Federal Fair Housing Act and its subsequent amendments and existing implementing regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City would intend that any ordinance enacted for the protection of housing for older persons be consistent with, comply with and implement the Federal Fair 212
Ordinance No. 2026-1582
TA24-0005
July 6, 2026

Housing Act as amended by the Housing for Older Persons Act and the California statues providing senior housing exemptions from statutes prohibiting restrictions in housing based on age and familial status; and
WHEREAS, an ordinance would codify the City's intent to provide "housing for older persons," consistent with the Housing for Older Persons Act amendments to the Federal Fair Housing Act 42 U.S.C. §3607(b) and the provisions for implementation as set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (24 CFR §100.304(b)(4)) and the Appendix thereto (64 Fed.Reg. 16331), which provide that a permissible senior housing facility or community includes a municipally zoned area, and which zone, when established, satisfies the "intent" requirement of the "housing for older persons" exemption from the provisions of the Fair Housing Act prohibiting discrimination based on-familial status; and WHEREAS, amendment of the San Marcos Municipal Code (“SMMC”) to add Chapter 20.270 establishing a senior mobilehome park overlay zone that would recognize and retain the existing use, does not propose a change in the same, and does not constitute a “project” as defined under section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) set forth at California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15060(c)(3), no environmental review is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the proposed actions contemplated hereunder qualify for an exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility of a significant effect on the environment.; and WHEREAS, the City has complied with noticing and other requirements for zoning text amendments governed by Chapter 20.505 of the SMMC and by California Government Code Section 65853; and
WHEREAS, a public workshop was held on September 4, 2025, and was duly noticed and held in the manner prescribed by City of San Marcos Resolution 99-5208; and
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2026, the Planning Commission of San Marcos recommended the CEQA determination, the proposed Text Amendment to the SMMC, and the Zoning Map Update, for adoption by City Council; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended a proposed Text Amendment for approval which included unique APN identifiers for each affected mobilehome coach; and
WHEREAS, the Text Amendment has been modified to refer only to the underlying property APNs for each subject park and not the unique mobilehome coach APN identifiers, comprising the same boundaries of each mobilehome park, with no change to the mobilehome parks identified as being affected by the ordinance, and no changes to 213
Ordinance No. 2026-1582
TA24-0005
July 6, 2026

operational provisions of the ordinance having been made to the version considered by the Planning Commission .

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Marcos, in accordance with the freedom accorded to charter cities generally, and by the Charter of the City of San Marcos, specifically, does ordain as follows:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. The project exemption (EX 25-042) from CEQA pursuant to 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines is hereby approved.

3. The Text Amendment adding chapter 20.270 to the SMMC, as specified in Attachment A, is approved.

4. The Zoning Map identifying the mobilehome parks subject to the Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone, included as Attachment B, is approved.

5. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is determined to be invalid, illegal, or unconstitutional by a decision or order of any court or agency of competent jurisdiction, then such decision or order will not affect the validity and enforceability of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have passed and adopted the Ordinance, and each section, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

6. This Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days following its adoption.

Within fifteen (15) days following its adoption, the City Clerk shall publish this Ordinance of the title thereof, as a summary as required by state law.

7. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and cause the same to be published in accordance with the provisions of State Law in a newspaper of general circulation designated for legal notices publication in the City of San Marcos.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Marcos held on the 8
th day of September 2026; and
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Marcos held on the ___ day of September 2026, by the following roll call vote:
214
Ordinance No. 2026-1582
TA24-0005
July 6, 2026

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Rebecca D. Jones, Mayor
City of San Marcos
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Phillip Scollick, City Clerk Helen Holmes Peak, City Attorney City of San Marcos City of San Marcos
215

ATTACHMENT A

CLEAN VERSION OF ORDINANCE ADOPTING SMMC
CHAPTER 20.270 - SENIOR MOBILEHOME PARK OVERLAY ZONE
216
Chapter 20.270 Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone
Section 20.270.010 - Purpose of Chapter
The Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone (S-RMHP) is intended to preserve a variety and balance of housing types within the City of San Marcos, and to provide assurances that existing Senior Mobilehome Parks within the Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone will remain available to seniors, as will any Senior Mobilehome Parks established and brought into the Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone in future.

Section 20.270.020 - Applicability
The provisions of this chapter shall be applicable to all existing and future Senior Mobilehome Parks in San Marcos. Figure 20.270-1 establishes the existing Senior Mobilehome Parks subject to the Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay. The provisions of this chapter shall prevail in all cases where regulatory conflicts exist between this chapter and any other chapter of this Zoning Ordinance.

Section 20.270.030 - Definitions
A. “Mobilehome Park" has the same meaning as in Section 20.600.150 of this Code, as may be amended from time to time, which currently defines “Mobilehome Park” as any parcel, area, or tract of land, or portion thereof where two (2) or more mobilehome lots are rented, leased, or offered for rent or lease to accommodate mobilehomes used for human habitation.

B. “Senior Mobilehome Park” means a mobilehome park in which at least eighty (80) percent of the spaces are occupied by, or intended for occupancy by, at least one person who is fifty-five (55) years of age or older.

Section 20.270.040 - Designation
The Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone shall be designated by the symbol (S-RMHP) on the City of San Marcos Zoning Map. The (S-RMHP) designation applies to the seven Senior Mobilehome Parks that exist in the City as of the effective date of this section, and to Senior Mobilehome Parks established in the City after the effective date of this section subject to the Overlay Zone. The seven Senior Mobilehome Parks in the City as of the effective date of this section are:

Park Name Address Assessor Parcel Number
El Dorado Mobilehome Park 1515 Capalina Rd, San Marcos, CA 92069
219-116-02-00
Lakeview Mobile Estates 809 Discovery St, San Marcos,
CA 92078
221-062-09-00;
221-062-10-00
Palomar Estates East 650 S Rancho Santa Fe Rd, San
Marcos, CA 92078
221-023-03-00;
221-023-04-00
Palomar Estates West 1930 W San Marcos Blvd, San
Marcos, CA 92078
221-023-15-00
217
Rancho Vallecitos Mobile
Estates
3535 Linda Vista Dr, San
Marcos, CA 92078
219-023-01-00;
219-241-30-00;
219-241-34-00
San Marcos Mobile Estates 1145 E Barham Dr, San Marcos, CA 92078
228-310-66-00
Valle Varde Estates 1286 Discovery St, San Marcos,
CA 92078
221-041-74-00
Section 20.270.050 - Senior Occupancy Requirement
At least eighty (80) percent of the spaces in Senior Mobilehome Parks must be occupied by at least one person fifty-five (55) years of age or older. This senior occupancy requirement does not apply to or affect ownership of a mobilehome unit. As long as at least one resident of a mobilehome in a Senior Mobilehome Park is fifty-five years of age or older, the senior occupancy requirement is satisfied as to that mobilehome, whether or not the owner of the mobile home is fifty-five years of age or older.

Section 20.270.060 - Limitations on Rentals
Spaces and mobilehomes in the Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone shall be rented only to occupants who meet the senior occupancy requirements set forth in section 20.270.050 of this section; provided, however, that the occupants of a space or mobilehome who do not meet the senior occupancy requirement have rented a space and/or mobilehome in a Senior Mobilehome Park before the effective date of this section and continue to occupy that space and/or mobilehome following the effective date of this section, they shall be allowed to remain in that Senior Mobilehome Park, and provided further that when such occupant(s) cease to occupy that space and/or mobilehome, the mobilehome and space shall be rented to occupants who meet the senior occupancy requirement in section 20.270.050 of this chapter.

Section 20.270.070 - Minimum Design and Performance Standards The advertising, leases, rental agreements, and park rules and regulations for spaces in a mobilehome park in the Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone (S-RMHP) shall provide that the park is a Senior Mobilehome Park.

Section 20.270.080 - Certification
Each Senior Mobilehome Park shall have procedures for verifying that it qualifies as a Senior Mobilehome Park under applicable federal and/or state law and this section, including documentation establishing that at least 80 percent of the mobilehomes or spaces in the Mobilehome Park are occupied by at least one resident who is 55 years of age or older in accordance with section 20.270.050 of this chapter. These procedures shall require regular updates, through surveys, affidavits, or other means of updating the initial information supplied by the occupants of the mobile home park. Such updates must take place at least once annually and information shall be gathered on a per space basis. A summary of this occupancy verification documentation shall be available for inspection upon reasonable notice and request by City officials. Verification documentation records shall be retained and available for inspection for a period of six years from the date of creation.

The operator of each Mobilehome Park in the Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone shall, on an annual basis, provide to the City's housing director or equivalent a certification that the subject Senior Mobilehome Park is in compliance with the senior occupancy requirement of this section, in substantially the following form:
"I [name] hereby certify, under penalty of perjury in accordance with California law that there is at least one occupant 55 years of age or older in [number of units] units of the total [number of units in the park] units in the 218
[name of the Senior Mobilehome Park] Senior Mobilehome Park. This certification is based on my personal knowledge of the residents, evidence provided to me in the form of official government documents containing specific information about the current age of the residents, resident affidavits, or age certifications made by residents in their current lease agreements."
The City’s housing director or equivalent shall establish the deadline for filing the annual certification, which, to the extent possible, shall be coordinated with the timing of filings as may be required pursuant to the City's mobilehome rent stabilization program.

Section 20.270.090 - Violations
Failure to comply with the requirements of this section shall constitute a violation of the San Marcos Municipal Code and be subject to enforcement and the remedies provided for in Chapters 1.08 through 1.14.

Figure 20.270-1 – Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay
219

ATTACHMENT B

SENIOR MOBILEHOME PARK OVERLAY MAP
220
City of San Marcos
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
City of San Marcos, California 1 Civic Center Drive | San Marcos, CA 92069 | (760) 744-1050 221

ATTACHMENT C

NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
222

CITY OF SAN MARCOS

NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
TO:

Office of Planning and Research
Mail: PO Box 3044, Room 113
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
Street: 1400 Tenth Street, #113
Sacramento, CA 95814
FROM: City of San Marcos
Planning Division
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
Phone: 760-744-1050 x.3233

X COUNTY CLERK/RECORDER

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
P.O. Box 1750
San Diego, CA 92112-4147
TA24-0005 (Text Amendment) - An Ordinance adding Chapter 20.270 of the San Marcos Municipal Code and amending the Zoning Map to establish a Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone over the seven existing senior mobilehome parks in San Marcos

PROJECT TITLE
City of San Marcos, 1 Civic Center Drive, San Marcos, CA 92069, Phone: 760-744-1050

PROJECT APPLICANT (NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER)

1. EL DORADO, 1515 CAPALINA RD., SAN MARCOS, CA, 92069, APNS: 219-116-02-00.

2. LAKEVIEW ESTATES, 809 DISCOVERY ST., SAN MARCOS, CA 92078, APNS: 221-062-09-00; 221-062-10-00.

3. PALOMAR ESTATES EAST, 650 S. RANCHO SANTA FE RD., SAN MARCOS, CA 92078, APNS: 221-023-03-00; 221- 023-04-00.

4. PALOMAR ESTATES WEST, 1930 W. SAN MARCOS BLVD., SAN MARCOS, CA 92078, APNS: 221-023-15-00.

5. RANCHO VALLECITOS MOBILE ESTATES, 3535 LINDA VISTA DR., SAN MARCOS, CA 92078, APNS: 219-023-01- 00; 219-241-30-00; 219-241-34-00.

6. SAN MARCOS MOBILE STATES, 1145 E. BARHAM DR., SAN MARCOS, 92078, APNS: 228-310-66-00.

7. VALLE VERDE ESTATES, 1286 DISCOVERY ST., SAN MARCOS, CA 92078, APNS: 221-041-74-00.

PROJECT LOCATION - SPECIFIC
San Marcos San Diego

PROJECT LOCATION - CITY PROJECT LOCATION - COUNTY
A Text Amendment to allow the addition of Chapter 20.270 of the San Marcos Municipal Code and amendment of the Zoning Map to establish a Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone over the seven existing senior mobilehome parks in San Marcos.

DESCRIPTION OF NATURE, PURPOSE AND BENEFICIARIES OF PROJECT City of San Marcos

NAME OF PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVING PROJECT
Joseph Farace, Planning Division Director

NAME OF PERSON OR AGENCY CARRYING OUT PROJECT
EXEMPT STATUS: (CHECK ONE)
MINISTERIAL (SEC. 21080(b)(1); 15268)
DECLARED EMERGENCY (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a))
EMERGENCY PROJECT (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269 (b)(c))

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION (STATE TYPE AND SECTION NUMBER)
STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS. State code number: _________________________________________ REASONS WHY PROJECT IS EXEMPT: Per Section 15061(b)(3), the text amendment activity is covered by the common sense exemption as there is no possibility of a significant effect on the environment.

Joseph Farace (760) 744-1050 X. 3248

LEAD AGENCY CONTACT PERSON AREA CODE/TELEPHONE/EXTENSION If filed by applicant: 1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.

2. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? __Yes __No SIGNATURE: Date:

Joseph Farace, Title: Planning Division Director
X Signed by Lead Agency ___ Signed by Applicant Date Received for filing at OPR:____________________ Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21110, Public Resources Code.

Reference: Sections 21108, 21152, and 21152.1, Public Resources Code. 223

ATTACHMENT D

PUBLIC COMMENT
224
From:

To: Sarah Cluff
Subject: (Conversion)Age Restricted park(s) Chapter 20.245 to No age restrictions parks.

Date: Thursday, August 28, 2025 10:04:18 AM
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
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: Sarah Cluff, Associate Planner,
Our names are: George Wendleton & Darlene Armstrong - Co,Owners of 1145 Barham Drive, Space 40 *With regard to (TA24-0005) age restriction living -V- No age restriction, As we received this measure today in our mail, both Darlene were concerned and we wanted to insure our voice in the coming workshop, we will be out of town on a well earned vacation and did want to voice our thoughts and opinions for the change to chapter 20.245. (TA24-0005).

It is with strong conviction and personal preference, that any and all thoughts of making a change to this restriction i.e. 20.205 on any of the seven parks Especially 1145 Barham Drive, that will open the door to commingling and/or disallowing seniors to their earned ability and financial right to have their private living park to be converted to an all exclusive family park a betrail to our voice and right as seniors when we decided to perches the space that we own here in San Marcos.

Although I’m speaking for myself and Darlene, it is our opinion and the opinion of some of our neighbors we have talked to in passing that a change such as this would be an invasion of our rights that we spent a lifetime to earn if the chapter 20.245 is changed and/or modified.

Please consider the numbers of other populous in the seven (7) parks and their ability to voice their concerns or not have the ability to step forward to resist this measure due to their age and balance of mind to even associate their opinion due to disability of mind or physical ability to be part of the forum to make a change that will open the door to additional charges that could raise the prices of rents and/or other charges seniors have been given due to the zoning laws that protects seniors from higher fiscal costs and the ability to live at a level that is comfort instead of that which would choke most seniors ability to afford what they worked so hard to achieve in their retirement.

I understand the need for change, and if their were special conduits of financial aspects also considered for the seniors that occupy those dwellings already established as “Senior Property” with the same financial considerations that are now enjoyed due to the fixed incomes through SSI and personal investments the change would establish a consideration for seniors and the ability for the mobil home management to also accommodate families to coexist on separate financial plan i.e. rent and those costs that would be fixed for the senior i.e. 65 and older with no one living in the home under 65.

Indeed, this would honor a fiscal plan that would protect those that have the senior perk -V- those that are 64 and lower and/or within the age group of non-senior that are considered as adults with children under 18 and the elders of the family between the age of 18 to 64 are those that have the ability to work and afford the family fiscal ability to live as a (Non-Senior), therefore, than the change of the chapter and/or subchapters of 20.245 would make it fair for families and existing seniors.

Thank you for the announcement given in advance so everyones voice can be heard due to the announced change, it is my thought and hope that as a change is made the seniors affected through this fiscal living change is considered and special circumstances given for the senior.
225
Thanks,
George E Wendleton (69) & Darlene M Armstrong (66)
226
227
To: Sarah Cluff, Associate Planner,
Our names are: George Wendleton & Darlene Armstrong - Co,Owners of 1145  Barham Drive, Space 40 *With regard to (TA24-0005) age restriction living -V- No age restriction, As we received this measure today in our mail, both Darlene were concerned and we wanted to insure our voice in the coming workshop, we will be out of town on a well earned vacation and did want to voice our thoughts and opinions for the change to chapter 20.245. (TA24-0005).

It is with strong conviction and personal preference, that any and all thoughts of making a change to this restriction i.e. 20.205 on any of the seven parks Especially 1145 Barham Drive, that will open the door to commingling and/or disallowing seniors to their earned ability and financial right to have their private living park to be converted to an all exclusive family park a betrail to our voice and right as seniors when we decided to perches the space that we own here in San Marcos.

Although I’m speaking for myself and Darlene, it is our opinion and the opinion of some of our neighbors we have talked to in passing that a change such as this would be an invasion of our rights that we spent a lifetime to earn if the chapter 20.245 is changed and/or modified.

Please consider the numbers of other populous in the seven (7) parks and their ability to voice their concerns or not have the ability to step forward to resist this measure due to their age and balance of mind to even associate their opinion due to disability of mind or physical ability to be part of the forum to make a change that will open the door to additional charges that could raise the prices of rents and/or other charges seniors have been given due to the zoning laws that protects seniors from higher fiscal costs and the ability to live at a level that is comfort instead of that which would choke most seniors ability to afford what they worked so hard to achieve in their retirement.

I understand the need for change, and if their were special conduits of financial aspects also considered for the seniors that occupy those dwellings already established as “Senior Property” with the same financial considerations that are now enjoyed due to the fixed incomes through SSI and personal investments the change would establish a consideration for seniors and the ability for the mobil home management to also accommodate families to coexist on separate financial plan i.e. rent and those costs that would be fixed for the senior i.e. 65 and older with no one living in the home under 65.

Indeed, this would honor a fiscal plan that would protect those that have the senior perk -V- those that are 64 and lower and/or within the age group of non-senior that are considered as adults with children under 18 and the elders of the family between the age of 18 to 64 are those that have the ability to work and afford the family fiscal ability to live as a (Non-Senior), therefore, than the change of the chapter and/or subchapters of 20.245 would make it fair for families and existing seniors.

Thank you for the announcement given in advance so everyones voice can be heard due to the announced change, it is my thought and hope that as a change is made the seniors affected through this fiscal living change is considered and special circumstances given for the senior.

Thanks,
George E Wendleton (69) & Darlene M Armstrong (66)
228
229
230
fixed incomes and rely on the predictability and accessibility these parks provide.

Without this amendment, we risk losing a critical layer of our housing safety net.

This proposal aligns with the city's General Plan goals for housing equity and supports fair housing principles by maintaining age-appropriate options for older adults. I urge staff and Council to move forward with this amendment and continue prioritizing policies that protect Long-term residents and foster inclusive ageconscious planning.

Thank You for your attention to this matter Andrew Effenberger resident of SMME San Marcos Calif.
231
232
Allowing conversions to all-age occupancy would undermine decades of planning and expose seniors to market pressures they cannot absorb. Many residents live on fixed incomes and rely on the predictability and accessibility these parks provide. Without this amendment, we risk losing a critical layer of our housing safety net.

This proposal aligns with the city's General Plan goals for housing equity and supports fair housing principles by maintaining age-appropriate options for older adults. I urge staff and Council to move forward with this amendment and continue prioritizing policies that protect Long-term residents and foster inclusive age-conscious planning.

Thank You for your attention to this matter Andrew Effenberger 233
234
Outlook
Re: Notice of Public work shop
From Sarah Cluff <[email protected]>
Date Thu 12/11/2025 5:00 PM
To Diane Roman
Good day, Diane,
Thank you for your patience while City staff and the City Attorney’s Office reviewed the records related to Valle Verde Estates.

Based on the documentation available, the City Attorney’s Office reviewed the Regulatory Agreement for Valle Verde Estates and noted the following provision under Section 3(m), Residential Rental Property:
“(m) The Borrower will cause the Spaces in the Project to be occupied by Senior Citizens, to the extent permitted under federal and State laws. Such occupancy restriction may be reviewed from time to time by the Issuer and such future changes to the occupancy restriction may be memorialized in an agreement separate and apart from this Regulatory Agreement.”
This language, which reflects existing occupancy requirements at Valle Verde Estates, is consistent with the seniorrestricted occupancy currently proposed in the senior overlay zone. The City Attorney further confirmed that the Regulatory Agreement does not automatically exempt Valle Verde Estates from future updates to the San Marcos Municipal Code or other City regulations, such as placing the park within a senior overlay zone.

If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss further, please feel free to reach out.

All the best,
Sarah Cluff
NOTE:  City offices will be closed Dec. 25–Jan. 4.

Public safety and emergency services will continue to be available.

Service requests may be submitted anytime through the San Marcos app.

To our Wireless Applicants: The City of San Marcos will be closed December 25, 2025–January 2, 2026. Please kindly submit wireless projects by December 15, 2025, for review before the closure. We will reopen on Monday, January 5, 2026, and will 235
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important be available to receive submittals at that time. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding.

Sarah Cluff | Senior Planner
City of San Marcos | 1 Civic Center Drive, San Marcos CA 92069 T: (760) 744-1050 x3227
[email protected] | www.san-marcos.net
Public Counters at City Hall are open from 7:30 am to 5:30 pm Monday-Thursday, and 7:30 am to 4:30 pm every other Friday.

From: Diane Roman
Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 4:54 PM
To: Sarah Cluff <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Notice of Public work shop
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important 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.

Sarh,
Hello, my apologies for the not connecting, I appreciate your assistance. Also, we have a Bond agreement with the City Of San Marcos in 2017. I will wait to hear from you.

Thank you,
Diane Roman
Regional Manager | Valle Verde Estates
1286 Discovery Street
San Marcos, CA 92078
From: Sarah Cluff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2025, 4:44 PM
To: Diane Roman
Subject: RE: Notice of Public workshop
Sensitivity: Confidential
Good afternoon, Diane,
As I haven’t connected with you following the voicemail I left last week, I wanted to let you know that I have reached out to our City Attorney’s office regarding the status of Valle Verde. I will follow up with you as soon as I receive any additional information from their office to share.

All the best,
Sarah Cluff
236
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Sarah Cluff | Associate Planner
City of San Marcos | 1 Civic Center Drive, San Marcos CA 92069 T: (760) 744-1050 x3227
[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.

From: Diane Roman
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2025 1:36 PM
To: Sarah Cluff <[email protected]>
Subject: Notice of Public work shop
Importance: High
Sensitivity: Confidential
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 am writing you regarding the flyer attached, I was wondering how our community became part of this community change , the reason is we went through this 13 years ago with the City Of San Marcos, and when we started to attend the meetings, the city lawyer informed us that Valle Verde was excluded from any future changes to the community, we are non-profit organization https://www.caritascorp.org/
Please advise,
Thank you,
Diane Roman
Regional Manager | Valle Verde Estates
1286 Discovery Street
San Marcos, CA 92078
237
238
239
Please vote against the recommendation to make current San Marcos age- restricted mobile home parks non-age restricted. This would seriously impact the lifestyle and property value of current owners who have chosen properties with age restrictions. Georgie S. Cossitt, 1930 W. San Marcos Blvd., Spc. 5, San Marcos, CA 92078. 240
241
242
We are mobile home owners at Palomar Estates West, Spc 314.  We cannot attend the meeting on July 6th, however, we wish to state we DO NOT want our park converting to an all aged (family park) residence.  Presently you must be 55+ to live in the park, and we strongly request this requirement continue.

Please consider our voice although we cannot be present.  Thank you Richard Brent & Christine Parkman 243
244

ATTACHMENT E

DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
245

MINUTES
Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission
MONDAY, JULY 6, 2026
City Council Chambers
1 Civic Center Drive, San Marcos, CA 92069

CALL TO ORDER
At 6:36 p.m. Planning Commission Chair Saulsberry called the meeting to order.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Kildoo led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

ROLL CALL
The Secretary called the roll:

PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNETT, CAVANAUGH, KILDOO, SAULSBERRY, CARROLL, GUERRERO,

MARCINKO
ALTERNATE COMMISSIONERS IN AUDIENCE: SMITH
ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: NORRIS
Also present were: Planning Division Director Joe Farace, Senior Planners Chris Garcia, Sarah Cluff, Senior Management Analyst Song LeBaron, Administrative Assistant Sonia Rathee Gulia, Deputy City Attorney Punam Prahalad, Deputy City Attorney Jacqueline Paterno

ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
John Spiller, San Diego County Sheriff, Volunteer Patrol provided information about the Volunteer Sheriff Program.

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES, 6/15/2026
Action:

COMMISSIONERS KILDOO MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM # 1 AS PRESENTED; 246
Regular Planning Commission
Monday, July 6, 2026| Page 2 of 5
2 SECONDED BY COMMMSSIIONER CARROLL. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE.

AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CAVANAUGH, KILDOO, SAULSBERRY, CARROLL, GUERRERO,

MARCINKO
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: BARNETT

2. Project No: Time Extension (TE26-0001)
Applicant: The Las Posas Owner LPV, LLC
Request: A three-year time extension of a previously approved Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM24- 0001) to establish two residential lots, one open space lot, 228 residential condominiums within the Pacific Specific Plan area.

Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Resolution PC 26-5217 Action:

COMMISSIONERS BARNETT MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM # 2 AS PRESENTED; SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CAVANAUGH. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE.

AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNETT, CAVANAUGH, KILDOO, SAULSBERRY, CARROLL,

GUERRERO, MARCINCKO
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE

PUBLIC HEARINGS

3. Project No: Notice Of Exemption (EX 26-042) And Text Amendment (TA24-0005) Applicant: The City of San Marcos
Request: Approval of a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of San Marcos recommending to City Council adoption of a notice of exemption and approval of an Ordinance adding Chapter 20.270 of the San Marcos Municipal Code and amending the Zoning Map to establish a Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone over the seven existing Senior Mobilehome Parks in San Marcos.

Recommendation: Staff recommends approval to City Council Legal Attorney Jacqueline Paterno: gave the staff presentation

OPEN PUBLIC COMMENTS
Resident of Valle Verde Mobile Estates: Sandra urged the Commission to preserve the senior mobile home parks, stating that they are a valuable housing resource for the residents who live there.

Resident of San Marcos Mobile Estates: Marlene Walder expressed concern that the proposed wording was inappropriate and misleading. The speaker requested that the language be revised to state that the mobile home park would remain a senior park rather than allow residents of all ages. 247
Regular Planning Commission
Monday, July 6, 2026| Page 3 of 5
3 Resident of San Marcos Mobile Estates: Sylvia Williams thanked City staff and the Commission for their work on the project. The speaker expressed concern about the lack of space for children to play within the park and the safety of the adjacent busy street due to fast-moving traffic.

Resident of San Marcos: Joan Steggall shared her experience of living next to a noisy non-senior resident who moved into a neighboring home after the previous senior resident passed away.

Resident of Palomar Estates East: Leanne Pohrman discussed the implementation of rent control and maintaining the park as an age-restricted community.

Resident of San Marcos: Hydee Morgan questioned why the proposed ordinance was necessary and asked what had prompted the City to consider adopting the senior mobile home park overlay.

Resident of Palomar Estates West: Darlene Pienta expressed support for the proposed amendment, stating that it would help address multiple challenges, including the shortage of housing. The speaker stated that the presentation accurately reflected the issues and was well-aligned with the community’s needs.

Member of San Marcos Mobilehome Resident Association: John Mosher provided background on the origins of the project, stating that the issue began approximately two years ago when Lakeview Mobile Estates introduced new rules and regulations proposing a change from a senior mobile home park to an allage park. The speaker stated that they reached out to GSMOL (Golden State Manufactured-Home Owners League) and legal representatives for assistance, conducted research, and brought the matter before the City Council to request the creation of a senior park overlay zone to help protect the future of senior residents.

Planning Commissioner Discussion: Commissioners discussed whether the proposed amendment would impact the City’s ability to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) targets. Commissioners also inquired whether San Marcos mobile home parks would be subject to the proposed density regulations (SB 79) and whether the proposal aligns with the City’s previously approved urgent action to preserve senior mobile home parks.

Additional discussion focused on what protections would be in place if property owners sought to transition parks to all-age communities and how compliance with the 80/20 senior occupancy requirement would be monitored and enforced.

Deputy City Attorney Response: Jacqueline Paterno explained that an urgency ordinance was approved in December 2024, establishing a senior overlay zone for all 14 mobile home parks. The City Attorney stated that the parks would remain subject to the overlay zone regulations and that code enforcement actions, including potential fines, could be taken for violations. The City Attorney further explained that park owners are required to collect resident data and submit the information to the City’s Housing Department. 248
Regular Planning Commission
Monday, July 6, 2026| Page 4 of 5
4 Planning Director Response: Planning Director Joe Farace stated that the proposed amendment would not affect the City’s RHNA numbers. The Planning Director also noted that some mobile home parks may fall within the areas noted by SB 79 but there has been subsequent legislation introduced to provide protections for mobile home parks.

Member of San Marcos Mobilehome Resident Association Response: John Mosher stated that SB722 would protect the mobile home parks from being subject to the zones created under Senate Bill 79 (SB 79).

Planning Commissioner Comments: Commissioners expressed appreciation for the significant community interest in the item and thanked City staff for their research and informative presentation.

Commissioners expressed support for the staff recommendation and the proposed ordinance.

Commissioners recognized the mobile home community as an important voice within the community and expressed support for preserving the community’s character. Commissioners also expressed concern regarding pending litigation related to the matter.

Commissioners stated their appreciation for the residents’ participation and engagement, noting that the community’s involvement reflects strong neighborhood connection. Commissioners expressed support for the resolution and indicated their intent to vote in favor of the item.

Commissioners highlighted community pride in San Marcos, noting that residents often refer to the city as “My San Marcos” and expressed appreciation for the city’s history and continued growth.

CLOSED PUBLIC COMMENTS
Action:

COMMISSIONER KILDOO MOVED TO APPROVE PC26-5219 FOR TA24-0005 AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARCINKO. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE.

AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNETT, CAVANAUGH, KILDOO, SAULSBERRY, CARROLL,

GUERRERO, MARCINKO
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
PLANNING DIVISION DIRECTOR COMMENTS: Planning Director Joe Farace reported that appeals for the North City Master Sign Program and North City West Phase 2 of the subdivision map were denied at City Council on June 23, 2026. He also informed the Commission that there will be no meetings in August due to the renovation.
249
Regular Planning Commission
Monday, July 6, 2026| Page 5 of 5
5 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS: A Commissioner asked for confirmation that there is no second Planning Commission meeting in July, and staff confirmed there is not.

ADJOURNMENT
At 7:43 p.m. Chair Saulsberry adjourned the meeting
_______________________________________________________

LIONEL SAULSBERRY , CHAIRPERSON

CITY OF SAN MARCOS PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
_______________________________________________________ SONG LEBARON, SR. MANAGEMENT ANALYST

CITY OF SAN MARCOS PLANNING COMMISSION
250

ATTACHMENT F
ERRATA TO PROPOSED SMMC CHAPTER 20.270 FOLLOWING

PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL
251
Memorandum
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: AUGUST 20, 2026
PROJECT NO: TA24-0005 – APPROVAL OF THE ADDITION OF CHAPTER 20.270 TO THE SAN MARCOS

MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING MAP TO ESTABLISH A SENIOR MOBILEHOME PARK

OVERLAY ZONE OVER SEVEN EXISTING NON-RESIDENT OWNED SENIOR MOBILEHOME PARKS IN SAN MARCOS
____________________________________________________________________________ For City Council Agenda consideration of TA24-0005, Planning Division staff requests that the following changes to the proposed Ordinance, shown in strikethrough/underline, be made to Attachment A:

Attachment A - Clean version of Ordinance Adopting SMMC Chapter 20.270:
• Section 20.270.040 - Designation: The seven Senior Mobilehome Parks in the City as of the effective date of this section are:

Park Name Address Assessor Parcel Number
El Dorado Mobilehome Park 1515 Capalina Rd, San Marcos, CA 92069
219-116-02-00
772-191-11-01 TO 93
Lakeview Mobile Estates 809 Discovery St, San Marcos,
CA 92078
221-062-09-00;
221-062-10-00
772-210-62-01 TO 97; 772-
210-63-01 TO 16
Palomar Estates East 650 S Rancho Santa Fe Rd, San
Marcos, CA 92078
221-023-03-00;
221-023-04-00
772-210-30-01 TO 98; 772-
210-31-01 TO 98; 772-210-32-
01 TO 98; 772-210-33-01 TO
78 Palomar Estates West 1930 W San Marcos Blvd, San
Marcos, CA 92078
221-023-15-00
772-210-34-01 TO 95; 772-
210-35-01 TO 96; 772-210-36-
252
2 01 TO 96; 772-210-37-01 TO
96; 772-210-38-01 TO 92
Rancho Vallecitos Mobile
Estates
3535 Linda Vista Dr, San
Marcos, CA 92078
219-023-01-00;
219-241-30-00;
219-241-34-00
772-190-24-01 TO 79; 772-
190-25-01 TO 70; 772-190-26-
01 TO 98; 772-190-27-01 TO
55 San Marcos Mobile Estates 1145 E Barham Dr, San
Marcos, CA 92078
228-310-66-00
772-283-14-01 TO 97; 772-
283-15-01 TO 97; 772-283-16-
01 TO 71
Valle Varde Estates 1286 Discovery St, San
Marcos, CA 92078
221-041-74-00
221-210-47-01 TO 95; 772-
210-48-01 TO 55
253
City of San Marcos
Staff Report
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
File #:TMP-2512
MEETING DATE:

SEPTEMBER 8, 2026
SUBJECT:

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-9652 - APPEAL (AA26-0004) OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE RESOLUTION OF THE CITY MANAGER (ADM 26-5226), WHICH DETERMINED THE DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND26-007) FOR THE LANIKAI SENIOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT TO BE INCOMPLETE AND UNABLE TO BE CIRCULATED.

Recommendation
ADOPT a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the City Manager.

Board or Commission Action
Not Applicable
Organization Of This Report
This report is organized into the following sections:

A. Executive Summary
B. Project Background
C. Legal Framework
D. Appeal Contentions, City Responses, and Effect on MND Readiness E. Environmental Review
A. Executive Summary
Lanikai Management (“Applicant”) proposes 115 age-restricted senior apartments on approximately 3.96 acres at the northwest corner of East Mission Road and Woodward Street (Assessor Parcel Number 220-063-04-00) (“Project”).

The applicant prepared a draft IS/MND (Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration ND26-007 or “MND”). A draft version of the MND is included as Exhibit 10 of Attachment F. On July 2, 2026, the City Manager issued Administrative Decision ADM 2026-5226 determining that the MND is not presently adequate or complete to commence circulation. The applicant has appealed that decision to the City Council.

The question is whether the City, as the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) lead agency, must circulate as its proposed environmental document an MND that City staff, the City Engineer, the Planning City of San Marcos Page 1 of 15 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™254
File #:TMP-2512
Director, and the City Manager cannot presently support as an accurate and factually adequate analysis of the project.

The issue before the City Council is narrow and expressly related to MND circulation. The action contemplated is not to approve or deny the Project itself. It is important to note that:
· A denial of the appeal simply requires the applicant to provide a complete and factually correct MND that reflects the City’s independent judgment before public circulation. · A denial of the appeal is not a halt in the CEQA process. · A denial of the appeal is not a denial of the Project itself. · A denial of the appeal is not a determination on the frontage requirements; that is a separate question not under consideration with this action.
· The Project may continue forward in the process.
· The applicant may still dispute City access/frontage requirements after circulating a complete environmental document.

Related to the MND dispute is the second project access, which is proposed on Mission Road. This driveway would introduce new conflict points very close to the Mission Road and Woodward Street intersection and adjacent to the existing bus stop, specifically conflicting movements between the proposed driveway and right turns from Woodward Street, bus operations, and cyclists.

Staff require an acceptable improvement, such as a raised curb extension, to address the conflicts from the proposed driveway. If the driveway is to be allowed, the raised curb extension or other acceptable mitigation must be included and analyzed in the MND. If driveway conflicts are not sufficiently addressed, the Mission Road driveway must be removed, project trips rerouted to the Woodward Street access point, and emergency access concerns resolved - all of which would also need to be analyzed in the MND. Regardless of the way the applicant proceeds, the MND must accurately describe the whole project and analyze the effects.

Significant concerns with the transportation analysis also remain unaddressed and prevent circulation of the MND in its current form.

Although the present appeal does not determine the Project’s improvement obligations relative to the proposed Mission Road driveway, the City Council’s eventual decision on the Project may have significant policy and environmental implications.

San Marcos voters approved Proposition R in 1988, requiring adequate infrastructure and services for new development. Proposition R, codified in SMMC Chapter 20.315, requires all new development to bear the cost of providing public facilities, and services needed to manage the new development and to mitigate the impacts created by that new development.

Accordingly, the City has historically required development projects to construct or fund improvements reasonably related to their CEQA and non-CEQA related effects, such as the improvements to address the Mission Road driveway, which address both. Departing from that approach for this project, such as constructing the driveway without mitigation, could create an inequitable application of City standards and burden the larger community, which may bear responsibility for resolving developer impacts with public dollars.

Over time, the cumulative result could be a substantial transfer of infrastructure burden from private development to the public.

If City Council grants the appeal, the MND will be circulated without revision, leaving unresolved discrepancies between the project analyzed in the environmental document and the project that may ultimately be City of San Marcos Page 2 of 15 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™255
File #:TMP-2512
considered for approval. This could create vulnerabilities for the City. Additionally, releasing an MND for public circulation that does not accurately describe the Project or its potentially significant impacts would misrepresent the Project to the public and would not facilitate public comment on the full range of potentially significant effects. Furthermore, the City’s authority under CEQA to ensure that the project environmental document is complete and accurate based on the City’s independent judgment could be undermined for future projects.

If City Council grants the appeal and later finds that the Project must mitigate its driveway and citywide impacts through the construction of certain improvements, the MND will not have analyzed the impacts of those improvements.

If the appeal is denied, staff will work with the Applicant to revise the project description, the supporting technical studies, and the related portions of the MND so that a revised document may be circulated as expeditiously as possible.

The action before City Council is purely to determine whether the MND is adequate and accurate for circulation, and whether it represents the City’s independent judgment as the CEQA lead agency.

The City, as lead agency, has assessed whether it can make the finding that the environmental document in its current form reflects the independent judgment of the City. However, City staff, the Planning Director, the City Engineer, and the City Manager agree that the MND does not, in fact, reflect the independent judgment of the City and therefore cannot be circulated.

Therefore, staff recommend denial of the appeal. The City should circulate a proposed MND only when it can exercise independent judgment over a sufficiently defined Project and the factual basis supporting the MND’s environmental conclusions.

B. Project Background
B.1. Project Location
The 3.96-acre vacant Project site (APN 220-063-04-00) is located at the northwesterly quadrant of the Mission Road and Woodward Street intersection. Mission Road is an arterial roadway with two lanes and a merge lane in the westbound direction and two through lanes, a left turn, and a right turn lane in the eastbound direction. A bus stop exists in the merge lane along the project frontage to Mission Road. Bicycle facilities exist to the east and west of the project site, with a gap along the Project frontage. Project driveways are proposed on Woodward Street and on Mission Road, less than 400 feet from the intersection. A vicinity map is included in Attachment A and aerial imagery of the existing site and Mission Road frontage conditions is provided in Attachment B. Draft project plans are included in Attachment C.

B.2. Project Scope
The matter before City Council currently is the narrow issue of whether the Project MND must be circulated for review. Lanikai Management’s larger project application includes an amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan (HOCSP), a General Plan Amendment, and a Multifamily Site Development Plan to construct 115 age-restricted, market-rate apartment units in a four-story building. The building will be approximately 106,300 square feet and 50 feet in height with a total of 135 parking spaces.

B.3. Processing of the Development Application
The development application was originally submitted on December 21, 2017. On average, the project has been submitted by the applicant less than once per year for review, as shown below in Table B.3.

City of San Marcos Page 3 of 15 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™256
File #:TMP-2512
Table B.3: Application Processing Turnaround Times Between Plan Resubmittals Lanikai Management City Staff
Turnaround Time (Min- Max) 303 Days (Min) 624 Days
(Max)
22 Days (Min) 32 Days
(Max)
Turnaround Time (Average) 388 Days 28 Days
B.4. Traffic Analysis Metrics for the Project
Previously, CEQA required vehicular Levels of Service (LOS) to be analyzed to identify traffic impacts under CEQA. On July 1, 2020, that metric shifted to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), consistent with the requirements of SB 743. The City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (TIAG) indicate that the City may continue to require congestion-related transportation analysis and improvements through its land-use approval process and to ensure consistency with General Plan transportation policies. The General Plan Environmental Impact Report establishes a Level of Service D or better for Mission Road.

In his April 10, 2025 letter to the City Attorney (Attachment H), David P. Hubbard of Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP on behalf of Lanikai Management argued that, based on IBC Business Owners for Sensible Development v. City of Irvine (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 100, 123-124, a VMT analysis is not required where a project’s Level of Service (LOS) traffic study was undertaken before the effective date for the VMT metric in CEQA guidelines Section 15064.3.

B.5. Processing of the MND
The MND was first submitted to the City on May 14, 2024 with the seventh review, and was most recently resubmitted on April 1, 2026. Administrative Decision ADM2026-5226 was issued on July 2, 2026 and provided to Applicant on July 6, 2026 after a continuing lack of resolution over the project description and technical support for the MND. The City Manager’s resolution determined the MND was incomplete and not ready for circulation pursuant to San Marcos Municipal Code Section 18.04.060(a)(2).

B.6. Appeal (AA26-0004)
On July 13, 2026, an appeal to Administrative Resolution ADM2026-5226 was filed by Mr. Hubbard on behalf of Lanikai Management (Attachment E). The July 31, 2026 supplemental appeal letter (Attachment F) provides the appellant’s detailed basis for the appeal.

C. Legal Framework Governing This Appeal
The City Council is deciding whether the applicant-prepared MND has reached the point at which the City, as CEQA lead agency, can release it as the City's proposed environmental document under the provisions of CEQA. Key aspects of the legal framework are highlighted in Table C.1 and discussed further in this section.

Table C.1: MND Consistency with the Legal Framework
Legal Reference Requirement Requirement
Met?
Public Resources Code
Section 21082.1(c); SMMC

18.04.170
The City Must Exercise Independent Judgment
Before It Circulates a Proposed MND
No
CEQA Guidelines Section
15124(c) County of Inyo v. City
of Los Angeles, (1977) 71 Cal.

App. 3d 185, 193
CEQA Requires an Accurate and Stable Project
Description Prior to Public Release
No
Public Resources Code
Sections 21064.5 and 21080(c)
The MND Requires a Supported Project and
Agreed-Upon Revisions Prior to Public Release
No
City of San Marcos Page 4 of 15 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™257
File #:TMP-2512
Legal Reference Requirement Requirement
Met?
Public Resources Code
Section 21082.1(c); SMMC

18.04.170
The City Must Exercise Independent Judgment
Before It Circulates a Proposed MND
No
CEQA Guidelines Section
15124(c) County of Inyo v. City
of Los Angeles, (1977) 71 Cal.

App. 3d 185, 193
CEQA Requires an Accurate and Stable Project
Description Prior to Public Release
No
Public Resources Code
Sections 21064.5 and 21080(c)
(2) CEQA Guidelines Section
15070(b)
The MND Requires a Supported Project and
Agreed-Upon Revisions Prior to Public Release
No
CEQA Guidelines Section
15378(a)
CEQA Requires an Accurate Description of the
Whole Action and Material Studies Cannot be
Deferred.

No
CEQA Guidelines Sections
15070 and 15071
The MND Must Contain Substantial Evidence to
Support a Finding of No Significant Impact
Before Public Circulation.

No
CEQA Guidelines Section
15063(d)(5)
CEQA Requires Initial Study to Examine
Consistency with Existing Zoning and Plans
No
Chiefly, the City, as lead agency, must exercise independent judgment before it circulates a proposed MND.

The applicant may prepare studies and provide information, but the environmental document to be circulated is the City’s own document for CEQA purposes.

The City must find in its independent judgment that the project description contained in the MND is accurate and stable prior to releasing the document for public review. The Initial Study must consider all phases of project and contain a project description and evidence supporting the environmental effect determinations. An accurate project description accounting for all phases of work is essential because environmental consequences, mitigation, and alternatives cannot be fully evaluated when the project description shifts or excludes integral components. Additionally, material studies cannot be deferred under CEQA, and the City, as lead agency, must supply a complete project configuration and technical studies to support the finding of no significant impact in the MND before circulating the environmental document.

The City has assessed whether it can make the finding that the environmental document in its current form reflects the independent judgment of the City. However, City staff, the Planning Director, the City Engineer, and the City Manager agree that the MND does not, in fact, reflect the independent judgment of the City and therefore cannot be circulated.

D. Appeal Contentions, City Responses, and Bearing on MND Completeness The Appellant has argued that the MND is complete and it should be circulated in its current form. Each of Appellant’s contentions and the City‘s responses are described in detail below. Further staff analysis is also included in Attachment I - Lanikai Project Appeal AA26-0004: Staff Analysis of Appeal. The appellant also challenges the City's right-of-way dedication and frontage requirements under Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 394-395 (1994). and Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, 12 Cal. 4th 854 (1996). That exaction dispute is analytically separate from whether the current MND is ready for circulation and will not be finally resolved in this appeal.

Staff recommends denial of the appeal and affirmation of ADM 2026-5226. Staff identified material issues including the unresolved Project description, the access/frontage configuration; transportation and circulation information and analysis, and transportation effects associated with the proposed project access. The deficiencies also include the lack of analysis of environmental effects associated with those Project modifications, frontage improvements, and emergency access modifications as may be required to reach a City of San Marcos Page 5 of 15 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™258
File #:TMP-2512
Project design that can be supported by the City. These issues affect the factual basis for the MND’s transportation impact findings because it presents hazards created by the proposed driveway, emergencyaccess concerns, inconsistency with the Mobility Element, and other conclusions.

D.1. Applicant Contention: The MND is complete; City Must Circulate It.

The appellant contends that the April 2026 MND adequately describes and analyzes the Project and that there are no remaining studies or significant effects preventing circulation.

City Response 1: An Accurate and Sufficiently Stable Project Description is Required.

CEQA review must evaluate the whole of the project that the agency may actually approve, and the MND must contain an accurate and stable project description and a statement that the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment.

The MND assumes two driveways, one on Woodward Street and one on Mission Road. The Mission Road access/frontage design is disputed. If Mission Road access is retained, the MND must analyze a supported design and the physical improvements that form the basis for its significance determinations related to hazard and access. If the supported design instead changes or removes Mission Road access, the MND must analyze the resulting transportation trip distribution, emergency access, and site plan effects. Whichever route will be pursued, the Project description must accurately describe the whole of these improvements.

City Response 2: Lead Agency Independent Judgment is Required Prior to Circulation.

The City must exercise independent judgment before circulation. Although applicants may submit studies, comments, and proposed environmental analyses, the document circulated must be one the City can support as its own proposed environmental analysis. The unresolved access/frontage configuration, emergency access issues, and technical questions prevent the City from determining that the current MND describes and analyzes a sufficiently stable physical Project and provides a factual basis adequate for the City's proposed environmental conclusions.

D.2 Applicant Contention: The Mission Road Driveway is Allowed and Has Precedent.

The Appellant contends that the City routinely permits driveway access on Mission Road, that the Urban Streets Design Criteria do not categorically prohibit the proposed driveway, and that the Mission 316 East and West approvals demonstrate that Mission Road access is acceptable even where Woodward Street access is also available. The Appellant further argues that the Project's low driveway volumes do not justify the City's requested roadway changes.

City Response 1: The Urban Streets Design Criteria and Site-Specific Conflicts Require that the Mission Road Driveway Be Evaluated.

SMMC Section 17.40.060(a) states, “[a]ll streets shall be constructed and improved in accordance with the standards indicated on the San Marcos General Plan Circulation Element and Master Street Plan and City of San Marcos Street Design Criteria and in accordance with City standard plans and specifications as approved by the City Council”. The City of San Marcos Street Design Criteria (“SDC”), which predate the 2017 Project application, restrict new driveway access on a prime or secondary arterial where access is available at another location.

Lanikai proposes a driveway on Woodward Street in addition to the one on Mission Road, and Mission Road is an arterial roadway. Since the Project has access on Woodward Street, the Mission Road driveway would not normally be permitted. That does not establish that Mission Road access can never City of San Marcos Page 6 of 15 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™259
File #:TMP-2512
be permitted, but it gives the City the basis to evaluate whether access on arterial roadways is necessary, and if allowed, what site-specific design is required.

The proposed Mission Road driveway is less than 400 feet from the Mission Road and Woodward Street intersection, in an area containing both an existing merge condition and a bus stop. It would introduce, among other issues, new turning and crossing interactions with:
§ Right turns from Woodward Street to Mission Road.
§ Cyclists traveling westbound along the bike route.
§ Impaired visibility and merging issues.
§ Bus operations
The Applicant has declined to revise the Project design to incorporate improvements and project features identified by the City as necessary to comply with applicable City requirements and standards and to address site access, emergency access, and frontage improvement effects.

The driveway must be removed if the Mission Road driveway is not analyzed and conflict points are not addressed. The MND must then be updated to contemplate the project without the Mission driveway, such as reallocating the project vehicular trips to the remaining Woodward Street driveway and analyzing potential effects of this trip reallocation on the Woodward Street and Mission Road intersection. Importantly, emergency access effects associated with the change must be resolved.

These are not merely details; they determine where Project traffic and emergency services enter and exit the public street network and what physical improvements form part of the Project. Because those Project components and revisions have not been incorporated into the Project description or agreed to by the Applicant, the draft MND does not provide a legally adequate basis to conclude that potentially significant effects have been avoided or mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

City Response 2: The MND Does Not Analyze a Sufficiently Resolved Access and Frontage Configuration.

The current MND reaches less-than-significant or no-impact conclusions based on access from both Mission Road and Woodward Street, while the record shows a continuing disagreement concerning the Mission Road driveway. The access decision determines Project trip distribution, turning movements, emergency access, conflict points, and the frontage work that forms part of the physical Project. A lessthan-significant conclusion for the conflicts created by the proposed driveway or emergency access depends on the frontage configuration and cannot be considered separately from it.

A revised access/frontage design may also require conforming review in other MND sections. Changes to pavement, curb, sidewalk, grading, drainage facilities, signal equipment, utilities, construction limits, or traffic distribution may affect hydrology/stormwater, construction air quality or noise, emergency access, or other technical analyses.

Staff need not presume that any resulting effect will be significant. The City must instead determine whether the relevant technical conclusions remain valid after the physical Project and its description is sufficiently resolved.

City Response 3: The Mission 316 Driveways Do Not Establish a Comparable Precedent.

Mission 316 West was constructed after Mission 316 East. The Mission 316 East project had legal City of San Marcos Page 7 of 15 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™260
File #:TMP-2512
access only to Mission Road; no other access was available so the Mission road driveway was allowed. The Mission 316 West EIR evaluated sharing the pre-existing shared driveway with the adjacent development.

Additionally, the Mission Road driveway for the Mission 316 projects did not introduce the same potential effects as the proposed Lanikai driveway. Lanikai’s driveway is proposed less than 400 feet downstream from the Mission/Woodward intersection, in an area with a merge lane and existing bus stop. Introduction of the new driveway poses movements that potentially conflict with right turns from Woodward to Mission and impaired visibility and merging issues with bus operations in the vicinity of the proposed driveway.

D.3. Applicant Contention: The Mission Road Driveway is Required by the Fire Code.

The Appellant contends that because the Project contains 115 dwelling units, California Fire Code Appendix D requires two separate fire apparatus access roads and that the separation requirement prevents both accesses from being placed on Woodward Street. The appeal asserts that one driveway must be on Mission Road and also refers to a stricter local requirement for projects exceeding 50 units.

City Response 1: The Cited Fire Code Does Not Establish that Mission Road Access is Mandatory.

Fire Code states that multifamily housing of more than 100 dwelling units generally needs two separate approved fire access roads.

The Applicant should coordinate with the Fire Department to meet Fire access requirements. Solutions to be reviewed by Fire could include, but are not limited to, reducing the unit count of the development, constructing a second driveway at a different location, or proposing an emergency-only access on Mission Road, outfitted with a gate to prevent use by the general public.

Determining the ultimate fire access requirements will require project-specific parameters to be discussed with staff and agreed to prior to public release of the MND.

City Response 2: The MND and Fire Determination Must Evaluate the Same Supported Access Configuration.

The April 2026 MND states that the Fire Marshal reviewed the Project with two driveways and did not identify emergency-access or circulation issues. That statement is relevant to whether the twodriveway design can function for emergency access. It does not establish that the Fire Marshal determined that the Mission Road driveway is legally required to be available for use by residents or that the same emergency-access conclusion would apply to a materially different access configuration.

If the Mission Road access changes, the emergency-access conclusion should be confirmed for the supported design. If the Mission Road driveway remains, the geometric and multimodal interactions at that location still require analysis. Low trip generation does not resolve either question.

D.4. Applicant Contention: The City Cannot Require Updates to the Transportation or Level of Service Analysis.

The appeal contends that the traffic information was current when submitted in 2019, that CEQA generally establishes the baseline when environmental analysis begins, and that CEQA does not require technical studies to be continuously updated as time passes.

City Response 1: Traffic Study Inadequacies Are Not Based Solely on the Age of the Data.

City of San Marcos Page 8 of 15 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™261
File #:TMP-2512
Although CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a)(1) states that the agency should describe the physical environmental conditions at the time the environmental analysis commenced, “neither CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines mandates a uniform, inflexible rule for determination of the existing conditions baseline. Rather, an agency enjoys the discretion to decide, in the first instance, exactly how the existing physical conditions without the project can most realistically be measured, subject to review, as with all CEQA factual determinations, for support by substantial evidence.” Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010), 48 Cal. 4th 310, 328.

The traffic counts were taken in January 2018, the report was written in 2019, and the MND was not submitted to the City until 2024.

The City's concern is a specific combination of issues identified in this record, including:
· January 2018 pre-COVID counts;
· Signal timing that was estimated because actual timing sheets were unavailable; · Subsequent Mission Road signal coordination;
· Changed background conditions;
· Cumulative impacts of projects constructed or entering entitlement since 2018; · Disputed near-term and horizon-year assumptions;
· Omission of a directly relevant Mission Road segment; and · Unresolved trip-assignment inconsistency.

Importantly, the resolution to the dispute regarding the Mission Road driveway will change traffic routing, impacts to Mission Road, Woodward Street, and the intersection, and emergency access to the Project.

The MND uses the local transportation analysis (LTA) to characterize current/near-term roadway performance, to evaluate the Project's contribution under the accepted LOS framework, and to support General Plan Mobility Element consistency and must be complete and use substantiated evidence in its analysis of project effects.

City Response 2: Material Changes Must Be Considered.

The September 17, 2019 traffic study states that existing-condition traffic volumes were obtained on January 25, 2018. Phasing and timing were estimated using engineering judgment and geometric measurements from Google Earth because actual signal timing sheets for the study intersections were unavailable. Those inputs underlie the LOS values that the April 2026 MND continues to use.

Signal timing sheets are available. City staff has identified that the Mission Road corridor signal system was coordinated in 2024, changing signal timing and operations. Traffic patterns have changed significantly in the last eight to nine years, particularly due to COVID, and warrant verification of the older inputs.

Kaiser Permanente Emergency Department, North City construction, the Woodward 46 development, and other reasonably foreseeable development in the immediate Project area, are among the changes City of San Marcos Page 9 of 15 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™262
File #:TMP-2512
that should be considered when determining whether the old counts and assumptions remain representative.

The applicant may demonstrate through competent traffic-engineering analysis that particular older inputs remain representative; where they do not, they should be updated.

City Response 3: Study Area and Project Trip Distribution are Incomplete or Unresolved.

The LTA does not analyze the Mission Road segment between Pico Avenue and Woodward Street, even though the proposed Mission Road driveway assigns a substantial portion of Project traffic to it.

If the Mission Road driveway is to be removed because frontage improvements will not be constructed, then trips must be redistributed to Woodward Street, and the effects to the intersection must be analyzed.

D.5. Applicant Contention: Woodward 46 Proves That Lanikai Cannot Have a Significant Transportation Impact.

The Appellant argues that the nearby Woodward 46 project generates more AM and PM peak-hour trips than Lanikai, yet the City found Woodward 46's transportation effects acceptable.

City Response 1: Gross Trip Totals From a Different Project Do Not Determine Lanikai's ProjectSpecific Effect.

No one project can demonstrate that another project would not create an impact - an appropriate analysis must make that determination. Woodward 46 and Lanikai have different access locations, turning movements, trip distribution, site geometry, and project-specific traffic assignments. Woodward 46 calculated its own incremental effect using its own project trips and design. The fact that one project may generate somewhat more total peak-hour trips does not establish that the two projects place the same movements at the same locations or have the same incremental effect at a particular intersection or driveway.

City Response 2: Woodward 46 Identifies Materially Worse Mission Rd/Woodward St Intersection Operating Conditions Than the Older Lanikai Analysis.

The April 2026 draft Lanikai MND, relying on the 2019 study, reports the Mission Road and Woodward Street intersection at approximately LOS D under the older existing/near-term analysis. However, the more recent Woodward 46 EIR reports the Mission Road and Woodward Street intersection under Near-Term Year 2026 base conditions at a Level of Service E or F, depending upon time of day demonstrating a clear and material difference in conditions that must be considered.

Woodward 46 demonstrated in its analysis that its project traffic effects were below the significance criteria. That result cannot simply be assigned to Lanikai. Lanikai's own incremental delay must be calculated using Lanikai's project characteristics.

D.6. Applicant Contention: The Project's Relatively Low Trip Generation Resolves Potential Traffic Impacts.

The Appellant argues that the Project’s low volumes cannot create meaningful queuing, traffic, or safety impacts and therefore do not support additional roadway analysis or improvements.

City Response 1: Trip-Generation Screening Does Not Resolve a Site-Specific Concern.

A relatively low-volume driveway may still require focused analysis when the location presents siteCity of San Marcos Page 10 of 15 Printed on 9/4/2026 powered by Legistar™263
File #:TMP-2512
specific access, safety, or operational issues. The number of daily trips does not in itself determine whether the geometry of a new driveway on an arterial roadway near a signalized intersection, merge condition, bus stop, and bicycle facility creates a conflict.

D.7 Applicant Contention: The Raised Curb Extension Has No Precedent Within the City and Therefore Is Not a Proper Project Requirement.

The Appellant argues that the raised curb treatment is unprecedented or inconsistent with treatments used elsewhere in San Marcos and that comparable roadway conditions have been addressed through striping or other lower-cost measures.

City Response 1: CEQA and Local Engineering Review Are Site-Specific.

Neither CEQA nor the City's project-review record makes the existence of an identical improvement at another intersection the test for whether a site-specific access or safety issue must be analyzed. The Mission 316 West example cited by the Appellant itself demonstrates site-specific review: the EIR evaluated sight distance at that particular driveway, identified a particular obstruction, and required resolution of that condition before concluding that the driveway would not substantially increase hazards. The absence of an identical prior improvement does not eliminate the need to analyze the Project-specific conflict.

City Response 2: The General Plan and ATP Provide Policy Context but Do Not Make the Exact Raised Curb Treatment Universally Mandatory.

The General Plan Mobility Element and Active Transportation Plan support complete-street, multimodal, pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and conflict-reduction objectives and authorize consideration of development-related frontage and transition improvements. Staff do not represent those plans as categorically requiring this exact raised curb configuration at Lanikai. Their relevance is that they provide policy and design context for the City's site-specific review.

D.8. Applicant Contention: The Applicant Disputes the City-Requested Frontage Changes, So the MND Does Not Need to Analyze Them.

The Appellant contends that the raised curb extension, lane modifications along Mission Road or removal of the proposed driveway on Mission Road cannot be required because the City does not have a legal basis to demand them. Therefore, the MND cannot be withheld from circulation because the applicant refuses to study the impact of these improvements. Furthermore, the Appellant contends that right-of-way dedication, bicycle improvements, curbline treatment, and related frontage requirements lack the essential nexus and rough proportionality required by Dolan and Ehrlich, and therefore these exactions cannot lawfully be imposed.

City Response 1: The Exaction Issue and CEQA Readiness Are Analytically Separate.

The City still must know what physical Project it can support and analyze the environmental consequences of that Project. The issue at hand is the readiness of the MND for public circulation. The applicant retains the ability under the law to challenge the City’s exactions at a later date.

Additionally, in August 2025, the City prepared a project-specific "Exaction Analysis of Right of Way Dedication and Frontage Improvements" (Attachment J). The analysis identified the appropriate nexus for the public improvements required of the Project. Additionally, the analysis established proportionality by comparing the estimated burden of the ultimate proposed dedication and frontage work at approximately $507,926, compared with an estimated $3,194,213 in Project demand on citywide pedestrian, bicycle, and roadway facilities. This Project demand on citywide facilities was determined by calculating the length of sidewalk, bicycle, and roadway improvements needed citywide City of San Marcos Page 11 of 15 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™264
File #:TMP-2512
to support the proposed Project, then estimating the burden to the public of constructing those improvements.

Staff initially required of the Project a broader ultimate-frontage concept consistent with City plans and policies. When the Applicant requested to limit right-of-way dedication and frontage construction, staff developed a dramatically reduced interim improvement concept. The Exaction Analysis considers only the broader, ultimate scope of right-of-way dedication and improvements, which are more burdensome to the developer than the interim improvement scenario the City later offered. Because proportionality was established with the more burdensome improvements, it must still hold with the significantly reduced interim improvement scope.

D.9. Applicant Contention: The Raised Curb Extension Only Corrects a Pre-Existing City Deficiency and Conflicts With CalTrans/FHWA Guidance.

The Appellant contends that the existing westbound Mission Road merge is a pre-existing public-street deficiency for which Lanikai is not responsible.

City Response 1: The Relevant Question Is Whether the Project Adds or Exacerbates Physical Conflicts in the Existing Setting.

The proposed Project introduces a new Mission Road driveway, new turning movements, and new Project-generated vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit activity at the location of the existing merge and bus stop. The relevant question is the Project's interaction with the existing roadway condition, and overall project configuration needs to be decided before effects under the MND can be properly studied.

City Response 2: The Curb Extension Addresses Effects of the Proposed Mission Road Driveway.

The City Engineer's March 5, 2024, email described a context-specific concept involving localized reallocation of right-of-way, moving the curb line south, removing or reconfiguring the substandard merge, establishing a bus bay, reducing pedestrian crossing distance, improving pedestrian visibility and signal operations ahead of the proposed driveway, and providing a treatment with a reasonable nexus to the proposed development.

The record also shows that staff identified the conflict between the proposed Mission Road driveway and the westbound lane-end condition during the initial improvement-plan review in 2018, well before the present appeal, and discussed lane-drop, widening, and bicycle treatments at that time. The later curb extension concept was developed as another approach to the same site-specific conflict in consideration of the applicant’s request to minimize project frontage improvements. Whether the final treatment uses the current concept or another supported design, the whole of the Project is to be evaluated in the MND.

D.10 Applicant Contention: Pedestrian Push Buttons, Signal Timing, Striping, and Delineation Fully Resolve the Pedestrian and Safety Concerns.

The Appellant's traffic engineer proposes signal-timing changes to accommodate a slower pedestrian clearance speed and contends that striping and delineation can address the roadway condition without a raised curb extension or frontage improvement construction.

City Response 1: Signal Timing and Striping Does Not Resolve the Separate Driveway, Merge, Bicycle, Transit, and Access-Geometry Issues.

City of San Marcos Page 12 of 15 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™265
File #:TMP-2512
If technical review demonstrates that revised pedestrian timing and additional button proposal adequately addresses the pedestrian-clearance issue, it may be an appropriate component of the supported design. However, the evidence presented to staff does not indicate that the pedestrian crossing and driveway concerns can be fully addressed through signal timing alone or that it would be supported by applicable standards.

Allowing pedestrians more time to cross while vehicles traveling in the same direction have a green light does not eliminate the potential traffic effects. When an older pedestrian presses the crossing button, the signal must remain green long enough to provide the additional time needed to for the senior resident to cross the street. Because the MND does not estimate the number of pedestrian crossings or calculate the additional signal time they would require, it is not possible to determine whether these longer signal cycles would cause significant delays at the Mission Road and Woodward Street intersection or along the nearby roadway. Additionally, the MND must address the safety and exposure risk for older pedestrians on a multi-lane arterial.

Additionally, the record separately identifies questions on the new Mission Road driveway, right-turn and merge movements from Woodward, westbound bicycle travel, bus-stop operations, visibility, curbline geometry, and emergency-access. A pedestrian timing adjustment may address one element of the analysis without resolving those other physical conflicts.

City staff have expressed significant concern that the striping and delineation alternatives do not adequately mitigate driveway impacts and create additional risks for pedestrians, and have repeatedly rejected the proposal. The argument that the pedestrian crossing concern can be fully addressed through signal timing and striping alone is not supported by the facts of this project or applicable standards. Adjusting clearance time and striping alone do not reduce total exposure time, eliminate conflict points, improve mutual visibility between pedestrians and motorists, or reduce vehicle turning speeds.

D.11. Overall Effect of the Appeal Contentions on MND Readiness for Public Circulation.

Taken together, the appeal contentions do not establish that the City must circulate the current MND.

The material issues are the unresolved Project and access/frontage configuration; emergency-access questions; inconsistent access descriptions; the need for a Project-specific Fire and emergency access determination; and technical analysis issues. These issues affect the factual basis for the MND’s transportation, geometric-hazard, emergency-access, Mobility Element, and potentially other conclusions.

Accordingly, staff recommends denial of the appeal and affirmation of ADM 2026-5226. The City's decision to withhold the current MND from circulation is not a project denial and is not a determination that the applicant must accept one particular conceptual curb treatment as a condition of approval. It is a lead-agency determination that material project-description and factual-basis issues must be corrected and evaluated before the City presents the document to the public as its proposed MND. Furthermore, the December 2019 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed by the Applicant and its CEQA consultants also confirms the City's final authority to determine what must be included for a defensible, transparent, and complete environmental document. The MOU is included as Attachment G.

The applicant may resolve the Project configuration, verify or update the supporting technical analyses, and resubmit a revised MND. If a revised MND is circulated, the City retains its authority and duty to consider comments and new information and, as required by CEQA and the record, obtain additional analysis, revise the Project or mitigation, recirculate, or prepare an EIR before final action.

E. Environmental Review
City of San Marcos Page 13 of 15 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™266
File #:TMP-2512
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the proposed project (ND26-007). The MND was first submitted for City review on May 14, 2024 and last submitted on April 1, 2026. The MND project description does not include the Mission Road frontage improvements required to support the proposed project design nor does it include a complete traffic and transportation analysis and is therefore incomplete. Updates must be made to the project description and to the supporting technical analyses accordingly.

As the MND is not complete, the MND cannot be circulated as required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073. As such, Administrative Resolution ADM 26-5226 (Attachment D) was reviewed and approved by the City Manager on July 2, 2026 determining the MND for the project to be incomplete and unable to be circulated, pursuant to San Marcos Municipal Code Section 18.04.060(a)(2).

Attachment(s)
Adopting Resolution:

1. Resolution No. 2026-9652 DENYING the appeal
A. Vicinity Map
B. Aerial Photo / Mission Road Frontage
C. Draft Project Plans
D. Resolution ADM 26-5226
E. Appeal Letter dated July 10, 2026
F. Supplemental Appeal Letter dated July 31, 2026
G. Memorandum of Understanding
H. Letter dated April 10, 2025
I. Lanikai Project Appeal AA26-0004: Staff Analysis of Appeal J. Exaction Analysis of Right of Way Dedication and Frontage Improvements City of San Marcos Page 14 of 15 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™267
File #:TMP-2512
Prepared by: Chris Garcia, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Kyrenne Chua, Principal Engineer
Eddmond Alberto, City Traffic Engineer
Stephanie Kellar, Deputy City Engineer
Submitted by: Joseph Farace, Planning Division Director Isaac Etchamendy, Development Services Director / City Engineer Approved by: Michelle Bender, City Manager
City of San Marcos Page 15 of 15 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™268
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-9652

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN

MARCOS DENYING AN APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY MANAGER (ADM 26-5226)

DETERMINING THE DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION (ND26-007) FOR THE LANIKAI SENIOR

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT TO BE INCOMPLETE

AND UNABLE TO BE CIRCULATED
AA26-0004 / ND26-007

LANIKAI PARTNERS I, LP
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2017, the City received an application from Lanikai Partners I, LP requesting a Specific Plan Amendment, General Plan Amendment, and Multi-Family Site Development Plan (SP17-0004, GPA17-0003, MFSDP19-0001) to develop a 115-unit, agerestricted senior apartment project (“Project”) on approximately 3.96 acres at the northwest corner of East Mission Road and Woodward Street in the Heart of the City Specific Plan (SPA) Zone more particularly described as:

Brief Legal Description: All of Lot 2 and the southerly 209 feet of Lot 1, all in Block 60 of Rancho Los Vallecitos de San Marcos, in the City of San Marcos, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof 806, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County December 21, 1895.

Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 220-063-04-00
WHEREAS, the Project proposes access from both East Mission Road and Woodward Street and must include frontage, circulation, pedestrian, bicycle, drainage, grading, and other public and private improvements that are part of the physical development to be considered by the City; and
WHEREAS, to support the Project, Lanikai Management (“Appellant”), through its consultant, prepared a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to analyze the effects of the proposed Project on the environment as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); and
WHEREAS, the Appellant first submitted the MND for City review on May 14, 2024, and submitted the most recent iteration of the same to the City for review on April 1, 2026; and WHEREAS, the City of San Marcos (“City”) is the lead agency for environmental review of the Project under CEQA; and
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c) requires the lead agency to independently review and analyze the environmental documents and to circulate draft documents that are consistent with the City’s independent judgement; and WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration must contain an accurate and stable Project description prior to public circulation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(c) and County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 185, 193; and 269
Resolution No. 2026-9652
AA26-0004
September 8, 2026

WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Sections 21064.5 and 21080(c)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b) require that the Mitigated Negative Declaration include agreed-upon revisions prior to circulation to the public; and
WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(a) requires that the Mitigated Negative Declaration include an accurate description of the whole action, and material studies of effects on the environment cannot be deferred; and
WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15070 and 15071 require that the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration contain information and evidence to support a finding that the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment before circulation to the public; and WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(d)(5) requires that the Initial Study examine the Project’s consistency with existing zoning and plans; and WHEREAS, after review of the Draft MND and supporting technical materials, the City identified unresolved deficiencies in the MND; and
WHEREAS, these deficiencies include, among other issues, the Project description, access configuration, transportation and circulation information, and transportation effects associated with the proposed project access; and
WHEREAS, the deficiencies also include the lack of analysis of environmental effects associated with those Project modifications, frontage improvements, and emergency access modifications as may be required reach a Project design that can be supported by the City; and WHEREAS, on July 2, 2026, the City Manager issued Administrative Resolution ADM26- 5226 determining the draft MND to be incomplete and not adequate to begin public circulation under CEQA and the San Marcos Municipal Code, which decision was distributed to the Appellant on July 6, 2026; and
WHEREAS, on July 13, 2026, an appeal (AA26-0004) was filed by Gatzke Dillon & Balance LLP on behalf of the Appellant disagreeing with the decision of the City Manager made in Administrative Resolution ADM 26-5226. The appeal contends, among other things, that the Draft MND should be circulated in its current form and challenges City staff's positions regarding transportation analyses and frontage improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Appellant has raised separate constitutional exaction arguments under Dolan v. City of Tigard 512 U.S. 374, 394-395 (1994) and Ehrlich v. City of Culver City 12 Cal. 4th 854 (1996); and
WHEREAS, the City Council held an appeal hearing on September 8, 2026, which was duly noticed and held in the manner prescribed by law; and WHEREAS, the Appellant was given the opportunity to participate in the public hearing through oral testimony and submittal of written comments; and 270
Resolution No. 2026-9652
AA26-0004
September 8, 2026

WHEREAS, the City, as the lead agency under CEQA, is required to independently review and analyze the Mitigated Negative Declaration and to circulate draft documents that reflect the lead agency’s independent judgment and make a finding of the same; and WHEREAS, after consideration of the evidence of the entire administrative record, at the public hearing on September 8, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-9652 denying the appeal (AA26-0004) and affirming ADM26-5226.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve as follows:

A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference into this Resolution. The City Council also hereby incorporates the findings and factual determinations in ADM26-5226.

B. The City Council, having independently heard, considered, and weighed all the evidence in the record presented on behalf of all parties and being fully informed of the Project, including ADM26-5226, attached hereto, and the staff report and attachments, oral and written public testimony, and all other documents and evidence in the public record on the Project and the appeal , hereby finds that the Appellant has not shown, based on evidence in the record, that the City Manager’s decisions were made in error. This determination is based on the appeal documentation, staff report, and attachments to the staff report, which are incorporated herein by reference.

C. The City Council denies the appeal and upholds the City Manager’s decision determining the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Lanikai Senior Residential Development Project to be incomplete and unable to be circulated. The denial of the appeal is not a denial of the Project as a whole.

D. The City Council’s decision is based on the following findings and determinations:

1. Where the supported Project configuration includes curb, roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, signal, bus-stop, drainage, grading, utility, or frontage work, the City must determine in its independent judgment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c) whether those reasonably foreseeable physical changes require corresponding updates to the MND or technical studies. The environmental document cannot omit material physical components of the Project configuration on which its conclusions depend.

2. Appellant has refused to address safety concerns created by the addition of a Project driveway on Mission Road and incorporate these revisions into the MND as required pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21064.5 and 21080(c)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b), and thus the driveway would contribute to a safety hazard and cannot be permitted without appropriate frontage improvements to mitigate the hazard.

3. The record contains the unresolved disagreement over whether the Mission Road driveway may operate as proposed, what frontage and safety treatment would accompany it, and what access configuration would apply if it is removed or materially modified. Therefore, trip distribution, circulation, emergency access, 271
Resolution No. 2026-9652
AA26-0004
September 8, 2026

pedestrian and bicycle interactions, frontage construction, and potentially the site plan and the reasonably foreseeable physical effects of that configuration have not been sufficiently studied in the MND as required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(a).

4. The proposed frontage improvements suggested by the Appellant do not ensure the safety hazard created by the Mission Road driveway will be mitigated.

5. Without the driveway on Mission Road, the Project is limited to the driveway on Woodward Street, and the environmental impacts of this configuration of the Project have not been studied in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

6. Without the driveway on Mission Road, the Project will need to determine how it will address California Fire Code requirements for emergency access in this unknown configuration. The Draft MND concludes there is no emergency-access impact based on two driveways, but the environmental document should be consistent with a clear project-specific fire-access determination.

7. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G expressly addresses circulation programs for transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and geometric-design hazards.

The MND must provide a factual basis for its site-specific safety and access conclusions.

8. The Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) submitted by Appellant is incomplete, specifically:
a. The LTA does not analyze the Mission Road segment between Pico Avenue and Woodward Street where the Appellant’s proposed Mission Road driveway would be located. Additionally, the project-only peak-hour assignment appears inconsistent with the written distribution assumption. These matters must be reconciled because trip routing informs access, turning movements, queueing, safety, and other transportation-related environmental analyses. b. The LTA does not analyze the trips that would be redistributed to the Woodward Street driveway since the Mission Road driveway cannot be permitted without addressing the safety concerns. Additionally, the Project’s increase in pedestrian crossing times and associated effects to Mission Road have not been analyzed. Council finds that these project changes, f proposed, must be described and analyzed in the MND.
c. The 2019 LTA relies on January 2018 traffic counts. However, changed background conditions and more recent nearby analysis provide specific reasons to verify whether the older assumptions remain representative or to update them where necessary. The City Council does not find that its age alone invalidates this technical study, and the updated information must be studied in the LTA to provide an accurate assessment of the existing conditions. d. The 2019 LTA states that actual signal timing sheets were unavailable at the time of preparation, requiring estimated signal timing to be analyzed rather 272
Resolution No. 2026-9652
AA26-0004
September 8, 2026

than actual signal timing. The Mission Road signal timing is available and has been retimed and coordinated since 2018, similarly resulting in changed conditions. City Council finds that the changed conditions must be analyzed in the MND and inputs updated or verified.
e. The LTA is not representative of traffic from development in the area since 2018, including but not limited to Kaiser Permanente hospital, North City, and Woodward 46, added traffic from regional trips through Mission Rd and other reasonably foreseeable development. City Council finds that the cumulative conditions must be analyzed in the MND and transportation conclusions updated or verified.

9. The General Plan Mobility Element and Active Transportation Plan provide relevant policy and design context for multimodal access, complete streets, safety, and developer frontage implementation. City Council finds that the MND has not analyzed the Project’s consistency with these plans as required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(d)(5).

10. Council finds that the unresolved Project access/frontage configuration and the LTA issues independently support the conclusion that the MND is not ready for circulation to the public. The Council's decision is based upon these multiple factors independently and does not depend on the ultimate outcome of any one disputed engineering feature, such as the disputed access/frontage configuration.

11. The Council has rejected Appellant’s suggestion that the City considers age itself an environmental impact. The Project's age restriction may be considered only to the extent a disclosed project characteristic is supported by technical evidence relevant to design or operations, such as pedestrian-clearance assumptions, not the age of future residents as such.

12. The Appellant’s arguments regarding Dolan v. City of Tigard 512 U.S. 374, 394-395 (1994) and Ehrlich v. City of Culver City 12 Cal. 4th 854 (1996) concern the legality of particular dedications or improvement conditions if ultimately imposed. These arguments are distinct and separate from the central question of whether the MND is complete and ready to be circulated for public review and are not under consideration in this Resolution.

13. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, without a defined Project configuration and description and with a deficient Local Transportation Analysis, is incomplete and cannot support a finding that the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment as required under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15070 and 15071.

14. The City Council cannot find that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City’s independent judgment as required under Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c), as it is an incomplete document that will not provide the public with enough information to understand the effects of the Project on the environment.

15. The City Council finds that the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration is not adequate or complete and shall not be circulated in its current form as it does not include agreed upon 273
Resolution No. 2026-9652
AA26-0004
September 8, 2026

revisions as required by Public Resources Code Sections 21064.5 and 21080(c)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b).

16. The City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration must be revised to ensure the Project’s effects on the environment are properly studied and incorporated and the applicant shall submit a revised environmental document for City review. If and when a revised MND or other environmental document is circulated, the City shall consider comments and it shall retain its full authority, independent judgment, and duty under CEQA to require additional information or analysis, revise the Project or incorporate mitigation measures, recirculate a revised document when legally required, or prepare an environmental impact report if substantial evidence or other information in the administrative record so requires before final action on the environmental document or Project.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of San Marcos, California, at a regular meeting thereof, held on this 8 th day of September, 2026, by the following
roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED:

Mike Sanella, Deputy Mayor
ATTEST:

Phillip Scollick, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT(S):

EXHIBIT A – Administrative Resolution ADM 26-5226
274
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-9652 - EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION ADM 26-5226
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283

ATTACHMENT A

VICINITY MAP
284
City of San Marcos
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
City of San Marcos, California 1 Civic Center Drive | San Marcos, CA 92069 | (760) 744-1050

VICINITY MAP
Project Site
285

ATTACHMENT B

AERIAL PHOTO/ FRONTAGE CONDITIONS
286
City of San Marcos
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
City of San Marcos, California 1 Civic Center Drive | San Marcos, CA 92069 | (760) 744-1050 AERIAL PHOTO (APRIL 2026)
EXISTING FRONTAGE CONDITIONS (APRIL 2026)
287

ATTACHMENT C

DRAFT PROJECT PLANS
288
289
DRAFT
SITE

UNDEVELOPED OFFICE BLDG

SAN MARCOS CIVIC CENTER

SAN MARCOS

SENIOR CENTER

SAN MARCOS

SCHOOL DISTRICT
22 19
10 7
8 16
11 135 STALLS

PROVIDED

MISSION ROAD

WOODWARD ST
30'-0" PROPOSED FOUR STORY BUILDING GROUND FLOOR: +/- 27,700 SF TOTAL AREA: +/- 106,300 SF 115 LIVING UNITS 17 6
TE

LAP POOL
SPA
PATIO
AREA
BBQ
AREA
11'-0"
26'-0" 26'-0" 26'-0"
26'-0"

RETAINING WALL

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
19'-0"

PROPERTY LINE
48" PEDESTRIAN

ACCESS PATH

PEDESTRIAN

ACCESS PATH
POOL EQUIP. FENCE & GATE

DROP-OFF
BOLLARDS 9'-0" TYP.
16'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0"
H=2'
H=8'
H=10.5'
H=10'
H=9'
H=10.5'
H=12'
H=11.5'
H=11.5'
H=5'
H=13.5'

SOUTHER RIPARIAN

FOREST PER HELIX
EXHIBIT 1/27/2021
16'-0"
16'-0"
2'-0"
2'-0"
18'-0"
2'-0"

OVERHANG OVERHANG
H=4'
H=4'
H=1'
H=1'

RETAINING WALL - EXPOSED

MASONRY WALLS TO BE SPLIT FACE

FINISH, NATURAL GRAY COLOR

RETAINING WALL - EXPOSED

MASONRY WALLS TO BE SPLIT FACE

FINISH, NATURAL GRAY COLOR

NO FENCING AT TOP OF WALL
9'-0" typ. 9'-0" typ.
9'-0"
typ.
18'-0"
4'-0"
24'-0"
139'-4"
H=6'
H=2'
H=4'-6"
LOADING 1
(12x30)
LOADING 2
(10x20)
LOADING 3
(10x20) 9'-0" Typ. 9'-0" Typ. 9'-0" Typ.
24'-0"

PROVIDE CABLE GUARD RAIL ALONG

RETAINING WALL, SEE LANDSCAPE

DRAWINGS
5 5
6 3
24'-0" 20'-0" 24'-0"
18'-0"
18'-0" 9'-0" TYP. 18'-0" 18'-0"
5' HIGH CMU

WALL EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS

BICYCLE
PARKING (23)
10'-9"
12'-3"
16'-3"
36'-2"
15'-4"
EXISTING 100YR FLOODWAY PER FEMA
EXISTING 100YR

FLOODWAY PER FEMA
PRP F.H.

PRP F.H.
(BIOLOGICAL BUFFER)
10'-7"
16'-8"
17'-4"
10'-6"
202'-6" 300 FT. MAX. REQUIRED SPACING

PROPOSED TRELLIS
17'-3"
CL
CL

EXISTING

TRAFFIC
SIGNAL
±10,250 SF BIOLOGICAL BUFFER
±10,250 SF BIOLOGICAL BUFFER

OVERHANG
DATE:

MCG JOB #:

DATE REVISIONS

ADULT LIVING COMMUNITY

SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
N

16.562.01
08-11-2025
0 SITE PLAN
Scale : 1" = 30'
15' 30' 60'

LOCATION PLAN

UNITS FLOOR
STUDIO
1 BEDROOM UNIT
2 BEDROM UNIT
TYPE
A
B
C
1ST
FLOOR
2ND
FLOOR
3RD
FLOOR
4TH
6 13
4 5
19 6
5 20
6 TOTAL 23 30 31 115
22 72
21 TOTAL
FIRE NOTES:

1. PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE A CONSTRUCTION STAGING/SITE PHASING PLAN SHALL BE PROVIDED.

2. PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE MAP WILL BE PROVIDED IN A CAD AND GIS FORMAT USING NAD1983 STATE PLAN CALIFORNIA VI FIPS 0406 FEET COORDINATE SYSTEM AND SHALL SPECIFICALLY INCLUDE A SITE PLAN, BUILDING PLAN, ALL UTILITY SHUT-OFFS, FIRE SPRINKLER RISERS AND SHUT-OFF VALVES, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION FOR SPRINKLER AND CLASS-1 STANDPIPE, ALL STANDPIPE HOSE OUTLETS, ALL STAIRWELLS, RETAIL SPACES, LIVING UNITS -NUMBERS /LOCATIONS, FIRE ALARM PANELS, ELEVATORS, FIRE HYDRANTS AND ALL KNOX BOXES AND KEY SWITCH LOCATIONS. 3. PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE A NOTE WILL BE ADDED TO THE FIRE PLANS THAT SHALL STATES: 4. PRIOR TO DELIVERING ANY COMBUSTIBLE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TO THE PROJECT SITE; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE COMPLETED TO SATISFACTION OF THE FIRE DEPT. (1) FIRE HYDRANT(S) SHALL BE INSTALLED, APPROVED AND USABLE. (2) FIRE LANE OR ACCESS ROADS SHALL BE IN PLACE AND PROVIDE A PERMANENT ALL WEATHER SURFACE FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES THAT SUPPORT WEIGHT OF FIRE APPARATUS (75,000 LBS). 5. EMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO COVERAGE SHALL COMPLY WITH SECTION 510 OF THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE. 6. THE ENTIRE MID-RISE ORDINANCE APPLIES TO THIS PROJECT PER SMMC SECTION 17.64.210. 7. AN AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST CURRENT EDITION OF THE CA FIRE CODE AND MOST CURRENT EDITION OF NFPA 13. 8. FIRE ALARM SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST CURRENT EDITION OF THE CA FIRE CODE AND THE MOST CURRENT EDITION OF NFPA 72. ALARM SYSTEM SHALL INCLUDE VOICE-EVACUATION FUNCTION, PER CITY OF SAN MARCOS MID-RISE ORDINANCE - SMMC, SECTION 17.64.210.

9. THE GRADIENT FOR A FIRE APPARATUS ROADWAY SHALL NOT EXCEED 20%. GRADES EXCEEDING 12% (INCLINE OR DECLINE) SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED WITHOUT MITIGATION. MINIMAL SURFACE OF PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE (PCC), WITH A DEEP BROOM FINISH PERPENDICULAR TO THE ENTIRE DIRECTION/LENGTH OF TRAVEL AND GRADE. THE ANGLE OF DEPARTURE AND APPROACH OF FIRE ACCESS ROADS SHALL NOT EXCEED SEVEN DEGREES (12 PERCENT).

10. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS SHALL HAVE AN UNOBSTRUCTED IMPROVED WIDTH OF NOT LESS THAN 24 FEET; CURB LINE TO CURB LINE, AND AN UNOBSTRUCTED VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF NOT LESS THAN 13 FEET 6 INCHES. ACCESS ROADS SHALL BE ALL WEATHER SURFACE AND DESIGNED TO SUPPORT IMPOSED LOADS OF NOT LESS THAN 75,000 POUNDS. 11. AN APPROVED WALKWAY SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AROUND ALL PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING. 12. INSTALL BRONZE INDUSTRIAL FIRE HYDRANTS. MINIMUM GPM SHALL BE PER CFC APPENDIX B. INDUSTRIAL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL HAVE TWO 4 INCH PORTS AND ONE 2.5 INCH PORT. INSTALLATION SHALL BE AS PER LOCAL WATER DISTRICT SPECIFICATIONS. HYDRANT TYPE SHALL BE JONES OR CLOW. ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE COLOR CODED PER NFPA 291. MAXIMUM DISTANCE FROM ONE HYDRANT TO ANOTHER CANNOT EXCEED 300 FEET. MAXIMUM DISTANCE FROM FIRE HYDRANT TO AN FDC SHALL NOT EXCEED 50 FEET. 13. PLANS FOR FIRE SERVICE UNDERGROUND PIPING SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO FIRE DEPARTMENT FIELD INSPECTIONS. ALL UNDERGROUND PIPING SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH NFPA 13 AND NFPA 24. 14. ALL ELEVATORS BEING INSTALLED SHALL MEET THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF CFC SECTION 607 AND CBC CHAPTER 30 WHICH COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING: (1) AT LEAST ONE (1) ELEVATOR THAT EXTENDS TO THE TOP FLOOR OF A STRUCTURE SHALL ACCOMMODATE THE LOADING AND TRANSPORT OF AN AMBULANCE GURNEY OR STRETCHER (MAXIMUM SIZE 24 INCHES BY 76 INCHES) IN THE HORIZONTAL POSITION. (2) THE ELEVATOR CAR SHALL BE OF SUCH A SIZE AND ARRANGEMENT TO ACCOMMODATE A 24-INCH BY 84- INCH AMBULANCE GURNEY OR STRETCHER IN THE HORIZONTAL, OPEN POSITION, SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A MINIMUM CLEAR DISTANCE BETWEEN WALLS OR BETWEEN WALLS AND DOOR EXCLUDING RETURN PANELS NOT LESS THAN 80 INCHES BY 54 INCHES, AND A MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM WALL TO RETURN PANEL NOT LESS THAN 51 INCHES WITH A 42-INCH SIDE SLIDE DOOR. (3) A MINIMUM OF FOUR (4) KEYS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR FIRE DEPT. USE. (4) A LIGHTED DIRECTORY MAP, MEETING CURRENT FIRE DEPARTMENT STANDARDS, SHALL BE INSTALLED AT EACH DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE.

15. ALL DRAPES, HANGINGS CURTAINS, DROPS, AND OTHER DECORATIVE MATERIAL SHALL BE TREATED AND MAINTAINED IN A FLAME-RETARDANT CONDITION AS APPROVED BY CA. STATE FIRE MARSHAL. TITLE 19, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE 3.08

16. MULTIPLE KNOX BOXES MAY BE REQUIRED.

NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject to adjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, and Governmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties of any kind are given or implied by the Architect.

C MCG ARCHITECTURE 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
5 20
6 31
APN: 220-063-04
SITE AREA: ±3.96 AC. (±172,694 SF)

PROPOSED

BUILDING AREA
FIRST FLOOR: 27,700 SF
SECOND FLOOR: 26,200 SF
THIRD FLOOR: 26,200 SF
FOURTH FLOOR: 26,200 SF
TOTAL BUILDING AREA: 106,300 SF
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS: 115 UNITS
DENSITY: 29 UNITS/ACRE

COVERAGE
BUILDING: 16.04% 27,700 SF
PARKING: 29.93% 51,547 SF
HARDSCAPE: 7.90% 13,609 SF
LANDSCAPE: 25.40% 43,742 SF

UNDISTURBED
VEGETATION: 20.68% 35,609 SF
TOTAL 100.00% 172,207 sf

PROVIDED REQUIRED
LOT COVERAGE: 16.04% 55% MAX
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT: 50' 50'

SETBACKS
FRONT/ MISSION ROAD: 19' 15'
SIDE STREET/ WOODWARD ST: 11' MIN. 10'
REAR 139' 4" 25'

PARKING
STANDARD STALLS (9'X18'): 94 STALLS
(5 - LEVEL 3, EVCS)
COMPACT STALLS (9'x16'): 35 STALLS
ACCESSIBLE STALLS: 8 STALLS
(2 - LEVEL 3, EVCS)
TOTAL PARKING: 135 STALLS 114 STALLS
PARKING RATIO: 1.18 STALLS/UNIT 1.25 STALLS/UNIT
BICYCLE PARKING: 23 (1SP/5 UNITS) 23 (1 SP/5 UNITS)

RESIDENTIAL UNIT BREAKDOWN
A1
MFSDP19-0001
01/04/2022 CITY COMMENTS
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND NON RESIDENTIAL: WILL THE
PROJECT INSTALL ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS (LEVELS 2

OR BETTER) IN AT LEAST FIVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL PARKING SPACES PROVIDED ON-SITE?
ITEM: REQUIRED: PROVIDED:

CAP COMPLIANCE TABLE
TOTAL OF 7 EVCS STALLS WILL BE
INCLUDED IN THE PARKING AREA.

MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND NON RESIDENTIAL: WILL THE

PROJECT DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A TDM PLAN THAT INCLUDES, AT A MINIMUM, ALL OF THE TDM STRATEGIES LISTED BELOW?
· PROVIDE DISCOUNRED MONTHLY TRANSIT PASS OR PROVIDE AT LEAST 25 PERCENT TRANSIT FARE SUBSIDY TO
RESIDENTS/EMPLOYEES. · PROVIDE DESIGNATED CAR-SHARE, CARPOOL, VANPOOL, AND/OR PARK-AND-RIDE PARKING SPACES.2 · PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS BETWEEN ALL INTERNAL

USES AND TO ALL EXISTING OR PLANNED EXTERNAL STREETS
AROUND THE PROJECT SITE(S). · PROVIDE SECURE BICYLCE PARKING SPACES OR BYCYCLE RACKS, SHOWERS, AND CLOTHES LOCKERS. · ENCOURAGE TELECOMMUTING FOR EMPLOYEES (ALLOW ONE

TELECOMMUTE DAY PER WEEK OR COMPRESSED WORK WEEKS)

OR PROVIDE A TELECOMMUTE WORK CENTER WITH COMMON
OFFICE SPACE AND EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE TO RESIDENTS.
-ORWOULD THE PROJECT IMPLEMENT AND MONITOR FOR FOUR(4) YEARS

A TDM PROGRAM THAT DEMONSTRATES AN ALTERNATIVE
TRANSPORTATION (i.e. CARPOOL, PUBLIC TRANSIT, BICYCLE, WALK, TELECOMMUTE) MODE SHARE OF AT LEAST 29 PERCENT ^3 FOR ALL RESIDENTS?

THE PROJECT OWNERS WILL DEVELOP A

PROGRAM TO OFFER DISCOUNTED TRANSIT
PASSES. CARPOOL AND VANPOOL SPACES
WILL BE SECURED IN THE PARKING AREA.

PEDESTRIANS CONNECTIONS ARE PROVIDED
TO THE LOCAL SIDEWALKS. BIKE RACKS WILL
BE PROVIDED. UNITS HAVE SHOWERS.

WILL THE PROJECT INSTALL ONE OF, OR A

COMBINATION OF, THE FOLLOWING WATER

HEATER TYPES IN PLACE OF NATURAL GAS
WATER HEATERS?
· ELECTRIC HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER
· ELECTRIC TANK

ELECTRIC HEAT PUMP WATER HEATERS

AND/OR ELECTRIC TANKS WILL BE
INSTALLED.

PHOTOVOLTAIC

INSTALLATION
(MEASURE E-1)

WILL THE PROJECT INSTALL PHOTOVOLTAIC

SYSTEMS WITH A MINIMUM CAPACITY OF TWO

WATTS PER SQUARE FOOT OF GROSS FLOOR
AREA?

REFERENCE THE ROOF LAYOUT, SEE
SHEET A6.

WATER HEATERS
(MEASURE E-1)

ELECTRICAL

VEHICLE

CHARGING

STATIONS
(MEASURE T-2)

TRANSPORTATION
DEMAND

MANAGEMENT
(MEASURE T-9)
SR-78
N
N.T.S.
11/15/2022 CITY COMMENTS
05/18/2023 CITY COMMENTS
05/08/2024 CITY COMMENTS
NOTES:
* FIRE LANES: FIRE LANES SHALL BE POSTED AND/OR CURBS PAINTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CA. VEHICLE CODE, SECTION 22500.L, 22658(A) AND SAN MARCOS FIRE DEPARTMENT STANDARDS. THE NUMBER, WORDING AND PLACEMENT OF ALL FIRE LANE SIGNS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE FIRE DEPT. PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.

LEGEND:

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PATH

RETAINING WALL

EXISTING FLOODWAY
DRAFT
290
22 19
10 7
8 16
11 17
6 SPA
BBQ
AREA
POOL EQUIP. FENCE & GATE
9'-0"
typ.
5 5
6 3
PRP F.H.

PRP F.H.
202'-6" 300 FT. MAX. REQUIRED SPACING
Pumper Fire Truck
Pumper Fire Truck
Pumper Fire Truck
Pumper Fire Truck Pumper Fire Truck
Pumper Fire Truck
Pumper Fire Truck
SITE

UNDEVELOPED OFFICE BLDG

SAN MARCOS CIVIC CENTER

SAN MARCOS

SENIOR CENTER

SAN MARCOS

SCHOOL DISTRICT
DATE:

MCG JOB #:

DATE REVISIONS

ADULT LIVING COMMUNITY

SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
N

16.562.01

03.25.2025
0 TRUCK TURNING SITE PLAN
Scale : 1" = 30'
15' 30' 60'

LOCATION PLAN
NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject to adjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, and Governmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties of any kind are given or implied by the Architect.

C MCG ARCHITECTURE 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
A1-TT
MFSDP19-0001
11/15/2021 CITY COMMENTS
01/04/2022 CITY COMMENTS
SR-78
N
N.T.S.

PUMP FIRE TRUCK TURN RADII
11/15/2022 CITY COMMENTS
05/18/2023 CITY COMMENTS
NOTES:
* ALL NEW FIRE HYDRANTS INSIDE THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE PRIVATE HYDRANTS. * MAXIMUM SPACING FROM A FIRE HYDRANT TO ANY FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION SHALL BE 50 FEET. * MAXIMUM SPACING BETWEEN FIRE HYDRANT SHALL BE 300 FEET FROM ONE ANOTHER. * FIRE LANES: FIRE LANES SHALL BE POSTED AND/OR CURBS PAINTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CA. VEHICLE CODE, SECTION 22500.L, 22658(A) AND SAN MARCOS FIRE DEPARTMENT STANDARDS. THE NUMBER, WORDING AND PLACEMENT OF ALL FIRE LANE SIGNS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE FIRE DEPT. PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.

LEGEND:

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PATH

RETAINING WALL

EXISTING FLOODWAY
* FIRE FLOW: A fire flow report shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and to comply with CFC Appendix B.

DRAFT
291

ELEVATOR
LOBBY

OPEN TO
LOBBY
BELOW

TRASH CHUTE FOR RESIDENTS

TRASH CHUTE FOR RESIDENTS

LIBRARY/TV
28' X 28'
MECH.

ROOM

LAP POOL

JACUZZI

GREAT ROOM
52' X 38'

PATIO AREA
BBQ

KITCHEN
STORAGE STO.

LOBBY

LEASING
FITNESS ROOM 28' X 48'

MANAGER'S
OFFICE
ST.

W
M
TR
TR
METERS
TRASH PICK-UP ROOM. STAFF WILL PICK UP HERE AND TAKE TO TRASH ENCLOSURE TRASH PICK-UP ROOM. STAFF WILL PICK

UP HERE AND TAKE TO TRASH

ENCLOSURE
6' SIDEWALK
6' SIDEWALK 16 BICYCLES
7 BICYCLES
DATE:

MCG JOB #:

DATE REVISIONS

ADULT LIVING COMMUNITY

SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
N

16.562.01

03.25.2025
0 FLOOR PLAN - LEVELS 1 & 2
Scale : 1/16" = 1'-0"
8' 16' 32'
A
B

B B B B C B B E
B2
B
B
E
B1
B
B
A
A
C
B
B
C
B2
B
B
D
A A

B B B B C B B
D
A
A1

B B B B C
A
A2

SYMBOL TYPE AREA SF UNITS
STUDIO TYPE ±435 SF 4
STUDIO TYPE ±422 SF 1
STUDIO TYPE ±503 SF 1
1 BEDROOM UNIT ±640 SF 12
1 BEDROOM UNIT ±640 SF 1
2 BEDROOM UNIT ±990 SF 2
2 BEDROOM UNIT ±870 SF 2
23 UNITS
A
A1
A2

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

ROOM TABULATION

SYMBOL TYPE AREA SF UNITS
STUDIO TYPE ±435 SF 5
1 BEDROOM UNIT ±640 SF 17
1 BEDROOM UNIT ±716 SF 1
1 BEDROOM UNIT ±785 SF 1
2 BEDROOM UNIT ±990 SF 4
2 BEDROOM UNIT ±1,012 SF 2
30 UNITS
A
B
B1

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

ROOM TABULATION

B B B B C A A
NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject to adjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, and Governmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties of any kind are given or implied by the Architect.

C MCG ARCHITECTURE 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
A2
B2
C
E
B
B1
C
D
DRAFT
292

ELEVATOR
LOBBY

STORAGE

TRASH CHUTE FOR RESIDENTS
TRASH CHUTE FOR RESIDENTS SNOOZE & LIGHT 29'-0"

STORAGE BALCONY
STUDIO

KITCHEN

WASHER/ DRYER
18'-6"

STORAGE BALCONY
24'-0"
LIVING

BEDROOM

WASHER/
DRYER
KITCHEN 29'-0" SNOOZE & LIGHT SNOOZE & LIGHT SNOOZE & LIGHT 37'-0"

MASTER BEDROOM STORAGE BEDROOM

BALCONY
LIVING

KITCHEN
DINING

WASHER/
DRYER 29'-0"

SNOOZE &

LIGHT WASHER/ DRYER SNOOZE & LIGHT MASTER BEDROOM

BEDROOM
STORAGE 29'-0"
10'-11"
LIVING
DINING

KITCHEN
26'-0"
5'-9"
17'-11"
10'-10"
33'-11"

SNOOZE & LIGHT

BEDROOM SNOOZE & LIGHT MASTER BEDROOM STORAGE

KITCHEN

WASHER/ DRYER
LIVING
DINING
10'-11"
33'-11" 29'-0"
25'-9"
13'-8"
6'-4"
5'-9"
DATE:

MCG JOB #:

DATE REVISIONS

ADULT LIVING COMMUNITY

SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
N

16.562.01

03.25.2025
1 BEDROOM UNIT
(± 640 SF)

STUDIO TYPE
(± 435 SF)
2 BEDROOM UNIT
(± 990 SF)
B

SYMBOL TYPE AREA SF UNITS
STUDIO TYPE ±435 SF 5
1 BEDROOM UNIT ±640 SF 18
1 BEDROOM UNIT ±716 SF 1
1 BEDROOM UNIT ±785 SF 1
2 BEDROOM UNIT ±990 SF 4
2 BEDROOM UNIT ±1,012 SF 2
31 UNITS
A
B
B1
3RD TO 4TH FLOOR PLAN

ROOM TABULATION

B B B C B B
E

B B B B C A A
E
B
B
B2
B
B
B1
A
C
A
B
B
C
A
B
B
0 ENLARGED UNIT PLANS
FLOOR PLAN - LEVELS 3 & 4
Scale : 1/16" = 1'-0", U.O.N.
8' 16' 32'
NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject to adjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, and Governmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties of any kind are given or implied by the Architect.

C MCG ARCHITECTURE 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
A B C

ENLARGED UNIT PLANS
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
A3
2 BEDROOM UNIT
(± 869 SF) D
2 BEDROOM UNIT
(± 1,012 SF) E

STUDIO TYPE
(± 422 SF) A1

STUDIO TYPE
(± 503 SF) A2
1 BEDROOM UNIT
(± 716 SF) B1
1 BEDROOM UNIT
(± 785 SF) B2
B2
C
E
DRAFT
293
294
DRAFT
295
DRAFT
296
DRAFT

03.25.2025
2025
DRAFT
297
298
DRAFT

03.25.2025
299
2025
DRAFT

03.25.2025
300
2025
DRAFT

03.25.2025
301
2025
DRAFT

03.25.2025
2025
DRAFT
302

03.25.2025
2025
DRAFT
303

03.25.2025
304
2025
DRAFT
Lorem Ipsum

MISSION ROAD

WOODWARD STREET

TWIN OAKS VALLEY ROAD
NOV 15, 2021 03.25.2025
AERIAL 2 LOOKING NORTHWEST A15
2025
DRAFT
305
SPA
BBQ
AREA
POOL EQUIP. FENCE & GATE
D2 @ 12'
D2 @ 12'
BLC @ 25'
BLC @ 25'
BLC @ 25'
C2 @ 25'
C2 @ 25'
BLC @ 25' BLC @ 25'
BLC @ 25'
C2 @ 25'

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.2 0.2

0.3 0.4

0.2 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.4

0.6 0.8

0.8 1.0

1.0 0.1

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.5

0.8 1.2

1.8 2.3

1.3 2.3

0.4 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.5

0.8 1.3

2.1 3.1

3.8 2.7

2.5 2.2

0.2 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

1.2 2.0

2.9 3.7

4.0 3.7

2.5 1.3

0.9 0.2

0.1 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.1 0.2

0.4 0.8

1.4 2.0

2.6 3.2

3.8 3.9

2.7 1.2

0.7 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.1

0.1 0.2

0.4 0.7

1.1 1.6

2.2 3.0

3.1 2.8

1.8 0.9

0.5 0.3

0.3 0.4

0.6 0.4

0.3 0.1

0.3 0.3

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.2 0.6

0.3 1.3

1.8 2.1

1.9 1.6

1.2 0.8

0.7 0.8

1.1 1.5

2.3 2.5

2.5 2.4

1.3 1.3

0.8 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 1.5

0.8 1.0

1.2 1.2

1.2 1.2

1.1 1.1

1.4 2.2

3.2 3.9

4.1 4.2

4.1 3.2

2.7 1.6

1.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.1

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.8

0.9 0.9

1.2 1.3

1.3 1.4

1.6 2.1

2.8 3.5

3.6 3.5

3.6 3.3

2.5 1.6

1.1 0.7

0.4 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.1 5.4

3.6 0.3

1.0 1.4

1.6 1.5

1.3 1.4

1.6 2.1

2.4 2.4

2.4 2.4

2.3 1.9

1.3 0.9

0.7 0.5

0.3 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.3 1.0

0.7 1.3

2.1 1.9

1.6 1.3

1.2 1.3

1.4 1.4

1.4 1.4

1.4 1.4

1.3 1.0

0.8 0.6

0.5 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 1.9

0.9 1.5

2.2 3.2

2.5 1.9

1.4 1.1

1.0 0.9

0.9 0.9

0.9 0.9

1.0 1.0

0.9 0.8

0.7 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.8 0.8

2.5 3.4

3.6 3.1

2.2 1.6

1.2 1.1

1.0 1.0

1.0 1.0

1.0 1.0

0.9 1.0

1.0 1.0

0.9 0.8

0.8 0.8

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.1

5.9 3.2

0.3 2.7

4.4 4.2

3.2 2.3

1.7 1.5

1.4 1.3

1.3 1.3

1.3 1.2

1.1 1.2

1.2 1.2

1.3 1.3

1.2 1.2

1.3 1.2

1.1 0.9

0.7 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.3 0.9

0.3 1.9

2.8 4.5

3.9 3.0

2.3 1.8

1.8 1.8

1.7 1.7

1.7 1.5

1.5 1.5

1.4 1.5

1.5 1.6

1.8 1.7

1.7 1.7

1.6 1.4

1.2 0.9

0.6 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 2.3

4.3 0.1

2.4 3.1

4.4 3.8

2.9 2.2

2.0 2.2

2.5 2.5

2.5 2.2

1.9 1.7

1.7 1.7

1.7 1.8

2.0 2.4

2.5 2.5

2.4 2.1

1.7 1.4

1.1 0.8

0.5 0.3

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.9 0.8

1.5 3.3

4.0 3.5

2.7 2.3

2.4 2.9

3.5 3.6

3.5 2.9

2.3 2.0

1.9 1.9

1.9 2.1

2.5 3.2

3.6 3.6

3.4 2.8

2.1 1.7

1.3 1.0

0.7 0.4

0.3 0.2

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.2

5.8 2.7

0.6 1.3

3.1 3.1

2.9 2.5

2.3 2.7

3.7 4.1

3.7 4.1

3.7 2.7

2.1 1.9

1.9 2.0

2.3 3.1

4.0 4.2

3.7 4.2

3.5 2.5

1.9 1.5

1.2 0.9

0.8 0.8

0.8 0.6

0.1 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.5 0.9

0.5 1.1

2.1 2.2

2.3 2.2

2.2 2.8

3.8 4.0

3.2 4.0

3.9 2.8

2.1 1.9

1.9 2.0

2.3 3.2

4.2 4.1

4.2 4.4

3.9 2.8

2.1 1.7

1.5 1.4

1.5 1.6

1.6 1.6

1.4 0.3

0.1 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

2.7 4.4

0.1 0.4

0.9 1.5

1.7 1.8

2.0 2.2

3.0 4.0

4.2 3.5

4.3 4.1

3.0 2.3

2.1 2.0

2.1 2.4

3.3 4.3

4.4 4.1

4.7 4.2

3.1 2.4

2.1 1.8

1.8 1.9

2.3 3.1

3.4 2.8

2.5 1.7

0.1 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.1 1.1

0.7 0.3

0.7 1.1

1.4 1.7

2.0 2.5

3.2 4.0

4.6 4.4

4.6 4.0

3.2 2.6

2.3 2.2

2.2 2.4

3.1 4.1

4.6 4.3

4.8 4.2

3.3 2.8

2.4 2.2

2.1 2.1

2.5 3.2

3.9 4.4

3.7 2.6

2.4 1.0

0.3 0.1

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.2

4.3 2.1

0.1 0.3

0.5 0.9

1.3 1.7

2.1 2.8

3.4 4.1

4.6 4.6

4.6 4.1

3.5 2.8

2.5 2.3

2.2 2.3

2.6 3.3

3.9 4.0

4.2 3.8

3.4 3.1

2.8 2.5

2.3 2.2

2.5 2.9

3.4 3.7

4.0 4.2

3.1 1.6

1.0 0.4

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.7

1.1 0.2

0.1 0.3

0.4 0.7

1.1 1.6

2.2 2.9

3.9 4.7

4.9 4.8

4.9 4.6

3.7 2.9

2.5 2.2

2.1 2.0

2.2 2.7

3.0 3.2

3.5 3.6

3.6 3.5

3.3 3.0

2.5 2.2

2.1 2.2

2.4 2.7

3.2 3.6

3.3 2.7

1.3 0.7

0.0 0.0

0.0 2.9

4.6 0.1

0.1 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.9 1.5

2.2 3.2

4.3 5.1

5.3 5.2

5.4 4.6

4.1 3.0

2.4 1.9

1.7 1.7

1.9 2.3

2.6 2.9

3.3 3.8

4.2 4.4

4.2 3.8

2.9 2.3

1.9 1.7

1.6 1.7

2.0 2.5

2.5 2.1

1.6 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.1

1.4 0.7

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.6

1.0 1.6

2.3 3.4

4.0 4.0

4.0 4.0

3.8 3.2

2.2 1.8

1.4 1.3

1.4 1.6

1.8 2.2

2.5 3.1

4.0 4.7

4.8 4.6

4.4 3.5

2.5 1.8

1.4 1.1

1.0 1.2

1.5 1.8

1.6 1.4

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.4

3.5 1.5

0.1 0.2

0.3 0.6

0.9 1.4

2.1 2.7

2.9 2.9

2.9 1.8

1.9 1.4

1.2 1.1

1.2 1.2

1.4 1.6

1.7 2.1

2.7 3.7

4.3 4.2

4.2 3.8

3.6 2.4

1.7 1.2

0.8 0.6

0.6 1.0

1.3 1.5

1.3 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.8 1.2

0.2 1.5

2.6 2.6

2.8 2.1

1.6 1.9

2.5 3.5

4.3 4.2

4.1 4.2

3.5 2.4

1.7 1.2

0.7 0.5

0.4 1.0

1.4 1.6

1.3 0.0

0.0 0.0

3.0 4.7

1.8 5.8

6.3 6.0

2.7 1.5

1.7 2.2

3.0 3.8

4.1 4.1

3.9 3.1

2.3 1.7

1.2 0.8

0.5 0.6

1.3 2.2

2.2 1.5

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.2 3.7

0.9 1.8

5.9 6.7

6.1 2.7

1.5 1.6

1.8 2.3

2.9 3.1

3.1 3.0

2.4 1.8

1.5 1.2

0.8 0.4

0.6 1.5

3.4 2.8

2.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.1

4.5 1.7

1.6 3.6

4.3 4.1

2.9 1.7

1.4 1.5

1.8 2.0

2.0 2.0

2.0 1.8

1.5 1.2

1.0 0.7

0.4 1.3

2.6 4.2

3.3 2.1

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.1

1.7 6.5

1.6 4.8

2.5 4.3

5.2 4.3

2.1 1.2

1.3 1.4

1.5 1.4

1.4 1.4

1.4 1.2

1.0 0.8

0.6 0.3

2.4 2.8

4.0 3.1

1.9 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.1 0.3

1.2 2.6

2.5 4.4

1.7 4.5

0.5 2.3

5.3 6.7

5.9 2.0

0.9 1.0

1.0 1.0

1.0 1.0

1.0 1.0

0.9 0.8

0.6 0.4

0.3 2.5

3.1 3.8

2.8 1.6

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.1

0.0 0.0

2.4 2.5

5.2 2.4

4.6 3.6

1.1 4.0

0.6 3.6

0.6 3.2

0.4 2.1

5.1 5.9

4.8 1.7

0.7 0.6

0.6 0.7

0.6 0.6

0.6 0.6

0.6 0.5

0.4 0.3

0.3 2.5

3.6 3.8

2.6 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

4.0 1.2

5.4 1.2

6.2 1.0

5.7 0.9

4.8 0.4

0.3 1.1

1.7 1.6

1.8 1.0

0.5 0.4

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.3 0.3

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.7 1.5

3.3 3.2

2.3 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.2 0.2

0.2 0.2

0.2 0.2

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.6

1.2 2.5

2.3 1.8

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.4

0.9 1.5

1.4 1.1

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.1 0.2

0.6 1.0

0.9 0.7

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.1 0.3

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.3

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.3

0.2 B @ 3.5' B @ 3.5'
B @ 3.5' B @ 3.5'
B @ 3.5' B @ 3.5'
B @ 3.5' B @ 3.5'
B @ 3.5' B @ 3.5'
B @ 3.5'
B @ 3.5'
B @ 3.5'
B @ 3.5'
B @ 3.5'
B @ 3.5'
B @ 3.5'
B @ 3.5'
B @ 3.5'
B @ 3.5'
B @ 3.5'
B @ 3.5'
B @ 3.5'
B @ 3.5'
NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject to adjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, and Governmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties of any kind are given or implied by the Architect.

DATE:

MCG JOB #:

DATE REVISIONS

ADULT LIVING COMMUNITY

SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
N

16.562.01

12.06.2022
C MCG ARCHITECTS 2015 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
400 N. McCarthy Blvd, ste 250
Copyright c 2023
[email protected]
fx: (408) 522-5260
ph: (408) 522-5255
Milpitas, CA 95035

ENGINEERING
MFSDP19-0001
07/21/2023 CITY COMMENTS
0 SITE PHOTOMETRIC
Scale : 1" = 30'
15' 30' 60'

SCHEDULE
SYMBOL LABEL QTY. MANUFACTURER CATALOG NUMBER DESCRIPTION NUMBER

OF LAMPS
LUMENS

PER LAMP

LIGHT LOSS

FACTOR WATTAGE
BLC 6 LITHONIA LIGHTING DSX2 LED P1 30K BLC MVOLT DSX2 LED P1 30K BLC MVOLT 1 14424 0.92 140 C2 3 LITHONIA LIGHTING DSX2 LED P1 30K T5M MVOLT DSX2 LED P1 30K T5M MVOLT 1 18265 0.92 280 D2 2 ANTIQUE STREET LAMP EML17 GCF XT 49LED 350mA 30K SR4 EML17XT LED, 1 MODULE, 49 LED, 350mA, 3000K, TYPE 4 OPTIC. TEMP 47.8C. 1 3805 0.92 118
B 24

LITHONIA LIGHTING
(SUBSTITUTE ONLY)
KBA8 LED 16C 350 30K SYM MVOLT
(SUBSTITUTE ONLY)
KBA8 WITH 4 LIGHT BOARDS (16 LEDs), 350mA DRIVER,
3000K COLOR TEMP, AND SYMMETRIC OPTIC
1 1526 0.65 20

STATISTICS

DESCRIPTION SYMBOL AVE MAX MIN MAX/MIN AVE/MIN
SITE 1.3 fc 6.7 fc 0.0 fc N/A N/A
STAT ZONE #1 2.4 fc 5.4 fc 0.3 fc 18.0:1 8.0:1 03.25.2025 2025
DRAFT
306

03.25.2025
307
2025
DRAFT

MISSION ROAD
WOODWARD ST Fax: (619) 296-5564 7801 Mission Center Court, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 296-5565 K S ENGINEERING, INC. & DATE: KSS JOB #: DATE REVISIONS ADULT LIVING COMMUNITY SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA N 15-043 AUGUST 13, 2019 0TITLE SHEET Scale : 1" = 30' 15' 30' 60' C1 NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject to adjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, and Governmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties of any kind are given or implied. PTR EASEMENTS PTR ITEM # DOCUMENT NO. DESCRIPTION PLOTTED (Y/N) 5 BK 1137 PG 158 DD ANCHOR / GUY WIRE N 7 78-350433 PUBLIC STREET Y 10 1991-0218600 O.R. PUBLIC STREET Y 11 1991-0271074 O.R. PUBLIC DRAINAGE TO BE VACATED Y 12 1993-0083444 PUBLIC STREET Y 13 1993-0083445 PUBLIC DRAINAGE Y DRAFT
308
DATE: KSS JOB #: DATE REVISIONS ADULT LIVING COMMUNITY SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA N 15-043 APRIL 08 2024 0CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN Scale : 1" = 30' 15' 30' 60' NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject to adjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, and Governmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties of any kind are given or implied. C C2 K S ENGINEERING, INC. & SECTION B2 - B2 SECTION A - A ADS STORMTECH MC-3500 UNDERGROUND CHAMBERS SYSTEM NOTES DRAFT
309
DATE: KSS JOB #: DATE REVISIONS ADULT LIVING COMMUNITY SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA N 15-043 AUGUST 01, 2019 0DETAILS AND SITE SECTIONS Scale : 1" = 30' 15' 30' 60' C3 NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject to adjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, and Governmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties of any kind are given or implied. K S ENGINEERING, INC. & DETAIL FOR ADA ACCESS SECTION D - D

DRAFT SECTION E - E
310
DATE: KSS JOB #: DATE REVISIONS ADULT LIVING COMMUNITY SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA N 15-043 JULIO 3, 2023 0DETAILS AND SECTIONS Scale : 1" = 30' 15' 30' 60' C4 NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject to adjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, and Governmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties of any kind are given or implied. K S ENGINEERING, INC. & GENERAL NOTES BMP TREATMENT (INF-3) PAVER-PERVIOUS PAVEMENT PRIVATE SECTION F - F SECTION C - C MISSION ROAD DRIVEWAY SECTION SITE DESIGN (SD-6B) PAVER-PERVIOUS PAVEMENT PRIVATE DRAFT
311
DRAFT
312
DRAFT
313
DRAFT
314

ATTACHMENT D
RESOLUTION ADM 26-5226
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323

ATTACHMENT E
APPEAL LETTER DATED JULY 10, 2026
324
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
2762 Gateway Road
Carlsbad, California 92009
760.431.9501
760.431.9512 gdandb.com
T
F
July 10, 2026
Via Overnight Mail, and Email
([email protected]; [email protected])
Punam Prahalad
Lounsbery Ferguson Altona & Peak LLP
960 Canterbury Place, Suite 300
Escondido, CA 92025-3870
[email protected]
City Clerk
City of San Marcos
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
[email protected]
Re: Lanikai Management’s Appeal of City Manager Decision to Withhold Lanikai Project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dear Ms. Prahalad and City Clerk:

This firm represents Lanikai Management (“Lanikai”), applicant on the proposed Lanikai senior residential project (the “Project”) to be located at the corner of E. Mission Road and Woodward Street in the City of San Marcos. We received a letter from Ms. Prahalad, dated July 6, 2026, enclosing the City Manager’s resolution “determining the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Lanikai senior residential project to be incomplete and unable to be circulated.” (Resolution ADM 26-5226).

Lanikai disagrees with the City Manager’s resolution and believes it to be in error and not supported by the evidence in the record. Therefore, through this letter, Lanikai formally appeals the City Manager’s resolution to the City Council for final decision. A check in the amount of $100, made payable to the City Clerk, is enclosed.
325
Punam Prahalad
Lounsbery Ferguson Altona & Peak
City Clerk
City of San Marcos
July 10, 2026

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
Lanikai will submit to the City Council, through the City Attorney, materials in support of its appeal by July 17, 2026. Given the urgency of this matter and the timelines imposed by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), we would request that this matter be placed for decision on the City Council’s agenda for the meeting scheduled for August 11, 2026.

Sincerely,
David P. Hubbard
of
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
Cc: Lanikai Management
Rick Gittings
Michelle Bender, City Manager
City of San Marcos
Enclosure
326

ATTACHMENT F

SUPPLEMENTAL APPEAL LETTER
DATED JULY 31, 2026
327
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
2762 Gateway Road
Carlsbad, California 92009
760.431.9501
760.431.9512 gdandb.com
T
F
July 31, 2026
Via Overnight Mail, and Email
([email protected])
([email protected])
([email protected])
([email protected])
([email protected])
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council
c/o Phillip Scollick, City Clerk
City of San Marcos
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
Re: Lanikai’s Response in Support of Appeal of City Manager Resolution ADM 26- 5226 –Appeal Hearing Scheduled For September 8, 2026

Dear Mayor Jones and Members of the City Council:

This firm represents Lanikai Management (“Lanikai”), applicant for the Lanikai senior residential project (the “Project”) proposed for the 3.9-acre parcel at the northwest corner of E. Mission Road and Woodward Street. The Project has undergone a full and robust environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a process that has taken more than eight years to complete. The Project’s mitigated negative declaration (MND) is complete and ready to be circulated to the public as required by CEQA and then presented to the City of San Marcos Planning Commission and City Council for approval. City staff, however, has refused to release the MND to the public, thereby bringing a cold halt to the CEQA process and leaving the Project is limbo.

Staff’s position was recently formalized in City Manager Resolution ADM 26-5226, adopted on July 2, 2026, which is the subject of Lanikai’s appeal to the City Council dated July 10, 2026. This letter and its attached exhibits provide the legal and factual bases for Lanikai’s appeal, which is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on September 8, 2026.

As explained below, staff’s position that the MND is incomplete is not supported by evidence in the record. Rather, staff is withholding release of the MND to leverage certain road improvements which the City wants Lanikai to pay for and install. The data show that the Project’s traffic impacts do not warrant the road improvements in question. To the contrary, the Project’s traffic will have minimal effect on the intersection and road segments in controversy. 328
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council
July 31, 2026

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
Undaunted by this fact, staff claim that the Project’s senior pedestrians, due to their age and slower walking speeds, require a hugely expensive curb extension (known as a “bulb-out") so that they can safely cross E. Mission without unduly affecting vehicle flow. We will demonstrate below that this claim is baseless. By the City’s own reckoning, the Project generates only 23 pedestrian trips per day, which comes to less than three (3) per hour if one spreads them out only among daylight hours (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.).1
This impact, even if it counts as one under CEQA, can be effectively mitigated by modifying the traffic signals at E. Mission and Woodward to include pedestrianfriendly activators, which, when the button is pushed, would increase the crossing time by 8 seconds and then revert back to normal. This pedestrian-related delay becomes negligible, almost imperceptible, over the course of a day.

Staff, however, will not even entertain this easy and relatively inexpensive fix. Instead, staff continue to insist that Lanikai install the raised curb bulb-out. What the evidence shows is that staff want the bulb-out not to address a Project impact or improve pedestrian safety, but to redress a design flaw along this stretch of E. Mission Road, one that has existed since the road was built.

The law, however, does not permit the City to foist the cost of correcting this long-standing design problem onto Lanikai.

Staff have also argued that the raised curb bulb-out is required by the City’s Active Transportation Plan (ATP). This, too, turns out to be a gross overstatement. The ATP does require “curb extensions” in some situations – and it’s far from clear if Lanikai creates such a one here – but the ATP also states that the curb extension can be accomplished via striping (i.e., painting) and delineation, which Lanikai has offered to do. (ATP, § 1.107.5 [Accommodating Pedestrians], attached hereto as Exhibit 1.) Raised curbs are also allowed, but not required. (Id.) In fact, Lanikai’s research reveals that raised curb-bulb outs do not exist anywhere else in the City of San Marcos and, according the California Highway Design Manual, should be installed only when a specific set of criteria are met. For example, they should be installed primarily where there is street parking along the roadway in question, as they allow the pedestrians to be seen more easily by passing vehicles. There is no street parking along this portion of E. Mission. In addition, raised curb bulb-outs should be installed only where the average vehicle speed is 35 miles per hour or less; Mission Road’s posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour, with 85 percent of cars travelling at 45 miles per hour.

In short, the Project’s impacts do not warrant the raised curb bulb-out, and staff’s arguments for demanding it do not withstand scrutiny. This is primarily because staff is trying to disguise a public amenity (which the City is required to pay for) as a required mitigation measure (which Lanikai must pay for). The attempt fails at every turn, resulting in a violation of both CEQA and the “rough 1 The pedestrian per-hour figure diminishes to almost nothing if the 23 pedestrian trips are allocated over an entire day.
329
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council
July 31, 2026

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
proportionality” rule of Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 394-395 (1994) and Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, 12 Cal.4th 854 (1996).

Finally, there is the matter of the Project’s proposed “right-in/right-out” driveway along E. Mission Road. Staff contend that driveway curb cuts along E. Mission are not allowed under the City’s Street Design Criteria, which would leave Lanikai with only one driveway for ingress and egress, located on Woodward Street. The California Fire Code, however, requires at least two separate driveways for multi-family residential projects of 100 dwelling units or more. (Cal.Fire Code, §D106.1, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.) Lanikai’s project consists of 115 dwelling units and thus is subject to the Fire Code’s two-driveway rule.2 The City’s local fire code
is even more demanding, as it requires two-access ways for any project with more than 50 units.

Staff initially recognized that the curb cut at Mission was necessary to satisfy these public safety mandates. Now, however, staff is asserting that it will approve the driveway at Mission only if Lanikai installs the disputed raised curb bulb-out at the intersection of Mission and Woodward.

There is, of course, no technical study or other evidence showing a connection between the driveway at Mission and the demanded bulb-out; traffic in and out of the first does not require the second. Lanikai’s research also shows that the alleged “rule” prohibiting driveways along E.

Mission is honored more in the breach than in the observance. For example, the City approved the West and East Mission 316 projects located immediately across Woodward from the Lanikai site, and those projects include a new driveway onto Mission. (See Mission 316 West Draft EIR, p. 4.4- 9, attached hereto as Exhibit 3.)
Ultimately, then, the only reason the MND cannot be finalized and circulated is that staff continue to demand road improvements unrelated to any significant effect of the Project. There are no additional environmental studies to prepare, no additional impacts to consider or disclose in the document. Staff is simply holding the MND hostage hoping that Lanikai will eventually capitulate and agree to include the disputed public amenities into the Project’s design. Lanikai will not do that; and the City Council must rein it its staff to prevent further violations of CEQA and the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.

For these reasons, more fully articulated below, Lanikai respectfully requests that the City Council overturn City Manager Resolution ADM 26-5226; declare the MND complete and consistent with the project description proposed by Lanikai; and direct the City Manager to release it for public review and comment.
2 The Fire Code “2-driveway” rule also includes a separation element, which requires that the two driveways “be placed apart equal to not less than one-half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the property to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses.” (Cal.Fire Code, D106.3 [see Exhibit 2 attached hereto.) Due to this separation requirement, Lanikai cannot place both driveways along its Woodward frontage; one of the driveways must be on Mission.
330
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council
July 31, 2026

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
What follows is a point-by-point rebuttal to the statements and findings set forth in the City Manager’s resolution.

Lanikai’s Response to City Manager Resolution ADM 26-5226 Compliance with City Standards.

In the “WHEREAS” clauses of the Resolution, the City Manager states that the City’s Street Design Criteria “do not permit a driveway on a prime arterial or secondary arterial when a driveway is possible at another location.” According to the Resolution, E. Mission is an arterial road way and thus the proposed “Mission Road driveway is not permitted under SMMC

17.40.060(a), nor would it be permitted without appropriate mitigation of the impacts associated with it.” (Resolution, p. 2., Item 1.). As stated above, the City routinely deviates from SMMC

14.40.060(a) by allowing driveways along arterials, including Mission Road, as it did in 2014 with the Mission 316 East project located a few hundred feet from the Lanikai site.3 Further, such
deviations are no doubt necessary to ensure compliance with the Fire Code’s requirement that residential projects with 100 units have two separate means of escape during an emergency. That is the situation at Lanikai; and due to the Fire Code’s access “separation” requirement, those two driveways cannot both be located on Woodward. (See Cal.Fire Code, D106.3, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.) And, as mentioned above, the City’s own fire code demands two access points for residential projects with 50 or more units. So, there is no question that a second driveway at Mission is needed to ensure the project’s compliance with these emergency response requirements.

The real question, then, is whether Lanikai’s proposed driveway at E. Mission creates impacts that must be mitigated by the raised curb bulb-out demanded by staff. The evidence shows that the answer is NO. The Project’s traffic engineer, Justin Schlaefli, in reports reviewed and approved by City Staff, determined that during the AM peak hour, the Project generates only 23 vehicle trips, distributed evenly between the proposed driveways at Woodward and Mission. Of these, only 7 would be outbound trips onto Mission. The PM peak is similar, with the Project generating 32 vehicle trips during that hour, again evenly distributed between the two driveways. Only 6.5 of these trips would be outbound onto Mission. This means that during the AM and PM peak hours, only one vehicle per every nine minutes would exit the Project via the E. Mission driveway.

According to Mr. Schlaefli, that level of traffic is de minimis and would have no bearing on vehicle queues at the Woodward and E. Mission intersection; nor would it result in a significant traffic safety issue requiring modification of the intersection’s design. (See Schlaefli Memorandum to Greg Scaduto (Lanikai), dated June 24, 2026, attached hereto as Exhibit 4 [right-in / right-out driveway onto Mission creates no traffic queuing impact at Mission/Woodward intersection].) 3 The City, in January 2020, approved the Mission 316 West project, which also includes two access points, one onto Woodward and one onto E. Mission using the Mission 316 East project’s driveway. (Mission 316 West Draft EIR, p.

4.4-9, attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
331
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council
July 31, 2026

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
In short, the Project’s proposed driveway at E. Mission does not require the raised curb bulb-out; it does, however, ensure that the Project complies with the Fire Code and provides adequate ingress and egress in the event of a fire or other emergency. It is also consistent with driveway curb cuts permitted for other projects along this stretch of Mission Road.

Project Description
The Resolution, in “WHEREAS” item 2, asserts that the “draft MND does not adequately describe or evaluate a Project design that complies with applicable City requirements, standards, and criteria,” and goes on to argue that the “Mission Road driveway is not in compliance with City standards and criteria, and it cannot be supported without frontage improvements the Applicant declines to make.” The Resolution then states that the driveway must be removed and that the MND “does not evaluate the impacts of removing the Mission Road driveway, which include modifications to frontage improvements, access configurations, emergency access, trip distribution, and potentially the number of units proposed by the Project.” (Resolution, p. 2, Item

2.)
The Resolution’s statement, however, is premised on two false assumptions: First, that no driveways are allowed on Mission Road, which is factually inaccurate as the City’s approval of the Mission 316 project will attest; and second, that the Project’s impacts, whether in the form of vehicle traffic or pedestrian traffic, trigger the need for the so-called “frontage” improvements along Mission. The evidence simply does not support the City Manager’s position. There are no data showing that the Project’s traffic or pedestrians create impacts that can only be mitigated by (a) eliminating the Mission driveway or (b) installing the raised curb out. Quite the opposite is true.

The data show that the Project’s traffic – both vehicle and pedestrian – is so small in number as to require no improvements along Mission or at the Mission/Woodward intersection at all.

For example, without the Project, all road segments and intersections operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) from the present through 2050, except two: (1) the intersection at Twin Oaks Valley Road and San Marcos Boulevard, and (2) the intersection at E. Mission and Woodward. Both of these intersections are expected to operate at LOS E during the period in question. When added to anticipated “ambient” traffic levels, the Project’s traffic does not change the LOS on any road segment or intersection. Moreover, at the Twin Oak Valley/San Marcos Boulevard and Mission/Woodward intersections, the Project’s traffic increases delay by less than

0.2 second, well under the 2-second delay significance threshold established by City.

To put these traffic figures in context, it is instructive to look at the trip counts for the Woodward 46 project, located directly across the street from the Lanikai site, which the City approved in September 2025. According to its EIR, the Woodward 46 project would generate 29 vehicle trips during the AM Peak (6 in / 23 out) and 37 vehicle trips during the PM Peak (26 in / 11 out). (Woodward 46 DEIR, Table 3.8-7, attached hereto as Exhibit 5.) The City determined that these 332
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council
July 31, 2026

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
trips, when added to anticipated ambient traffic levels from 2026 through 2050, would not result in any significant effect in terms of LOS at any road segment or intersection, including the very same road segments and intersections affected by the Lanikai project. (Id.) Interestingly, because the Lanikai development is for seniors only, it generates fewer vehicle trips than Woodward 46 does – 23 versus 29 in the AM Peak, and 32 versus 37 in the PM Peak. It thus stands to reason that Lanikai, like Woodward 46, will produce no significant traffic impacts, which is precisely what the Lanikai MND has concluded.

So, given the traffic data of these two projects, why is City staff claiming that Lanikai’s project will create significant traffic impacts that must be mitigated by road improvements such as the raised curb bulb-out – something never mentioned in any of CEQA document prepared for Woodward 46? The only explanation is that staff are imposing a double-standard: one set of rules for Lanikai and another, more relaxed set of rules for everyone else.

Environmental Effects of Required Modifications.

Next, the Resolution, in “WHEREAS” item 3, contends that because Lanikai has refused to incorporate the “design revisions” demanded by staff (i.e., the raised curb-bulb out), “the draft MND does not provide a legally adequate basis to conclude that potentially significant effects have been avoided or mitigated to a less-than-significant level.” (Resolution, Item 3, pp. 2-3.) The Resolution is in error and has placed the slipper on the wrong foot. The traffic data set forth in the MND (and discussed in this letter) clearly establish that the Project will not have a significant impact on any road segment or intersection in the City. Accordingly, there is no basis for the City to demand mitigation from Lanikai, and the City has provided no evidence to the contrary. In short, there is no reason for Lanikai to study traffic mitigation in the MND. There is no need for it, and no legal justification for the City insisting upon it.

The same is true of the Project’s alleged contribution to pedestrian crossing delays at Woodward and Mission. According to data provided by City staff and the City Attorney, Lanikai’s project will generate only 23 pedestrian trips per day. (See Letter from City Attorney Punam Prahalad to David Hubbard, counsel for Lanikai, dated August 14, 2025, p. 9 of 54, attached hereto as Exhibit

6.) While those 23 pedestrian trips will likely be taken by senior citizens who walk more slowly than non-seniors, the resulting delay impact is de minimis. First, the number of pedestrian trips is incredibly small, even when allocated over a shortened day (i.e., daylight hours only). Second, those trips can be accommodated by simply installing new signal devices at the Woodward/Mission intersection that provide extra crossing time when activated by the pedestrian.

The devices then revert back to normal signal timing after the pedestrian makes it to the other side of the street. The project’s traffic consultant, Justin Schlaefli, explains this simple operational fix as follows:
333
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council
July 31, 2026

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
The Mission crossing is approximately 118 feet, with a reported existing crossing time of about 31 seconds. The California MUTCD standard walking speed is 3.5 ft/s (about 34 seconds for this crossing); the recognized speed for older/disabled pedestrians is 2.8 ft/s, which yields about 42 seconds. Retiming to the 2.8 ft/s senior walking speed would therefore add roughly 8 to 11 seconds of pedestrian clearance time.

The operational effect is negligible, for two reasons. First, the pedestrian phase only runs when the push button is actuated - per the City's own figure, about 23 pedestrian crossings per day, mostly outside peak hours. Second, the pedestrian clearance runs concurrently with the parallel vehicle green, so the added time simply extends that green when a pedestrian is present; the longer minimum is absorbed within the signal cycle. Averaged over the day, the change in delay for the intersection is a fraction of a second per vehicle and would not change the intersection's level of service. If the signal runs in coordination, the City would verify the longer pedestrian minimum fits the cycle - at the cycle lengths the City typically runs, it does.

The City operates Type 2070 controllers, and pedestrian Walk and Flashing Don't Walk intervals are programmable parameters. The work consists of a timing analysis, revised timing sheets, and implementation/field verification by the City's signal technician. At a planning level, I would estimate:
- Engineering analysis and revised timing sheets: $3,000 - $5,000 - City staff implementation and field check: $500 - $1,500 (often absorbed as routine in-house work)
- Coordination plan check, if the City requires one because the intersection runs coordinated: $1,500 - $3,000
Total: roughly $5,000 - $10,000, and potentially near zero if the City simply retimes it in-house as routine maintenance. No new poles, heads, or push buttons are required (existing equipment is assumed to remain). For contrast, the bulb-out the City proposes is a construction project - curb, gutter, drainage, and ADA ramp work typically well into six figures - to shorten the crossing by only 10-12 feet, which at standard walking speed saves about four seconds.

In short, the pedestrian crossing concern in Item 4 is fully addressable through signal timing at nominal cost, without the bulb-out or roadway widening the City proposes. (Schlaefli email to Greg Scaduto (Lanikai), dated July 14, 2026, attached hereto as Exhibit 7.) Simply put, the Project’s pedestrian traffic does not rise to the level of a significant impact as defined by CEQA. And even if it did, that impact can be easily and inexpensively mitigated by installing more refined signal timing devices at the Woodward/Mission intersection. There is no need for the raised curb bulb-out demanded by City staff. 334
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council
July 31, 2026

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
The data discussed above beg the following question: If Lanikai’s vehicle trip and pedestrian numbers are too small to create a significant impact on Mission or the Mission/Woodward intersection, why is City staff insisting that Lanikai install the raised curb bulb-out? The answer is found in an email from Isaac Etchamendy, Director of Development Services and City Engineer, to Justin Schlaefli, dated March 5, 2024, attached hereto as Exhibit 8. In that email, Mr.

Etchamendy confesses that the City is demanding the bulb-out curb extension not so much to ensure pedestrian safety but to correct a long-standing flaw in the merge lane at E. Mission Road itself:

That lane merge is not consistent with current design requirements of the HDM. As a result, we have little desire to keep it, even as some type of an acceleration lane, given its insufficient length. Thus, we have contemplated a reallocation of the localized rightof-way along Mission to push the curb line south and establishing a bus bay. This reallocation of existing right-of-way to remove a substandard merge lane helps towards supporting this road as a complete street. Striving toward complete streets is mandated by our General Plan Mobility Element Policy M-1.7 as well as being supported by the General Plan’s Mode preferences for Mission Road.

Later in the email, Mr. Etchamendy states that the bulb-out might also benefit pedestrians seeking to cross Mission. He does not, however, describe the bulb-out as necessary to mitigate a significant CEQA impact of the Project. Nor does he suggest that the bulb-out is required by the City’s Active Transportation Plan (ATP), most likely because he knows that the ATP does not require curb extensions to be raised. Rather, the ATP allows curb extensions at road-grade provided they are striped, painted, and delineated – something Lanikai has stated it is happy to do. (See ATP, §

1.107.5 [Accommodating Pedestrians], p. 13, attached hereto as Exhibit 1; see also, Letter from David Hubbard, counsel for Lanikai, to Punam Prahalad, City Attorney, dated May 26, 2026, p. 2, attached hereto as Exhibit 9.)
In light of Mr. Etchamendy’s email and City staff’s continued insistence on the bulb-out and related improvements to Mission Road, Lanikai asked Mr. Schlaefli to assess whether staff’s position, from a traffic engineering perspective, has any basis in fact. His analysis is set forth in a memorandum addressed to Greg Scaduto of Lanikai dated June 24, 2026, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. Key findings from that memorandum include the following:
 The conditions the Project generates can be addressed through striping, delineation, and signal-timing measures already contemplated for the site — without raised curb construction, right-of way reallocation, or relocation of the existing traffic signal system.  Because Mission Road carries a raised median at this location, the Project’s proposed Mission Road driveway operates as a right-in / right-out movement only, which avoids queuing impacts at the Mission/Woodward intersection.
335
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council
July 31, 2026

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
 The Project’s outbound peak-hour volume (14 vehicles in the AM, 13 in the PM) is split between the two site driveways (Woodward and Mission). Even assigning that volume conservatively, the Mission Road driveway is expected to discharge on the order of six to seven vehicles per peak hour — roughly one vehicle every nine to ten minutes.  The bulb-out does not satisfy the Caltrans criteria for curb extensions. o Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter 303.4 provides that curb extensions (bulbouts) “are most appropriate for urban conventional highways and Rural Main Streets with posted speeds 35 miles per hour or less.” Mission Road is posted at 40 mph, and our radar speed survey measured an 85th-percentile speed of 45 mph — well above the 35-mph ceiling at which curb extensions are considered appropriate. o Curb extensions are designed primarily to reclaim the sight distance occupied by onstreet parking and to improve sight lines past parked cars. There is no on-street parking on either Mission Road or Woodward Street at this intersection, so the design premise for a bulb-out is absent.
 A condition of approval must be roughly proportional to an impact the development actually creates. At approximately 23 pedestrian trips per day (the City’s own estimate), the Project adds a negligible increment to crossing demand at Mission Road and Woodward Street. There is no engineering basis to conclude that this level of pedestrian activity necessitates a raised curb extension, much less one funded entirely by the Project. The existing signalized crossing already serves pedestrians, and any incremental seniorpedestrian demand is accommodated through signal timing (see 3.4), not through curb geometry.
 A single-corner bulb-out can increase, rather than reduce, pedestrian exposure. o Extending the curb into the roadway at one corner narrows the effective travel way and brings waiting pedestrians closer to, and more directly in line with, westbound through traffic on Mission Road.
o At an operating speed of 45 mph and with no on-street parking to buffer the corner, this placement does not improve the safety margin for pedestrians and may degrade it.
 Pedestrian crossing accommodation at a signalized intersection is governed by the pedestrian clearance (walk / flashing-don’t-walk) interval, not by curb geometry.  Whatever clearance time is appropriate for the anticipated pedestrians is established far more reliably, and at negligible cost, by retiming the pedestrian interval. In short, the 336
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council
July 31, 2026

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
senior-pedestrian objective the City cites is met through signal timing; it is not materially advanced by a raised curb extension.
 The Mission Road improvement addresses a pre-existing roadway deficiency, not a Project impact.
o The record reflects that the City’s underlying objective along Mission Road is to correct a substandard merge / acceleration-lane condition west of Woodward Street — a configuration the City itself has described as inconsistent with current Highway Design Manual requirements — and to advance its broader completestreets goals for the corridor. o These are legitimate City objectives, but they reflect a pre-existing condition of the public street and a longer-term corridor circulation program; they are not impacts created by a 115-unit senior community generating 460 daily trips. The cost and responsibility of remedying a pre-existing roadway deficiency cannot be assigned to the Project.
 Based on the City-approved traffic data and the applicable Caltrans design criteria, it is my professional opinion that the raised bulb-out at Mission Road and Woodward Street is not warranted by the Lanikai Senior Apartment Project.

With Mr. Schlaefli’s expert findings in place, we turn to the City Manager’s remaining arguments regarding the alleged inadequacy of the MND.

Access, Emergency Access, and Site Circulation.

In “WHEREAS” Item 4, the Resolution states that the “draft MND does not adequately analyze the environmental, transportation, circulation, and emergency access implications of modifications to the Project that are necessary to satisfy City requirements.” According to the Resolution, these modifications “include changes to emergency access and access locations, site access, public improvements, and potentially number of residential units.” This statement is borderline absurd. As shown above, there are no City requirements, beyond those already satisfied, that the City can impose on the Project. The data simply do not support any claim by City staff that additional mitigation measures are necessary to reduce significant impacts of the Project. Thus, there is no need to analyze the “environmental, transportation, circulation, and emergency access implications” of complying with the City’s demands for modifications to the Project. The mere fact that the City Manager is suggesting that Lanikai, to meet the City’s unfounded desire for the modifications in question, may have to forfeit dwelling units, confirms that staff has lost all sense of the constitutional limits of its power. Under well-established law, 337
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council
July 31, 2026

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
City staff cannot impose requirements or constraints on the Project, or take any piece of Lanikai’s property (including dwelling units), without demonstrating that such a “taking” is roughly proportional to a significant impact of the Project. (Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 394- 395 (1994) and Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, 12 Cal.4th 854 (1996). 4 The City has made no such
demonstration, and the data establish that it will never be able to do so.

Traffic Analysis and Existing Conditions.

Under “WHEREAS” item 5, the Resolution acknowledges that, because Lanikai’s initial traffic study predates CEQA’s requirement for a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis, Lanikai is entitled to use the LOS traffic metric instead. The Resolution then argues that the MND’s traffic studies “utilize information that does not reflect existing conditions or fail to evaluate relevant roadway facilities, access conditions, and operational characteristics affected by Project-related traffic.” The Resolution goes on to claim that the traffic analyses uses outdated information and fails to evaluate Project impacts on certain roadway facilities.

Without specifics – such as the names of the “roadway facilities” which allegedly have been omitted from the MND’s traffic analysis – it is difficult to discern what the City Manager is talking about. Nevertheless, the basic elements of a compliant LOS analysis are well-known, allowing us to test the validity of the City Manager’s position.

As should be clear to anyone familiar with LOS studies, the one performed for the Lanikai project includes all the elements required to determine whether the Project’s traffic will create a significant impact requiring mitigation. For example, the study:
(1) discloses that the Project will generate 460 average daily trips (ADT), of which 23 occur during the AM peak and 32 during the PM peak;
(2) includes turning movement diagrams showing how the Project’s traffic is distributed on a street-by-street and intersection-by-intersection basis; (3) indicates that all affected road segments currently and in the foreseeable future will operate at acceptable levels of service, including Mission Road which is anticipated to continue functioning at LOS A;
4 Note that the “rough proportionality” rule applies even when the mitigation measure or exaction is adopted legislatively and imposed uniformly. (Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 601 U.S. 267, 270 (2024).) 338
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council
July 31, 2026

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
(4) concludes that the Project’s traffic, when added to existing conditions, does not cause any affected road segment, now or in the future, to degrade to a lower LOS or otherwise exceed a significant impact threshold;
(5) discloses that all but two of the affected intersections operate now and in the future at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better); and
(6) shows that the two intersection which are currently deficient – San Marcos Boulevard/Twin Oaks Valley and Mission/Woodward – will remain so into the future, regardless of the Project, and that the Project adds between 0.0 and 0.2 seconds of delay to these intersections, well below the City’s adopted significance threshold of 2.0 seconds of delay.
(See IS/MND, dated April 2026, attached hereto as Exhibit 10; see also Urban Systems Associates’ Traffic Impact Study, dated September 17, 2019 attached hereto as Exhibit 11.) Other data in the record establish that the Project’s proposed driveways at Woodward and Mission can accommodate project-related ingress and egress without causing traffic queues or safety issues.

As Mr. Schlaefli points out in his most recent memorandum, “the Project’s proposed Mission Road driveway operates as a right-in / right-out movement only, which avoids queuing impacts at the Mission/Woodward intersection.” (Schlaefli Memorandum, dated June 24, 2026, attached hereto as Exhibit 4.)
Thus, the evidence in the record confirms that the Project’s traffic impacts create no LOS deficiency or any other significant effect.

The City Manager’s assertion that Lanikai’s traffic information is outdated is likewise easy to dispatch.

First, the data referenced in the MND’s traffic studies were current when they were submitted to City staff in 2019, and CEQA generally does not require that technical reports be redone, updated, or recalibrated during the CEQA review process. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15125(a) [Environmental baseline is established at the time environmental analysis is commenced].) Such a requirement would force project applicants to constantly chase their tails in a never-ending quest to capture the present before it becomes past.

Second, the Project’s traffic numbers do not change. The ADT and peak hour traffic figures are driven by the number of dwelling units contemplated, which in this case is 115. So long as that number remains constant over time, the traffic counts stay the same. 339
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council
July 31, 2026

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
Third, the available data indicate that “ambient” traffic levels on the affected road segments and intersections have not changed materially since 2019, and that the existing and future conditions assumed in Lanikai’s traffic studies remain valid for purposes of conducting a CEQA-compliant LOS analysis.5
Fourth, as discussed above, in September 2025, the City approved the Woodward 46 project, located directly across the street from the Lanikai site. That project’s AM and PM peak traffic figures exceed Lanikai’s. Nevertheless, when the Woodward 46 project’s peak traffic numbers were added to the ambient traffic data for both 2026 and 2050, the impacts were still negligible, leading the City to conclude that the project would have a less than significant impact on traffic. (See Woodward 46 Draft EIR, pp. 3.8-16—3.8-20, relevant excerpts attached hereto as Exhibit 5.) Accordingly, the City imposed no traffic mitigation measures on the Woodward 46 applicant. (Îbid.) Staff are clearly aware of the Woodward 46 traffic study, the data it used, and the conclusions it drew. If staff feel the Lanikai MND traffic analysis needs to be checked against “updated” ambient traffic figures, it has all the information it needs to make that assessment. More importantly, if the Woodward 46 project, which places vehicles into the same intersections as Lanikai’s project but at higher numbers, causes no significant traffic impact, one would expect Lanikai’s impacts to be less than significant as well. In fact, we know this to be true because the Woodward 46 Draft EIR expressly incorporated Lanikai’s 115-unit development in its analysis of cumulative impacts, including traffic. (Woodward 46 Draft EIR, Table 2-4 [Cumulative Projects] Item 7, p. 2-20, attached hereto as Exhibit 5.)
Transportation Effects of Required Project Modifications. “WHEREAS” item 6 states that the draft MND “does not adequately evaluate the transportation effects associated with the Project as modified to comply with City requirements.” It then lists as examples “incomplete analysis of trip distribution, roadway operations, intersection performance, roadway segment impacts, emergency access, and circulation patterns associated with alternative access arrangements.” (Resolution, Item 6, p. 3.)
In many ways, item 6 merely repeats in different phrasing the complaints listed in item 4, and it is invalid for the same reason. The MND is not required to analyze the “transportation effects” created by City’s staff’s unlawful and baseless demands for the raised curb bulb-out, lane modifications along Mission, or removal of the proposed driveway at Mission. As a lead agency, the City may not withhold release of a CEQA document, be it an MND or EIR, simply because the applicant refuses to study the impacts of improvements that City staff want but have no legal basis to demand.
5 The term “ambient” traffic refers to existing or future background traffic not attributable to the project under review.
340
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council
July 31, 2026

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
Transportation Impacts to Mission Road/Woodward Street Intersection. “WHEREAS” item 7 states that because Lanikai is seeking to change the site’s zoning from commercial to residential, and is proposing to construct a 115-unit senior housing project, it “will increase the number of pedestrian and bicycle trips, including seniors using the Mission and Woodward intersection.” The Resolution then complains that the MND “does not appropriately analyze the Project’s effects on pedestrian signal timing and the corresponding delays introduced to the intersection.”
Apart from the thinly-veiled “ageism” of item 7, which is objectionable on its face, the rest of the statement is silly. We know of no CEQA document approved by the City where staff required the applicant to study the number of pedestrian and bicycle trips the proposed project would generate and then determine whether those trips would create a significant impact. Nothing in CEQA, including CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, requires such an evaluation.

Further, Lanikai’s request to rezone the site from commercial to residential (senior-only) does not increase pedestrian, bicycle, or motor vehicle traffic. That statement is simply incorrect and the City Manager has provided no evidence in support of it. Leaving that falsehood to one side, however, we know that the Project, by the City’s own assessment, will generate only 23 pedestrian trips per day. That number is so low, it simply cannot be viewed as creating a significant impact, even if all 23 pedestrians were trying to cross Mission at Woodward within the same hour.

More importantly, Justin Schlaefli has provided a detailed analysis of the impacts, such as they are, of resetting the signal timing at the Mission/Woodward intersection to allow seniors to cross the street safely. (See Exhibit 7, attached hereto.) Mr. Schlaefli concludes that simply re-setting the signal timing feature at this intersection will allow pedestrians who push the “WALK” button to extend the crossing time and safely traverse the intersection. (Id.) The green light flow-time for vehicles then reverts back to normal until another pedestrian seeks to cross the street. When averaged over a standard day, this adjustment to green light flow is completely absorbed, resulting in no significant impact. (Id.) This should satisfy City staff, though it is absurd that the MND for a much needed housing project is being held up by staff’s concern that 23 pedestrians per day are going to stifle vehicle traffic along Mission Road.6
6 It is worth mentioning that the City’s ATP expressly encourages timing adjustments at certain intersections to provide a safer, less stressful crossing for pedestrians. (ATP, § 1.107.5 [Accommodating Pedestrians], Exhibit 1 hereto.)
341
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council
July 31, 2026

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
The bicycle issue is likewise ridiculous. The Lanikai project will be deed restricted to seniors aged 55 years and older. Seniors, especially those over 65, comprise a very small cohort of bicycle riders in the Southern California.7
According to City staff, the Project “will generate 1,679 bicycle trips per year,” which equates to under five (5) bike trips per day. (See Punam Prahalad letter to David Hubbard, dated August 14, 2025, p. 10 of 54, attached hereto as Exhibit 6.) Such a small number of trips will not materially burden the City’s existing bicycle lane network or add substantially to crossings times at intersections. The City, to our knowledge, has never asked a project applicant to measure the number of bicycle trips it will generate, and we know of no CEQA requirement for such an assessment. Thus, this appears to be another attempt by City staff to delay the Project and keep its MND hostage. Regardless, this is not an impact that requires more study or mitigation.

We would also point out that this long-delayed project is listed in the City’s Housing Element and will, among other benefits, assist the City meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

The Resolution’s “Findings”
In support of its “WHEREAS” statements, the Resolution includes twelve (12) “findings” that supposedly provide a foundation for the City Manager’s decision to withhold release of Lanikai’s MND. These so-called findings, however, merely repeat the “WHEREAS” statements addressed above and cite no evidence.8 For this reason, they fail as a matter of law, as findings must be supported by evidence in the record, and here they are not. (See Pacifica Corp. v. City of Camarillo (1986) 149 Cal.App.3d 168, 179.) Simply put, summary findings without supporting evidence are legally meaningless, as they do not allow the public (or, when necessary, the courts) to discern the analytical path taken by the decision-maker – here, the City Manager and, by this appeal, the City Council. (Pacifica Corp. v. City of Camarillo, supra 149 Cal.App.3d at p. 179, citing Topanga Assoc. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-515 [findings “must bridge analytical gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order”].) The only finding that raises a new issue not already addressed in Lanikai’s responses to the Resolution’s “WHEREAS” statements is finding “g”, which claims that the “draft MND does not adequately evaluate potential hazards associated with the Project’s proposed access, driveway location, ingress and egress movements, vehicular turning movements, pedestrian crossings, bicycle movements, bus stop operations, and interactions among vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and seniors.”
This is quite a list. We know of no CEQA document – Initial Study, MND, or EIR – where the applicant on a residential project, especially one as modest as this, was required to study such 7 See, Southern California Area Governments, Analysis of the 2011 Travel Survey for Active Transportation Modes, May 28, 2014.
8 Further, because Lanikai has already addressed these same issues in its responses to the “WHEREAS” statements, there is no reason to repeat that effort here.
342
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council
July 31, 2026

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
things as impacts on bus stop operations and transit users. CEQA is not a blank check for agency staff members to demand countless studies on any topic that flashes across their minds. To the contrary. CEQA admonishes lead agencies to focus on project impacts that have the potential to significantly affect the environment, and to avoid wasting the applicant’s time and money chasing phantom impacts that have no realistic chance of becoming a significant burden on natural resources or human-built infrastructure. (See San Francisco Baykeeper, Inc. v. State Lands Commission (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 202, 222; see also CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15063(c)(3) and 15143 [Lead agencies to focus on significant effects].) Here, the Lanikai project’s traffic figures clearly show that the Project will cause no significant impact on any road segment or intersection.

The same is true of the Project’s 23 pedestrians per day. The Project’s proposed driveway at Mission not only ensures compliance with the 2-access rule imposed by the state’s Fire Code, it is a “right turn in” and “right turn out” curb cut, which effectively eliminates any queuing impact at the Mission/Woodward intersection.

Conclusion
The record evidence demonstrates that the Project does not require the raised curb bulb-out or any other so-called improvement demanded by staff. The Project can meet all City standards without them and still mitigate what few significant impacts it creates. All of this is spelled out in the draft MND.

Ultimately, Lanikai is appealing to the Council’s good judgment, common sense, and fairness. We don’t believe the Council wishes to squeeze every conceivable concession from a developer/applicant, especially where the project impacts do not legally warrant the exactions proposed by staff. We would like the City to release the MND to the public and move the process forward. This is a senior housing development located a mere two blocks from a senior center, a public library, and a major transit hub. We don’t think it should be further delayed just because staff thinks 23 pedestrians and 5 bicyclists per day require expensive new infrastructure. We suspect the Council agrees.

343
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council
July 31, 2026

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
THEREFORE, Lanikai respectfully requests that the City Council grant Lanikai’s appeal, reject Resolution ADM 26-5226, and direct the City Manager to release the draft the MND to the public, as CEQA requires.

Sincerely,
David P. Hubbard
of
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
Cc: Lanikai Management
Rick Gittings
City Attorney, Helen Holmes Peak
City Attorney, Punam Prahalad
City Manager, Michelle Bender
City Clerk

344
EXHIBIT 1
345

SAN MARCOS
Active Transportation Plan
JUNE 2024
346

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
12 1.107.4 Traffic Calming Strategies
Safe speeds are important to help protect the most vulnerable users of the road: pedestrians and bicyclists.

Speed management can be achieved through educational, enforcement, and engineering traffic calming strategies that encourage motorists to drive at lower speeds. The City’s Neighborhood Traffic Management Policy Guidelines dated August 2023 provide a process for members of the public to request a traffic calming evaluation by the City on roadways that meet specific criteria. The policy draws upon evidence-based research and guidelines in the industry to:
■ Reduce speed or volume of motor vehicles on residential streets; ■ Improve safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists; ■ Reduce the number and severity of accidents;
■ Create a safer and more livable community; and
■ Encourage drivers to use roadways as intended and to be good neighbors.

The policy document also provides a comprehensive toolbox of context-sensitive solutions that can be implemented to address traffic-related concerns including: narrow lanes, turn restriction signs, speed cushions, curb radius reductions, traffic circles, bulb-outs, median barrier diverters.

1.107.5 Accommodating Pedestrians
The pedestrian network is composed of sidewalks, trails, and comfortable mid-block crossings. The overall pedestrian environment can be improved through various pedestrian treatments.

Pedestrian signal enhancements improve an intersection’s signal timing, allowing for a more comfortable pedestrian experience. For example, a lead pedestrian interval (LPI) is a signal enhancement in which pedestrians receive a green crosswalk signal three to seven seconds before vehicles. This signal timing increases pedestrian visibility and re-emphasizes pedestrians’ right-of-way in a crosswalk.

LEAD PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL

TRAFFIC CIRCLE TURN RESTRICTION SIGNS
347
13SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
FENCED MEDIAN Fenced medians should be considered if other solutions for deterring mid-block crossings are deemed infeasible. Many times, pedestrians cross at uncontrolled mid-block locations because there is a desire line that should be evaluated. A desire line is the desired path of travel between two land uses. A fenced median can direct pedestrians to a preferred crossing and prevent mid-block crossing activity if needed. This solution is most applicable on high-speed, high-volume roadways adjacent to a destination with large amounts of pedestrian flow at one time, such as a school or entertainment venue.

ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT Treatments such as wider sidewalks and placemaking can create an enhanced pedestrian environment that improves the
character and function of the pedestrian space. Placemaking provides a creative opportunity and use of public right-of-way that incentivizes the pedestrian mode of travel. Placemaking invites artistic, cultural, inspirational, and communal collaboration of a gathering area within an enhanced pedestrian environment.

Landscape buffers are encouraged wherever feasible to provide separation between the roadway and pedestrians.

BULB OUTS Curb extensions, also known as bulb outs, extend the curb line into a roadway at a crossing location. Curb extensions can increase the area available for pedestrians to safely wait before crossing an intersection, reduce crossing distance, and increase pedestrian visibility. Curb extensions can be semi-permanent (striping and delineators) or permanent (sidewalk with curb and gutter). These features are highly encouraged to be implemented where feasible throughout the City dependent on roadway characteristics.

MID-BLOCK CROSSINGS Mid-block crossing enhancements provide for convenient pedestrian crossings with improved visibility and advanced warning at an uncontrolled location. Mid-block crossing designs must be appropriate for the characteristics of the roadway, provide adequate sight and stopping distance, and should consider the following enhancements depending upon the speed and volumes on the roadway:
■ Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacons (RRFB)
■ Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacons (PHB)
■ Overhead pedestrian signals
■ High-visibility crosswalks
■ Advanced yield lines
■ LED-enhanced
flashing signs
■ Median refuge islands
A site distance evaluation must be performed prior to installation of a mid-block crossing.

Crossings at controlled intersections (signalized or
stop-controlled) should also consider high-visibility striping and median refuge islands.
348
EXHIBIT 2
349
2025 California Fire Code, Title 24, Part 9 with January 2026 Errata

APPENDIX D FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS
SECTION D106—MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS
D106.1 Projects having more than 100 dwelling units.

Multiple-family residential projects having more than 100 dwelling units shall be equipped throughout with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads.

Exception: Projects having up to 200 dwelling units shall have not fewer than one approved fire apparatus access road where all buildings, including nonresidential occupancies, are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2.

D106.2 Projects having more than 200 dwelling units.

Multiple-family residential projects having more than 200 dwelling units shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads regardless of whether they are equipped with an approved automatic sprinkler system.

D106.3 Remoteness.

Where two fire apparatus access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than onehalf of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses.

Copyright © 2026 International Code Council, Inc., or its licensors (ALL RIGHTS RESERVED).

Accessed by Lisa Murphy on 07/30/2026 pursuant to License Agreement with ICC. No further reproduction or distribution authorized. Any Unauthorized reproduction or distribution is a violation of the federal copyright, and subject to civil and criminal penalties thereunder.

PDF from: http://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAFC2025P2/appendix-d-fire-apparatus-accessroads#CAFC2025P2_Pt07_AppxD_SecD106 350
EXHIBIT 3
351
Mission 316 West Specific Plan
Draft Environmental Impact Report
SCH#2019029038
prepared by
City of San Marcos
Planning Division
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, California 92069
Contact: Joseph Farace, Planning Manager
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
2215 Faraday Ave, Suite A
Carlsbad, California 92008
August 2019
352
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-9
required intersection stopping distance would be 300 feet per the California Highway Design Manual. A field survey was conducted to determine the available sight and stopping distance at Driveway #1 in accordance with the City of San Marcos guidelines. As shown in Figure 4.4-2, the available sight and stopping distance at Driveway #1 is 490 feet. Thus, the project driveway would meet the required intersection sight and stopping distance standard and not significantly increase hazards.

Driveway #2, located along E. Mission Road, would be right-in/right-out only due to a raised median along E. Mission Road. The Driveway would be a shared driveway with the adjacent development and is located on an inside of a horizontal curve which potentially limits the available sight distance when leaving the project site. A speed survey and sight distance analysis based on the City of San Marcos Minimum Sight Distance Standards concluded that the 85th percentile speed is 46 mph.

Based on the 85th percentile speed of 46 mph, the required sight distance would be 570 feet per the City of San Marcos standards and the required stopping distance would be 370 feet per the California Highway Design Manual (Appendix G). A field survey from LLG Engineers concluded that the available sight distance is 145 feet due to the obstruction from an existing wrought iron fence, as seen in Figure 4.4-3.

A Sight Corridor Easement (Map 16111) was recorded on the neighboring property (with the fence), which provides a clear sight easement to the east of Driveway #2 at the location of the wrought iron fence. The fence exceeded the allowable height limits of the easement and was removed on June 25, 2019, as seen in Figure 4.4-4. According to the sight distance analysis, with the removal of the fence, the available sight distance at Driveway #2 would meet the required sight distance of 596 feet. The adjacent property is required to comply with the Sight Corridor Easement enforced by the City. With the removal of the fence, the sight distance available at Driveway #2 would comply with the City of San Marcos Minimum Sight Distance Standards. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant at both project driveways.
353
EXHIBIT 4
354
URBAN SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC.

Traffic Engineering • Transportation Planning
8451 Miralani Drive, Suite A • San Diego, CA 92126 • (619) 818-6465

MEMORANDUM
TO: Greg Scaduto, Lanikai Management Corp.

FROM: Justin P. Schlaefli, PE, TE, PTOE — President, Urban Systems Associates, Inc.

DATE: June 24, 2026
RE: Proposed Mission Road / Woodward Street Curb Extension (“Bulb-Out”) Requirement
Lanikai Senior Apartment Project, San Marcos, CA (City File SP17-0004) USAI Job No. 001718
DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW — NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

1. Purpose
At your request, this memorandum sets forth the traffic-engineering basis for our opinion that the raised curb extension (“bulb-out”) the City of San Marcos is requiring at the northwest corner of Mission Road and Woodward Street is not warranted by the Lanikai Senior Apartment Project (the “Project”), is inconsistent with the applicable Caltrans design criteria, and should not be imposed on the Project as a condition of approval. The conditions the Project does generate can be addressed through striping, delineation, and signal-timing measures already contemplated for the site — without raised curb construction, right-of-way reallocation, or relocation of the existing traffic signal system.

This memorandum is based on the City-approved Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Systems Associates, Inc. (USAI) for the Project, our prior bike-lane and sight-distance analyses, field-measured speed data, and the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM), Chapter 303.4 (Curb Extensions / Bulbouts). Certain findings that depend on the final signal-modification and lane-alignment plans are noted as such and will be confirmed once those plans are received.

2. Project and Traffic Summary
The Project is a 115-unit, age-restricted senior residential community on approximately 3.9 acres at the northwest corner of Woodward Street and Mission Road. Site access is provided by two driveways — one on Woodward Street (full access) and one on Mission Road. Because Mission Road carries a raised median at this location, the Mission Road driveway operates as a right-in / right-out movement only.

Per the City-approved Traffic Impact Analysis, the Project generates the following trips using the SANDAG retirement-community rate of 4 trips per unit:

Measure Daily (ADT) AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr
Total Project trips 460 23 32
355
Measure Daily (ADT) AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr
In / Out split — 9 in / 14 out 19 in / 13 out
Outbound trips to Mission Rd.
driveway (approx.)
— ~7 ~6
The outbound peak-hour volume (14 vehicles in the AM, 13 in the PM) is split between the two site driveways. Even assigning that volume conservatively, the Mission Road driveway is expected to discharge on the order of six to seven vehicles per peak hour — roughly one vehicle every nine to ten minutes. By the City’s own pedestrian estimate, the Project generates approximately 23 pedestrian trips per day. These are the volumes against which the requested public-street improvements must be measured.

3. Engineering Findings

3.1 The bulb-out does not satisfy the Caltrans criteria for curb extensions.

Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter 303.4 provides that curb extensions (bulbouts) “are most appropriate for urban conventional highways and Rural Main Streets with posted speeds 35 miles per hour or less,” and that “when used, bulbouts should be placed at all corners of an intersection.” The proposed treatment is inconsistent with this guidance on three independent grounds:
• Operating speed exceeds the threshold. Mission Road is posted at 40 mph, and our radar speed survey measured an 85th-percentile speed of 45 mph — well above the 35- mph ceiling at which curb extensions are considered appropriate. • No on-street parking is present. Curb extensions are designed primarily to reclaim the shy distance occupied by on-street parking and to improve sight lines past parked cars.

There is no on-street parking on either Mission Road or Woodward Street at this intersection, so the design premise for a bulb-out is absent. • Single-corner application. The City is requiring a raised bulb-out at only one of the four corners. The Caltrans guidance calls for placement at all corners of an intersection; an isolated single-corner bulb-out produces an asymmetric, non-standard geometry.

3.2 The Project’s pedestrian activity does not establish a nexus for a 100% applicantfunded bulb-out.

A condition of approval must be roughly proportional to an impact the development actually creates. At approximately 23 pedestrian trips per day (the City’s own estimate), the Project adds a negligible increment to crossing demand at Mission Road and Woodward Street. There is no engineering basis to conclude that this level of pedestrian activity necessitates a raised curb extension, much less one funded entirely by the Project. The existing signalized crossing already serves pedestrians, and any incremental senior-pedestrian demand is accommodated through signal timing (see 3.4), not through curb geometry.

3.3 A single-corner bulb-out can increase, rather than reduce, pedestrian exposure.

Extending the curb into the roadway at one corner narrows the effective travel way and brings waiting pedestrians closer to, and more directly in line with, westbound through traffic on 356
Mission Road. At an operating speed of 45 mph and with no on-street parking to buffer the corner, this placement does not improve the safety margin for pedestrians and may degrade it.

A curb extension that is geometrically non-standard for its setting should not be represented as a pedestrian-safety improvement without a supporting analysis, which the City has not provided.

3.4 Pedestrian crossing time is governed by signal timing, not by curb geometry.

Pedestrian crossing accommodation at a signalized intersection is governed by the pedestrian clearance (walk / flashing-don’t-walk) interval, not by curb geometry. The California MUTCD bases the clearance interval on the crossing distance and a standard walking speed of 3.5 feet per second, and it directs that a slower speed be used where slower pedestrians use the crossing — specifically 2.8 feet per second where older or disabled pedestrians routinely use the crosswalk. Accommodating slower (including senior) pedestrians is therefore a matter of setting the clearance interval to the appropriate walking speed — a timing adjustment available at the existing signal that requires no physical construction.

The existing crosswalk across Mission Road is approximately 118 feet long and is reported to provide about 31 seconds to cross, with visual and audible indications. The proposed bulb-out would shorten the crossing by only 10 to 12 feet — roughly a 9 percent reduction — which, even at the conservative 2.8 ft/s older-pedestrian walking speed, saves only about four seconds of clearance time. Whatever clearance time is appropriate for the anticipated pedestrians is established far more reliably, and at negligible cost, by retiming the pedestrian interval. In short, the senior-pedestrian objective the City cites is met through signal timing; it is not materially advanced by a raised curb extension.

3.5 Project traffic at the Mission Road driveway is insignificant and does not cause queuing.

The concern that vehicles exiting the Project onto westbound Mission Road would create queuing at the Mission Road / Woodward Street intersection is not supported by the data. As noted in Section 2, the Mission Road driveway is a right-out-only movement discharging on the order of six to seven vehicles in the peak hour — approximately one vehicle every nine to ten minutes. A right-turn departure of this magnitude merges into available gaps in the traffic stream and does not generate a standing queue, nor does it measurably affect operations or queue lengths at the adjacent signal. There is no traffic-engineering justification for tying a raised curb extension to the Project’s driveway volume.

It also bears noting that the Mission Road driveway is not an applicant preference that could simply be eliminated: removing it would leave the Project with a single point of access, contrary to the requirement for two points of ingress and egress for residential developments of 50 or more units. The Mission Road access is a code-driven necessity, and the modest right-out volume it carries does not warrant the requested improvement.

3.6 The Mission Road improvement addresses a pre-existing roadway deficiency, not a Project impact.

The record reflects that the City’s underlying objective along Mission Road is to correct a substandard merge / acceleration-lane condition west of Woodward Street — a configuration the City itself has described as inconsistent with current Highway Design Manual requirements 357
— and to advance its broader complete-streets goals for the corridor. These are legitimate City objectives, but they reflect a pre-existing condition of the public street and a longer-term corridor circulation program; they are not impacts created by a 115-unit senior community generating 460 daily trips. The cost and responsibility of remedying a pre-existing roadway deficiency should not be assigned to the Project.

Consistent with this, our June 2023 bike-lane analysis concluded that the existing third (merge) westbound lane on Mission Road west of Woodward is not needed for capacity and is operationally a trap/merge lane. Eliminating that lane and restriping the curb-side area as a buffered bike lane — which fits within the existing curb line — resolves the substandard-merge condition the City has identified, without raised curb construction or right-of-way reallocation.

4. Recommended Approach
The legitimate pedestrian and corridor objectives at this location can be met without the raised bulb-out:

1. Provide curb extension by striping and delineation at the northwest corner (and, as offered, at the other corners), as expressly permitted under the City’s Active Transportation Plan, in lieu of a raised curb.

2. Restripe Mission Road west of Woodward to eliminate the substandard merge lane and establish a buffered bike lane within the existing curb line, consistent with our 2023 analysis.

3. Retime the pedestrian clearance interval at the existing signal to the appropriate walking speed (including the 2.8 ft/s value for older pedestrians, where applicable), rather than relying on a 10–12-foot reduction in crossing length.

4. Limit any traffic-signal work to the minimum required by the City to meet current standards (e.g., replacement of the northwest-corner pole and addition of free-standing pedestrian push buttons and ADA ramps), pending confirmation from the final signalmodification and lane-alignment plans.

5. Conclusion
Based on the City-approved traffic data and the applicable Caltrans design criteria, it is my professional opinion that the raised bulb-out at Mission Road and Woodward Street is not warranted by the Lanikai Senior Apartment Project. The treatment does not satisfy the Caltrans Highway Design Manual criteria for curb extensions (operating speed above 35 mph, no onstreet parking, single-corner application); the Project’s pedestrian and vehicular volumes are too small to establish the necessary nexus or proportionality; the proposed geometry does not demonstrably improve, and may impair, pedestrian safety; and the City’s underlying goal of correcting a substandard Mission Road merge reflects a pre-existing roadway condition rather than a Project impact. The Project’s genuine obligations can be satisfied through striping, delineation, signal retiming, and the buffered bike-lane reconfiguration already proposed.

Please let me know if you would like this memorandum tailored for transmittal to the City, the Planning Commission, or the City Council, or expanded with exhibits (the lane-alignment exhibit, 358
the conceptual bulb-out, and the Caltrans HDM excerpt). Certain findings will be confirmed upon receipt of the final signal-modification and lane-alignment plans.

Respectfully submitted,
Justin P. Schlaefli, PE, TE, PTOE
President, Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
359
EXHIBIT 5
360
Woodward 46 Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2023080449
SP22-0005/SP22-0006/GPA22-0004/MFSD22-0005/TSM22-0004/CUP22--0005 Prepared for:

City of San Marcos
Planning Division
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
Contact: Scott Nightingale, Principal Planner
Prepared by:

Sophia Mitchell & Associates
P.O. Box 1700
Gualala, CA 95445
Contact: Sophia Habl Mitchell
March 2025
■
361

2.0 Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting Woodward 46 Specific Plan Draft EIR March 2025
City of San Marcos Page 2-20
evaluated using the summary of projections method because the geographic scope of such impacts tends to be broad and area wide.

An inventory of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the vicinity of the project site is presented in Table 2-4.

Table 2-4. Cumulative Projects
No. Project Location Description(1)
1 Armorlite Lofts 225 N. Las Posas Road 119 apartments and 5,600 s.f. of commercial
2 Breakers Real
Estate
Southeast corner of Twin
Oaks Valley Road and
Richmar Avenue
174 bed assisted living facility
3 CRP III Mission, LLC 528 W. Mission Road Redevelop existing 10.83 acre industrial park with 3 new industrial
buildings.
4 Hollandia Dairy CUP 620 E. Mission Road CUP to demolish and reconstruct a 100,000 s.f. portion of an existing
dairy.
5 Hollandia Farms
SDP
641 E. Mission Road Develop and establish a screened
outdoor construction contractor yard
on 12.45 acres. storage
6 Karl Strauss
Brewery & Tasting
Room
Northeast corner of Las
Posas Road and Vallecitos
Road
10,528 s.f. of commercial
7 Lanikai Senior
Residential
Northwest corner of E.

Mission Road and Woodward
Street
115 multi-family residential (MFR)
units (age-restricted for 55+)
8 Lonnie Tabbaa Southwest corner of W.

Mission Road and N. Las
Posas Road
Gas station, car wash, commercial
drive thru and convenience store
9 Mariposa II/Phase
1 Richmar Avenue and Los
Olivos Drive
100 MFR affordable units to replace
40 existing MFR units (net increase
of 60 units)
10 Mariposa II/Phase
2 Richmar Avenue and Los
Olivos Drive
96 MFR affordable units to replace
30 existing MFR units (net increase
of 66 units)
11 Meritage Homes
(Grand Vista MultiFamily)
West of Las Posas Road and
Palm Road intersection
120 MFR units
362

3.8 Land Use and Planning
Woodward 46 Specific Plan Draft EIR March 2025
City of San Marcos Page 3.8-16
Level of Service Standards
The City of San Marcos strives to maintain intersection and roadway segment operations based on LOS standards outlined in the General Plan Mobility Element. If the addition of the traffic generated from a proposed project results in any one of the following, improvements should be identified to increase performance to acceptable or pre-project conditions under each scenario:
• Triggers an intersection operating at acceptable LOS to operate at unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F) and increases the delay by more than 2.0 seconds. • Increases the delay for a study intersection that is already operating at unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F) by more than 2.0 seconds.
• Triggers a roadway segment operating at acceptable LOS (LOS A, B, C, D) to operate at unacceptable LOS and increases the volume/capacity (V/C) ratio by more than 0.02. • Increases the V/C ratio for a study roadway segment that is already operating at unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F) by more than 0.02.

Project Trip Generation
To determine the traffic generation of the proposed project, the April 2002 SANDAG (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (SANDAG 2002) rates were applied to the proposed project. The “Condominium” trip rate was used to estimate the project residential trip generation.

Table 3.8-7 presents the trip generation rates and forecasted project-generated trips for weekday conditions. As shown in Table 3.8-7, the project would generate approximately 368 average daily trips (ADT), including 29 AM peak hour trips and 37 PM peak hour trips. The project traffic was distributed based on the site location, access to SR-78, existing traffic patterns in the area and anticipated traffic routes to and from the site. The proposed project’s regional distributions assumes 75% of trips oriented to/from the south, and local distributions assumes 10% oriented to/from the west, 10% to/from the east and 5% to/from the north.

Table 3.8-7. Project Trip Generation
Land Use Quantity
Daily Trip
Ends (ADT)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
% of
ADT
In:Out
Split
Volume % of
ADT
In:Out
Split
Volume
Rate ADT In Out Total In Out Total
Condominium 46 DU 8/DU 368 8% 20:80 6 23 29 10% 70:30 26 11 37 Source: LLG2023a.

Note: Trip generation rates were obtained from the (Not so) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002 by SANDAG
DU = Dwelling Unit, ADT = Average Daily Traffic
Construction Trip Generation
Grading of the project site would consist of approximately 41,989 cubic yards (CY) of cut material and 50,270 CY of fill material requiring an export of approximately 8,281 CY of material. If suitable, the excess material would be used as wall backfill and the site would balance. If it is not suitable, it would 363

3.8 Land Use and Planning
Woodward 46 Specific Plan Draft EIR March 2025
City of San Marcos Page 3.8-17
be exported from the site. To be conservative, the environmental analysis assumes the materials would be exported. Assuming 15 cy truck trips, that would equate to 553 trips. These trips would be spread over approximately 23 working days for 24 trips per day associated with export. The grading phase of the project is not expected to generate trips above the trips associated with the 46-unit duplex residential development. Therefore, the grading phase would not result in any traffic related significant impacts or substantial effects above those associated with the project. No traffic related impacts are identified during construction.

Local Transportation Analysis of Near-Term (Year 2026) Conditions The following section presents the analysis of study area intersections and street segments under Near-Term Year 2026 Base conditions and Near-Term Year 2026 Base + Project conditions.

Near-Term Year 2026 Intersection Analysis
Table 3.8-8 summarizes the intersection operations through the study area for the Near-Term Year 2026 Base Condition and Base + Project conditions.

Table 3.8-8. Near-Term Year 2026 - Intersection Operations Without and With Project # Intersection Control
Type
Peak
Hour
Year 2026
Base
Conditions
Year 2026
Base + Project
Conditions Δ(3)
Consistent
with City LOS
Standards?(4) Avg.

Delay
(sec.)(1)
LOS(2)
Avg.

Delay
(sec.)(1)
LOS(2)
1 Woodward
Street/Project
Driveway(6)
TWSC(5) AM -- -- 11.5 B -- Yes
PM -- -- 12.8 B -- Yes
2 Mission Road/Pico
Avenue
Signal AM 36.4 D 36.6 D 0.2 Yes
PM 29.7 C 29.9 C 0.2 Yes
3 Mission
Road/Woodward
Street (San Marcos
Boulevard)
Signal AM 81.9 F 82.0 F 0.1 Yes
PM 71.3 E 71.4 E 0.1 Yes
4 San Marcos
Boulevard/Twin Oaks
Valley Road
Signal AM 51.9 D 53.5 D 1.6 Yes
PM 48.2 D 48.5 D 0.3 Yes
5 San Marcos
Boulevard/Rancheros
Drive
Signal AM 29.4 C 29.6 C 0.2 Yes
PM 32.0 C 32.1 C 0.1 Yes
Source: LLG 2023a.

Notes: (1) Average Delay expressed in seconds per vehicle (2) LOS = Level of Service
(3) Δ denotes the increase in delay due to project
(4) City of San Marcos strives to maintain intersection and roadway segment operations based on LOS standards (LOS D or better) outlined in the General Plan Mobility Element. (5) TWSC = Two-way stop controlled intersection.
(6) Intersection does not exist under Year 2026 Base condition 364

3.8 Land Use and Planning
Woodward 46 Specific Plan Draft EIR March 2025
City of San Marcos Page 3.8-18
As shown in Table 3.8-8, in the Near-Term Year 2026 Base condition, all intersections are calculated to operate acceptably at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours with the exception of:
• Mission Road/Woodward (San Marcos Boulevard) – LOS F (AM Peak Hour) and LOS E (PM Peak Hour)
With the addition of project traffic (Base + Project condition) all intersections would continue to operate acceptably at LOS D with the exception of the Mission Road/Woodward (San Marcos Boulevard) intersection. The project’s increase in delay at that intersection would be 0.1 seconds, which is less than the 2 seconds average delay. As part of the project design features (see Table 2-2) the applicant would construct an access point that provides adequate driveway sight distance and construct a minimum 50-foot southbound left-turn pocket on Woodward Street for left-turn access to the project site outside of the southbound through lane. Therefore, none of the study intersections would degrade to an unacceptable level with implementation of the proposed project and no improvements would be required.

Near-Term (Year 2026) Segment Analysis
Table 3.8-9 summarizes the segment operations throughout the study area for the Near-Term Year 2026 Base and Near-Term Year 2026 Base + Project conditions. As shown in Table 3.8-9, all of the study area segments are calculated to operate acceptably at LOS B or better with or without the project.

Table 3.8-9. Near-Term Year 2026 Roadway Segment Operations Without and With Project Roadway Segment
Capacity
(LOS
E)(1)
Year 2026 Base
Condition
Year 2065
Base + Project
Condition Δ(4)
Consistent
with City
LOS
Standards?
(5)
Daily
Volume V/C(2) LOS(3) Daily Volume V/C(2) LOS(3)
Mission
Road
Pico
Avenue to
Woodward
Street
40,000 11,910 0.298 A 11,947 0.299 A 0.001 Yes
Woodward
Street to
Mission
Villas
Road
60,000 20,690 0.345 A 20,727 0.345 A 0.000 Yes
San
Marcos
Boulevard
Rancheros
Drive to
Mission
Road
40,000 15,980 0.400 B 16,256 0.406 B 0.006 Yes
Source: LLG 2023a.

Notes: (1) Capacities based on City of San Marcos’s Roadway Classification Table (2) Volume to Capacity
(3) LOS = Level of Service
(4) Δ denotes a project-induced increase in the Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratio. (5) City of San Marcos strives to maintain intersection and roadway segment operations based on LOS standards (LOS D or better) outlined in the General Plan Mobility Element. 365

3.8 Land Use and Planning
Woodward 46 Specific Plan Draft EIR March 2025
City of San Marcos Page 3.8-19
Local Transportation Analysis of Horizon Year 2050 Conditions Year 2050 Network Conditions
The Long-Term (Horizon Year 2050) street network in the SANDAG Series 14 forecast model includes the roadways built to their City Mobility Element Classification, including the planned widening of San Marcos Boulevard between Twin Oaks Valley Road and Mission Road to 6-lane Major Arterial standards. For the purposes of the LTA, the network addition is assumed in the long-term traffic volumes forecast but no changes to the study area roadway geometry or intersection control were assumed.

Horizon Year 2050 Intersection Analysis
Table 3.8-10 summarizes the Year 2050 Without and With Project peak hour intersection analysis. As shown in Table 3.8–10, without the project, all intersections are calculated to operate acceptably at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours with the exception of the following intersections:
• Mission Road/Woodward Street (San Marcos Boulevard) – LOS F (AM and PM Peak Hour) • San Marcos Boulevard/Twin Oaks Valley Road - LOS E (AM and PM Peak Hour) With the addition of project traffic all of the study area intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better with the exception of Mission Road/Woodward Street (San Marcos Boulevard) which would continue to operate at LOS F in the AM and PM Peak hour and San Marcos Boulevard/Twin Oaks Valley Road, which would continue to operate at LOS E in the AM and PM Peak Hour. As shown in Table 3.8- 10, the project’s increase in delay at these intersection would range from 0.1 seconds to 1.1 seconds which is less than the 2 seconds average delay. Therefore, none of the study intersections analyzed in the Horizon Year 2050 scenario would degrade to an unacceptable level with implementation of the proposed project and no improvements would be required.

Table 3.8-10. Horizon Year (2050) Intersection Operations Without and With Project # Intersection Control
Type
Peak
Hour
Year 2050
Base
Conditions
Year 2050
Base + Project
Conditions Δ(3)
Consistent
with City LOS
Standards?(4) Avg.

Delay
(sec.)(1)
LOS(2)
Avg.

Delay
(sec.)(1)
LOS(2)
1 Woodward
Street/Project
Driveway
TWSC(5) AM -- -- 11.7 B -- Yes
PM -- -- 13.1 B -- Yes
2 Mission Road/Pico
Avenue
Signal AM 49.3 D 49.4 D 0.1 Yes
PM 35.3 D 35.5 D 0.2 Yes
3 Mission
Road/Woodward
Street (San Marcos
Boulevard)
Signal AM 101.3 F 101.5 F 0.2 Yes
PM 96.3 F 96.4 F 0.1 Yes
4 Signal AM 71.4 E 72.5 E 1.1 Yes
366

3.8 Land Use and Planning
Woodward 46 Specific Plan Draft EIR March 2025
City of San Marcos Page 3.8-20
# Intersection Control
Type
Peak
Hour
Year 2050
Base
Conditions
Year 2050
Base + Project
Conditions Δ(3)
Consistent
with City LOS
Standards?(4) Avg.

Delay
(sec.)(1)
LOS(2)
Avg.

Delay
(sec.)(1)
LOS(2)
San Marcos
Boulevard/Twin Oaks
Valley Road
PM 58.2 E 58.5 E 0.6 Yes
5 San Marcos
Boulevard/Rancheros
Drive
Signal AM 36.6 D 37.1 D 0.5 Yes
PM 39.0 D 39.4 D 0.4 Yes
Source: LLG 2023a.

Notes: (1) Average Delay expressed in seconds per vehicle (2) LOS = Level of Service
(3) Δ denotes the increase in delay due to project
(4) City of San Marcos strives to maintain intersection and roadway segment operations based on LOS standards (LOS D or better) outlined in the General Plan Mobility Element. (5) TWSC = Two-way stop controlled intersection.

Horizon Year 2050 Segment Operations
Table 3.8-11 summarizes the segment operations throughout the study area for the Year 2050 Without and With Project daily street segment operations. As shown in Table 3.8-11, all of the study area segments are calculated to operate acceptably at LOS B both with and without the project.

Table 3.8-11. Horizon Year 2050 Roadway Segment Operations Without and With Project Roadway Segment
Capacity
(LOS
E)(1)
Year 2026 Base
Condition
Year 2065
Base + Project
Condition Δ(4)
Consistent
with City
LOS
Standards?
(5)
Daily
Volume V/C(2) LOS(3) Daily Volume V/C(2) LOS(3)
Mission
Road
Pico
Avenue to
Woodward
Street
40,000 12,310 0.308 A 12,347 0.309 A 0.001 Yes
Woodward
Street to
Mission
Villas
Road
60,000 21,790 0.363 A 21,287 0.346 A 0.000 Yes
San
Marcos
Boulevard
Rancheros
Drive to
Mission
Road
40,000 17,380 0.435 B 17,656 0.441 B 0.006 Yes
Source: LLG 2023a.

Notes: (1) Capacities based on City of San Marcos’s Roadway Classification Table (2) Volume to Capacity
(3) LOS = Level of Service
367
EXHIBIT 6
368

LOUNSBERY FERGUSON

ALTONA & PEAK LLP
960 Canterbury Place, Suite 300
Escondido, California 92025-3870
JOHN W. WITT
1932-2018
Telephone (760) 743-1201
Facsimile (760) 743-9926
www.LFAP.com
PUNAM P. PRAHALAD Direct: (760) 743-1226, ext. 137
PARTNER Email: [email protected]
August 14, 2025
By Mail and Email
David Hubbard
Gatzke Dillon & Balance LLP
2762 Gateway Road
Carlsbad, California 92009
RE: SP 17-0004/GPA 17-003/MFSDP 19-0001 – Development of 115 age-restricted apartment units; 8th Review/2nd MND Review; APN 220-063-04 Dear Mr. Hubbard:

The City received your letter dated July 24, 2025 to Mr. Chris Garcia in the City’s Planning Department regarding his letter dated June 26, 2025 summarizing the City’s 2nd review of the Project’s proposed MND and providing staff’s comments on the various components of Lanikai’s application.

Your letter identifies four main items of concern of the outstanding items identified for resolution/correction by City staff. Specifically, you refer to (1) a project-specific VMT analysis, (2) the class IV bike lane the City wants Lanikai to include in the project’s site plan, (3) the bulbout at Woodward and Mission, and (4) elimination of the left-out access from the project onto Woodward.

With respect to the first issue, the City does not dispute that you have informed the City that the project is not subject to the VMT requirement. The City believes that completing the minor edits to the VMT memo already provided in the 8th review to the City would be far less resource intensive than conducting an entirely new transportation analysis using the LOS metric since the transportation analysis submitted in 2019 is not current, having been prepared 6 years ago, and would need to be updated. The VMT memo demonstrated that the project is exempt from a VMT analysis and only requires a minor revision for City staff to resolve the outstanding comment on the VMT memo.
369
David Hubbard
August 14, 2025