San Marcos City Council
September 8, 2026

Sale Comps Map & List Report
Sale Comparables Summary Statistics
Sale Attributes Low Average Median High
Sale Price $3,600,000 $7,742,000 $6,500,000 $13,126,000 Sale Price Per SF $464 - $464 $464
Cap Rate - - - -
Sale Price Per AC $307,956 $1,042,928 $1,669,975 $2,389,706 Property Attributes Low Average Median High
Building SF - - - -
Year Built 1973 1973 1973 1973
% Leased At Sale - - - -
Star Rating 0 1 1 2
Summary Statistics exclude For Sale and Under Contract listings Sale Comps List
Address (% Leased)
Property Name Type Built/Renovated Size Sale Date Price Cap Rate $13,126,000
1 1023 Grand Avenue
San Marcos, CA 92078 Land - 7.86 AC 3/28/2025 ($1,669,972.60/- AC)
-
859
© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025

Sale Comps List (Continued)
Property Name
Address Type Built/Renovated Size (% Leased) Sale Date Price Cap Rate 2 1100 W San Marcos Blvd
San Marcos, CA 92078
Retail
1973 14,000 SF 2/18/2025 $6,500,000
($464.29/SF) -
3 00 La Moree Rd
San Marcos, CA 92078
Land
- 11.69 AC 2/10/2025 $3,600,000
($307,955.76/AC) -
4 801 S Twin Oaks Valley Rd
San Marcos, CA 92078 Land - 159.90 AC Escrow $5,950,000 ($37,210.76/AC) - 5 San Marcos Mixed Use Land
302 N Pacific St
San Marcos, CA 92069
Land
- 5.60 AC Under Contract
$4,750,000
($848,214.29/AC) -
6 3600 Grand Ave
San Marcos, CA 92078
Land
- 0.99 AC Escrow
$1,950,000
($1,969,696.97/-
AC)
-
860
© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025

AC)
1023 Grand Avenue
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land Sale Summary
Sold 3/28/2025
Sale Price $13,126,000
Land Area AC 7.86
Land Area SF 342,382
Price/AC Land $1,669,973
Price/SF Land $38.34
Price Status Confirmed
Sale Comp Status Research Complete
Sale Comp ID 7117503
Parcel Numbers 219-152-74 +3
Transaction Details
Sale Date 3/28/2025 Recording Date 3/28/2025
Sale Price $13,126,000 Transfer Tax $14,439
Land Price $1,669,973/AC ($38.34/SF) Document Number 0080190 Sale Type Investment
Parcel Number 219-152-79, 219-152-74, 219-152-76, 219-152-77 Contacts
Type Name Location Phone
Recorded Buyer Paloma Townhomes Llc - -
True Buyer California Pacific Homes Irvine, CA 92617 (949) 833-6000 Recorded Seller Aoa San Marcos Llc - -
True Seller Lab Holding LLC Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 966-6661 Transaction Notes
On March 28th, 2025, Community Management Corporation sold the 7.86-site to California Pacific Homes for $13,126,000, approximately $1,669,974.

The buyer is planning to develop a 102-lot SFR townhome community which will be called Paloma Townhomes.

The information provided for this sale transaction was verified by sources deemed reliable.

Sale History
Sale Date Price Sale Type Buyer Seller
3/28/2025 $13,126,000 ($1,669,973/-
Investment California Pacific Homes Lab Holding LLC
861
1023 Grand Avenue
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025

862
© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025

1023 Grand Avenue
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land Transportation
Traffic Volume
8,636 on S Bent Ave (2025); 3,180 on Via Vera Cruz (2025); 9,623 on Linda Vista Dr (2025); 145,867 on W San Marcos Blvd (2025); 7,895 on N Las Posas Rd (2025); 8,108 on N Las Posas Rd (2025); 24,413 on S Las Posas Rd (2025); 4,361 on Vallecitos de Oro (2025); 14,342 on la Mirada Dr (2025); 4,361 on Ryan Dr (2025) Airport San Diego International 47 min drive
Walk Score ® Somewhat Walkable (54)
Commuter Rail
863
© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025

1100 W San Marcos Blvd
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Retail Sale Summary
Sold 2/18/2025
Sale Price $6,500,000 ($464.29/SF)
GLA 14,000 SF
Price Status Full Value
Built 1973
Land Area 2.72 AC/118,483 SF
Sale Comp Status Research Complete
Sale Comp ID 7069189
Parcel Numbers 219-200-47
Transaction Details
Sale Date 2/18/2025 Recording Date 2/18/2025
Sale Price $6,500,000 ($464.29/SF) Zoning C
Land Price $2,389,710/AC ($54.86/SF) % Improved 3.48%
Sale Type Investment Document Number 0039980
Hold Period 41 Months
Parcel Number 219-200-47
Property Details
Tenancy Single Building FAR 0.12
Docks None
Parking Spaces 36 Surface Spaces; Ratio of 2.57/1,000 SF Frontage 200' on West San Marcos Boulevard
Contacts
Type Name Location Phone
Recorded Buyer Sb-hs Lot Option Pool 01 Lp - -
True Buyer Hearthstone, Inc. Calabasas, CA 91302 (818) 385-0005 Recorded Seller San Marcos Development Group Llc - -
True Seller Majid Mortazavi Cardiff By The Sea, CA 92007 (858) 342-1711 Transaction Notes
A private individual sold this 14,000 square foot retail building to Hearthstone Inc. for $6,500,000 or $464.29 per square foot.

The information in this comparable has been sourced from public record. 864
© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025

1100 W San Marcos Blvd
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Retail Amenities
• Storage Space
Previous Sale
Sale Date 9/2/2021 Comp ID 5673378
Sale Price $4,600,000 ($328.57/SF) Comp Status Research Complete Sale Type Investment Sale Conditions Redevelopment Project Sale History
Sale Date Price Sale Type Buyer Seller
2/18/2025 $6,500,000 ($464.29/SF) Investment Hearthstone, Inc. Majid Mortazavi 9/2/2021 $4,600,000 ($328.57/SF) Investment Majid Mortazavi The McDonald Group 5/13/2014 $1,700,000 ($121.43/SF) Investment The McDonald Group Sears Roebuck & Company Market Conditions at Sale
Vacancy Rates Current YOY Change Submarket Leasing
Activity Current YOY Change
Subject Property 0.0% 0.0% 12 Month Leased 66,159 SF 17.8% Submarket 1-2 Star 3.6% -1.5% Months on Market 12.6 -
Market Overall 4.2% -0.1%
Market Asking Rent Per
Area Current YOY Change Submarket Sales Activity Current PrevYear Subject Property $2.20/SF 3.0% 12 Month Sales Volume $12.45M $15.14M Submarket 1-2 Star $2.48/SF 1.9% Market Sale Price Per Area $322/SF $258/SF Market Overall $2.98/SF 1.1%
865
1100 W San Marcos Blvd
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Retail © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025

866
© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025

1100 W San Marcos Blvd
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Retail Transportation
Parking Details 36 Surface Spaces; Ratio of 2.57/1,000 SF 32,333 on S Las Posas Rd (2025); 4,361 on Ryan Dr (2025); 10,363 on Linda Vista Dr (2025); 7,393 on Discovery St Traffic Volume (2025); 7,998 on Applewilde Dr (2025); 9,623 on Linda Vista Dr (2025); 38,281 on PkPl (2025); 35,315 on S Pacific St (2025); 8,006 on Pacific St (2025); 3,180 on Via Vera Cruz (2025) Frontage 200' on West San Marcos Boulevard
Airport San Diego International 48 min drive
Walk Score ® Somewhat Walkable (59)
Nearby Sale Comparables
Property Name
Address
Built/
Renovated
Size
(% Leased) Sale Date Price Cap Rate
4606 Mission Bay Dr
Retail 1971/2018 10,000 SF
(100%)
10/10/2023 $5,250,000
($525.00/SF)
Sante Fe Center
1031 S Santa Fe Ave
Retail 1991 18,886 SF
(100%)
11/9/2023 $4,387,500
($232.31/SF)

5.00%
Actual
351 E Pennsylvania Ave
Retail 1964 10,000 SF
(100%)
6024 Paseo Delicias
Retail 1926 9,475 SF
(90.0%)
1/22/2024 $2,250,000
($225.00/SF)
4/19/2024 $11,247,000
($1,187.02/SF)
Old California Restaurant Row
1020 W San Marcos Blvd
Retail
-
12,000 SF
(100%) 4/12/2024 $3,000,000 ($250.00/SF)
415 N Ash St Retail 2005 14,000 SF 8/15/2024 $4,000,000- ($285.71/SF)
7865 Balboa Ave
Retail 1977 7,000 SF
(100%)
9/13/2024 $3,745,000
($535.00/SF)
375 La Costa Ave
Retail
- 13,119 SF 9/25/2024 $2,800,000-
($213.43/SF)
Tip Top Meat
6118 Paseo Del Norte
Retail 1980 10,500 SF
(28.0%)
12/31/2024 $4,600,000
($438.10/SF)
Gerber
535 N Quince St
Retail 1980 10,980 SF 1/17/2025 $2,953,000
-
($268.94/SF)
1916 S Coast Hwy
Retail 1990 8,844 SF 1/15/2025 $3,060,000
-
($346.00/SF)
South Coast Center
1118-1126 S Coast Hwy
Retail 1956 10,145 SF
(100%)
3/24/2025 $3,200,000
($315.43/SF)
305-321 N Ash St Retail 1968 7,392 SF 4/4/2025 $1,600,000 ($216.45/SF)
237 E Valley Pky
Retail 1982 7,000 SF 2/11/2025 $1,800,000
($257.14/SF)
360 Via
Type
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Commuter
867
© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025

tail
-
7,121 SF 6/23/2025
$3,500,000
($491.50/SF)
2954 San Luis Rey Rd
Retail 1988 7,373 SF 7/1/2025 $2,183,500
($296.15/SF)

3.91%
Actual
-
-
-
868
© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025

1100 W San Marcos Blvd
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Retail 869
© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025

00 La Moree Rd
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land Sale Summary
Sold 2/10/2025
Sale Price $3,600,000
Land Area AC 11.69
Land Area SF 509,216
Price/AC Land $307,956
Price/SF Land $7.07
Price Status Confirmed
Sale Comp Status Research Complete
Sale Comp ID 7052891
Parcel Numbers 220-341-02
Transaction Details
Sale Date 2/10/2025 Time On Market 7 Months 16 Days
Sale Price $3,600,000 Recording Date 2/10/2025
Land Price $307,956/AC ($7.07/SF) Zoning SFDR
Sale Type Investment Document Number 0034441
Parcel Number 220-341-02
Property Details
Topography Sloping Density Allowed 2-4du/acre
On-Sites Raw land Zoning SFDR
Proposed Use Apartment Units, Mixed Use, Single Family Development Off-Sites No Cable, No Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk, Electricity, Gas, No Irrigation, Sewer, No Streets, No Telephone, Water Zoning Description Heart of the City Specific Plan
Contacts
Type Name Location Phone
Recorded Buyer Sea Breeze Properties LLC San Diego, CA 92130 - True Buyer Sea Breeze Properties San Diego, CA 92130 (858) 205-1199 Recorded Seller Corp Of The Presiding Bishop of the Church Jesus
Salt Lake City, UT 84150 (801) 240-8619
True Seller The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints
Salt Lake City, UT 84150 (801) 240-1000
Listing Broker Lee & Associates Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 929-9700 Transaction Notes
This 11.69 acre plot of land traded between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and Sea Breeze Properties for $3,600,000 or approximately $306,000 per acre. The listing was added to market June 25, 2024 with an initial asking price of $3,100,000 and was on market for 230 days. The land is currently ungraded and will be used for development. The specifics are currently unknown.

The information in this comparable has been verified via the listing brokers. 870
© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025

00 La Moree Rd
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land Sale History
Sale Date Price Sale Type Buyer Seller
2/10/2025 $3,600,000 ($307,956/AC) Investment Sea Breeze Properties The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
871
00 La Moree Rd
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025

© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025

00 La Moree Rd
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land Transportation
Traffic Volume
2,673 on Calli del Verano (2025); 12,795 on Walnut Hills Dr (2025); 14,156 on Redel Rd (2025); 173,597 on N Twin Oaks Valley Rd (2025); 5,725 on Woodland Pkwy (2025); 7,191 on Mata Way (2025); 14,732 on Woodland Pkwy (2025); 909 on Via del Campo (2025); 2,015 on Cam de la Cima (2025); 6,391 on Woodland Pkwy (2025) Airport San Diego International 45 min drive
Walk Score ® Car-Dependent (35)
Nearby Sale Comparables
Property Name
Address
Built/
Renovated
Land
Size
(% Leased) Sale Date Price Cap Rate
$12,000,000
Twain Ct
Oceanside Blvd & Melrose Dr Land
- 21.82 AC 9/29/2023
- 9.15 AC 12/15/2023
($550,002.89/- -
AC)
$13,000,000
($1,420,765.03/- -
AC)
Valley Center Rd
000 Bella Vista
Type
Valley Center Land
-
Valley Center Rd

13.98 AC
(0%) 7/15/2024
$5,500,000
($393,402.89/-
AC)
-
$5,500,000
North Village Shopping Center Land
- 13.51 AC 7/15/2024 ($407,105.57/- -
AC)
Land $10,600,000
Highway 67 - 8.00 AC 1/29/2025 ($1,325,000.00/- -
AC)
$11,963,000
Bella Vista Drive 10.1 Acres Land
- 10.10 AC 3/19/2025 ($1,184,455.45/- -
AC)
873
© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025

801 S Twin Oaks Valley Rd
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land Sale Summary
Escrow 886 Days on Market
Asking Price $5,950,000
Number of Lots 1
Lot Size 159.90 AC
Price/AC Land $37,211
Price/SF Land $0.85
Land Area AC 159.90
Land Area SF 6,965,244
Parcel Numbers 222-121-05 +7
Transaction Details
Sale Type Investment Zoning CA-6
Parcel Number 222-190-09, 222-190-11, 222-190-10, 222-180-41, 222-121-27 +3 Property Details
Topography Sloping Current Use Vacant
On-Sites Raw land Zoning CA-6
Off-Sites No Cable, No Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk, Electricity, Gas, No Irrigation, Sewer, No Streets, No Telephone, Water Transaction Notes
801 S Twin Oaks Valley Rd, also known as the "White-Attebury Specific Plan" is the largest contiguous residential specific plan in the City of San Marcos.

The Specific Plan allows 68 dwelling units.The S Twin Oaks Valley property offers builders and developers the opportunity to capture the demand for upscale housing in the City of San Marcos. The subject property is located just South of the high-end Rancho Tesoro and Village O residential communities. The elevation of the property allows for panoramic ocean, mountain, and city views. The newly constructed North City project by Sea Breeze Communities at CSU San Marcos hosts multiple new dining and entertainment options. 874
801 S Twin Oaks Valley Rd
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025

© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025

801 S Twin Oaks Valley Rd
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land Transportation
Traffic Volume
15,197 on Double Peak Dr (2025); 16,527 on Village Dr (2025); 20,487 on Campus Vw (2025); 4,679 on Little Creek Rd (2025); 15,301 on Eclipse Dr (2025); 1,344 on Windriver St (2025); 15,402 on Echo Ln (2025); 5,435 on Reflection (2025); 24,124 on Discovery St (2025)
Airport San Diego International 47 min drive
Walk Score ® Car-Dependent (5)
876
© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025

302 N Pacific St - San Marcos Mixed Use Land
San Marcos, CA 92069 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land Sale Summary
Under Contract 1,147 Days on Market
Asking Price $4,750,000
Number of Lots 1
Lot Size 5.60 AC
Price/AC Land $848,214
Price/SF Land $19.47
Land Area AC 5.60
Land Area SF 243,936
Transaction Details
Sale Type Investment or Owner User Zoning MU-1
Property Details
Topography Level Dimensions Irregular
On-Sites Raw land Zoning MU-1
Current Use Vacant Land
Proposed Use Apartment Units, Apartment Units - Condo, Hold for Development, Hold for Investment, Mixed Use, MultiFamily, Storefrnt Retail/Residntl, Storefront
Improvements Vacant Land
Off-Sites Cable, No Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk, Electricity, Gas, No Irrigation, No Sewer, No Streets, No Telephone, Water Frontage 883' on W Mission Rd
Contacts
Type Name Location Phone
Listing Broker Doug Ross Real Estate San Diego, CA 92191 - Transaction Notes
Seller may finance. Prime investment opportunity in the heart of San Marcos, CA. 877
302 N Pacific St - San Marcos Mixed Use Land
San Marcos, CA 92069 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025

© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025

302 N Pacific St - San Marcos Mixed Use Land
San Marcos, CA 92069 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land Transportation
Traffic Volume
14,449 on N Rancho Santa Fe Rd (2025); 16,176 on N Pacific St (2025); 12,133 on Capalina Rd (2025); 20,087 on Capalina Rd (2025); 22,032 on Palm Rd (2025); 8,662 on N Rancho Santa Fe Rd (2025); 142,869 on N Rancho Santa Fe Rd (2020); 9,162 on N Rancho Santa Fe Rd (2025); 9,205 on S Rancho Santa Fe Rd (2025) Transit/Subway Palomar College 20 min walk
Airport San Diego International 48 min drive
Walk Score ® Very Walkable (70)
Nearby Sale Comparables
Property Name
Address Type Built/ Renovated
Size
(% Leased) Sale Date Price Cap Rate
NEC Twin Oaks Valley Rd & Ri…
Twin Oaks Valley Rd
Land
- 3.37 AC 11/2/2023
$5,800,000
($1,719,559.51/-
AC)
-
Oceanside Blvd & Melrose Dr Land- 9.15 AC 12/15/2023
$13,000,000
($1,420,765.03/-
AC)
-
1058 Old Taylor St Land- 3.64 AC 8/8/2024
$6,200,000
($1,703,311.74/-
AC)
-
Town Center Pkwy & Mission G… Land- 5.26 AC 1/21/2025
$10,000,000
($1,901,137.37/-
AC)
-
Highway 67 Land- 8.00 AC 1/29/2025
$10,600,000
($1,325,000.00/-
AC)
-
10650 Scripps Ranch Blvd Land- 2.98 AC 1/24/2025
$9,000,000
($3,017,874.46/-
AC)
-
Bella Vista Drive 10.1 Acres
000 Bella Vista
Land
- 10.10 AC 3/19/2025
$11,963,000
($1,184,455.45/-
AC)
-
879
© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025

3600 Grand Ave
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land Sale Summary
Escrow 818 Days on Market
Asking Price $1,950,000
Number of Lots 1
Lot Size 0.99 AC
Price/AC Land $1,969,697
Price/SF Land $45.22
Land Area AC 0.99
Land Area SF 43,124
Transaction Details
Sale Type Investment % Improved 81.36%
Zoning MU-1
Property Details
Topography Level Dimensions Irregular
On-Sites Rough graded Zoning MU-1
Current Use Vacant Land
Proposed Use Apartment Units, Commercial, Hold for Development, Hold for Investment, Mixed Use, Storefrnt Retail/Residntl Improvements Vacant Land
Frontage 238' on Grand Ave
Transaction Notes
The property is located just west of the corner of Grand Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road in the City of San Marcos, County of San Diego. Positioned less than 1/4 mile south of Highway 78, this site is ideally suited for commercial development adjacent to one of San Marcos’ busiest roads. With excellent ingress/egress accessibility and street visibility, this site presents developers, builders, and investors with tremendous current and future financial upside. 880
3600 Grand Ave
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025

6 3600 Grand Ave
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land Transportation
Traffic Volume
3,032 on Kensington Dr (2025); 29,829 on Descanso Ave (2025); 28,032 on 8th St (2025); 8,765 on Pawnee St (2025); 6,913 on Las Flores Dr (2025); 2,085 on S Rancho Santa Fe Rd (2025); 29,371 on Descanso Ave (2025); 9,205 on S Rancho Santa Fe Rd (2025); 10,001 on S Rancho Santa Fe Rd (2025) Commuter Rail Carlsbad Poinsettia 16 min drive
Airport San Diego International 47 min drive
Walk Score ® Very Walkable (77)
Nearby Sale Comparables
Property Name
Address Type Built/ Renovated
Size
(% Leased) Sale Date Price Cap Rate
W Citracado Pky & Miller - Lot A
W Citracado Pky
Land
- 0.78 AC 7/27/2023
$797,500
($1,022,429.88/-
AC)
-
Vista Business Park
2232 La Mirada Dr
Land
- 0.61 AC 9/5/2023
$1,125,000
($1,844,234.53/-
AC)
-
Resort View Apartments
Viejo Castillo Way
Land
- 0.87 AC 1/31/2024
$3,565,000
($4,085,755.63/-
AC)
-
M54 Zoned Parcel & Business…
1339 Walnut St
Land
- 0.53 AC 4/29/2024
$782,500
($1,476,402.30/-
AC)
-
N Las Posas Rd Land- 1.95 AC 12/12/2024
$3,700,000
($1,897,435.90/-
AC)
-
2608 S Escondido Blvd Land- 1.78 AC 12/20/2024
$7,650,000
($4,297,741.72/-
AC)
-
Highly Visible Commercial Land
Business Park Dr
Land
- 1.00 AC 6/3/2025
$2,076,500
($2,076,500.00/-
AC)
-
10180-10190 Riverford Rd Land- 1.49 AC 5/30/2025
$2,300,000
($1,541,828.25/-
AC)
-
Retail / Hospitality Developme…
1 Bedford Ct
Land
- 1.88 AC 6/10/2025
$4,400,000
($2,340,419.82/-
AC)
-
© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025

ATTACHMENT 5: IMPROVEMENT COST CALCULATIONS
The City provides the costs for various types of construction in its approved Unit Price List.

As with the calculations for the impact of the Development on City facilities, these calculations likewise neglect grading, demolition, curb and gutter, retaining structures, utility relocations, landscaping, driveways, and other incidental work; clearing and grubbing is included in pavement costs. Land values are calculated separately, as given in Attachment

4. Woodward Street Frontage
A 16’ dedication is required to accommodate ultimate public improvements. The frontage to Woodward Street measures approximately 550 feet long.

Table 4: Woodward Street Frontage Improvements
Item Quantity Unit Price Total Price
Sidewalk 5’ Wide 2,750 square feet $7.60/sf $20,900
Concrete pavement,
12’ wide
6,600 square feet $7.60/sf $50,160
Curb and Gutter 550 linear feet $30.00/lf $16,500
Total: $87,560
Mission Road Frontage
A 14’ dedication is needed to accommodate ultimate public improvements. The frontage to Mission Road measures approximately 435 feet long. A curb popout is required; 70 linear feet are removed from the frontage curb and gutter length to avoid double-counting.

Table 5: Mission Road Frontage Improvements
Item Quantity Unit Price Total Price
Sidewalk 5’ Wide 2,175 square feet $7.60/sf $16,530
Concrete pavement,
6’ wide
2,610 square feet $7.60/sf $19,836
Curb and Gutter 365 linear feet $30.00/lf $10,950
Curb and Gutter
Pop-out
120 linear feet $30.00/lf $3,600
Total: $50,916
883
ATTACHMENT 6: IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT ON CITY

INFRASTRUCTURE
When new residents of the Development travel throughout the community, they will impose an incremental burden on the entire citywide transportation system of roadways, pedestrian walkways, and bicycle facilities extending well beyond the project’s immediate frontage.

Therefore, the citywide impacts of the Development are considered in this analysis.

Pedestrian Infrastructure
Based on a reasonable and individualized assessment of the specific resident population and the destinations to which that population may wish to travel, The City found the most likely pedestrian destinations from the Development as the Civic Center Sprinter Station, San Marcos Public Library, and the San Marcos Senior Activity Center. The Development has a main entrance located at the corner of Woodward and Mission. Estimated door-to-door distances are measured from this corner and traveling within the public right-of-way to the key pedestrian locations are summarized in Table 3 below.

The City constructs, at minimum, a five-foot-wide pedestrian facility. The City provides the costs for various types of construction in its approved Unit Price List. Neglecting grading, demolition, retaining structures, utility relocations, landscaping, driveways, and other incidental work, and including only the cost of clearing the area and the sidewalk pavement itself, the sidewalk would cost $7.60 per square foot.

Table 6: Estimated Cost of Pedestrian Facilities Required of City Destination Travel
Distance
(Feet)
5’Wide
Sidewalk
Area (Square
Feet)
Sidewalk
Segment
Cost at
$7.60/ sf
Sprinter Station 480’ 2,400 $18,240
Library 850’ 4,250 $32,300
Senior Activity
Center
2,065’ 10,325 $78,470
Total 3,395 16,975 $129,010
In total 3,395 linear feet of pedestrian pathway, valued at a minimum of $129,010, are needed to support the proposed development.
884
Roadway Infrastructure
SANDAG current (2016) data indicates that the project location, Census Tract 200.22, will generate 19.3 vehicle milestraveled per capita. The Development population estimate is 230 residents, neglecting employees. The employees would add additional trips not calculated here. Therefore, Lanikai proposes an impact of 1,162,235 annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to City infrastructure.

Based upon the traffic study, the Development would generate 167,900 Estimated Annual Trips (EAT). Dividing the 1,162,235 annual vehicle miles traveled by the annual trips indicates that each trip will be an average of 9.65 miles long.

The City provides the costs for various types of construction in its approved Unit Price List. A travel lane is typically 11 to 13 feet wide. Our calculations assume an average 12-foot lane width. Neglecting grading, demolition, curb and gutter, retaining structures, utility relocations, landscaping, driveways, and other incidental work, and including only the cost of clearing the area and placing 6 inches of aggregate base and 4 inches of asphalt concrete, the cost to the City of providing the necessary facility would be $4.80 per square foot.

The cost of providing the 9.65 lane miles of roadway infrastructure to support the development is $2,934,835.

Bicycle Infrastructure
The Development will generate bicycle trips; the Development will provide one bike parking area per five residential units proposed, resulting in storage for a minimum of 23 bicycles.

Based on a reasonable and individualized assessment of the specific resident population and the destinations to which that population may wish to travel, bicycle trips generated by the Development are most likely to be to/from the active transportation destinations described in the Pedestrian Infrastructure section above. These trips result in the need for 3,395 linear feet of bicycle infrastructure.

The square footage of roadway needed to accommodate the Development’s VMT is: (9.65 lane miles) x (5280 feet/ mile) x (12-foot lane width) = 611,424 square feet The cost of providing the needed roadway facility is:
(611,424 square feet) x $4.80 per square foot = $2,934,835 885
A bicycle facility can be constructed of either asphalt or concrete, depending upon location.

This analysis assumes asphalt, which results in a lower cost of the burden placed by the Development on the City. A minimum of an eight-foot width is needed for a bicycle facility.

Neglecting grading, demolition, retaining structures, utility relocations, landscaping, driveways, and other incidental work, and including only the cost of clearing the area and placing 6 inches of aggregate base and 4 inches of asphalt concrete, the cost to the City of providing the necessary facility would be $4.80 per square foot.

The square footage of roadway needed to accommodate the Development’s bicycle miles traveled is:
(3,395 linear feet) x (8-foot width) = 27,160 square feet The cost of providing the needed roadway facility is:
(27,160 square feet) x $4.80 per square foot = $130,368 886
ATTACHMENT 7: CITY FEE STUDY, ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN,

AND CONFLICT WITH GENERAL PLAN
2024 Development Impact Fee Study and Nexus Study
In evaluating Lanikai’s position, City staff and consultants have also evaluated the Public Facilities Fees proposed to be assessed to the Development.

General Plan Policy LU-7.2 states: “Update and revise existing fee programs as needed, to ensure adequate funding for infrastructure improvements and community facilities are available to serve new development. Amend appropriate codes to require new projects to pay for the infrastructure and services.” [emphasis added]. The primary policy objective of the City’s Public Facilities Fee (PFF) program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth.

Accordingly, the 2024 Development Impact Fee Nexus Study4( Nexus Study) (incorporated here by reference)h analyzed infrastructure demands in San Marcos to support growth through the year 2040 and the development impact fees needed to support that development. City Council adopted the study and fees in the fall of 2024. The City Council’s action ensures that the costs representing future development’s share of necessary public facilities and capital improvements are imposed on that development in the form of a development impact fee or Public Facilities Fee (PFF). The fees studied in the Nexus Study and approved by City Council represent the proportional funding required by developers for the public facilitiesthat are required to be constructed when a property is developed. (Nexus Study p. 51.) The Nexus Study assumes that right-of-way (ROW) will be dedicated by future development as a condition of development and therefore does not consider the costs of ROW acquisition, only the costs of improvement construction.

The Nexus Study analyzes the impact fees contemplated by the City and finds a nexus with a legitimate City purpose and that the fees are reasonably related to the impact of the future development on those public improvements. In the nexus study, the five statutory findings are made: specifically, 1) the purpose of the fee, 2) use of fee revenues, 3) benefit relationship, 4) burden relationship, and 5) proportionality. In the most recent Sheetz case, the Court found that the “Nollan/Dolan test is similar to the reasonable relationship standard employed in California to assess the validity of land-use exactions (e.g., impact fees) in the context of individualized (i.e., projectspecific) conditionsimposed on an ad hoc basisthrough administrative action.” (Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 2025 WL 2116363, *17.) 4 ttps://www.san-marcos.net/departments/development-services/planning/applications-forms-fees/feeadjustment 887
Accordingly, California’s Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) has effectively incorporated the Nollan/Dolan test and as the City’s PFF was adopted pursuant the Mitigation Fee Act, the City’s PFF thus complies with the nexus and rough proportionality tests required by Nollan/Dolan and Sheetz.

Active Transportation Plan
In its July 24, 2025 letter to the City, Lanikai states that, “Lanikai will not be amending its site plan or any other element of its application to include a bike lane that requires it to dedicate to the City, without compensation, frontage property for such purpose.” However, the bicycle facility is not only appropriate in nexus and in rough proportionality to the Development; it is also required by the General Plan, as discussed below.

Developments must demonstrate consistency with the General Plan prior to approval: “Local government land use approvals-whether for public or private projects-require general plan consistency.” (Corona-Norco Unified School District v. City of Corona (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 985.) Government Code section 65302 requires cities to adopt a general plan containing specified mandatory elements.

In 2024, City Council adopted the Active Transportation Plan (ATP) as part of its General Plan Mobility Element. The City’s adoption of the ATP aligns with the Active Transportation Program created by:
 Senate Bills 99 and 101 (2013 Active Transportation Program)  Assembly Bill 1358 (California Complete Streets Act, 2008) These state laws require the City to modify circulation plans to increase biking and walking trips while increasing safety and mobility of non-motorized users and creating a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel. As a result of the adoption of the ATP, Developers have a role in implementing these infrastructure elements, which is well supported by the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study. This shows the essential nexus between the legitimate state interest of increasing safety and mobility of non-motorized users and requiring bike lanes to be installed on Mission Road.

The ATP requirements for bicycle facilities on Mission Rd were specifically contemplated in the Nexus Study. The Planned Bike Facilities in the ATP for the City are listed in Table 3.5 on page 17 of the Nexus Study. The Nexus Study analyzed the nexus and rough proportionality 888
of these specific ATP land use exactions using the reasonable relationship test that was upheld in the most recent Sheetz case.

The ATP has ranked Mission Road as the number one Interim Bike Prioritization Roadway, signifying the importance of these improvements being implemented in the City. Mission Road and Woodward Street facilities are included in the General Plan and ATP. The ATP clearly states that Developers will be required to incorporate the ultimate bicycle network recommendations when considering setbacks, frontage improvements, and design, and may be required to construct the ultimate facilities based upon roadway characteristics, adjacent facilities, and the ability to design and construct appropriate transitions into the ultimate improvements.

The Development Impact Fee nexus study already supports the need for these facilities citywide. Without the construction of these facilitiesin the future, the City’s ability to ensure compliance with the goals of the General Plan and the greenhouse gas reduction goals contained in the City’s Climate Action Plan will be greatly impacted. Further, the Climate Action Plan requires the construction of the bicycle facilities identified in the Active Transportation Plan in order to achieve the required greenhouse gas reductions targets therein.

Conflict with the City’s General Plan
If the improvements associated with the ATP are not installed, the City cannot make the finding that the Development is consistent with the General Plan and approve the Development. A project is consistent with a general plan if “ ‘it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment.’” (Corona-Norco Unified School Dist. at 994.)
Accordingly, if the Development builds according to its existing site plan and does not provide the right-of-way dedication as required, the City will be obstructed from implementation of ATP improvements, which will prevent the City from meeting the City’s and State’s goals for active transportation, complete streets, and greenhouse gas reductions.

Lanikai’s development proposal would place site improvements and portions of the building within land that the City requires as right-of-way for legitimate state interests. In addition, Lanikai proposes to change the land use from Commercial to Senior Residential, which will result in a demand for a greater number and proportion of multi-modal trips than the existing Commercial land use. At the same time as it increases pedestrian and bicycle demand, the Development would prevent the City from being able to construct these bicycle and pedestrian facilities for a period of approximately 50 years, the life of the building, by 889
constructing the building within the same area needed for active transportation improvements. Without appropriate facilities available, trips that could be made by walking or bicycling must instead be made only by vehicle. This forced mode shift would increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the City and the region and reduce the City’s ability to meet greenhouse gas reductions targets adopted in the Climate Acton Plan.

These effects would increase the Development’s burden on the City’s transportation network far more than what has been analyzed from a financial perspective in this memorandum.
890
Appendix D. Vicinity Map
Project Site
891
Appendix E. Appeal Letter dated July 10, 2026
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
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.
gdandb.com
2762 Gateway Road T 760.431.9501
Carlsbad, California 92009 F 760.431.9512
892
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
Punam Prahalad
Lounsbery Ferguson Altona & Peak
City Clerk
City of San Marcos
July 10, 2026

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
893
Appendix F. Supplemental Appeal Letter dated July 31, 2026 (See City Council Staff Report dated September 8, 2026 for referenced exhibits) Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
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. 894 Gatzke Dillon & Ballance

LLP L A W Y E R S
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council
July 31, 2026

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.
895
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance

LLP L A W Y E R S
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council
July 31, 2026

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.
896
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council July 31, 2026

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.
897
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council July 31, 2026

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 898
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council July 31, 2026

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 thisletter) 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:
899
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council July 31, 2026

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/ssenior 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. 900
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council July 31, 2026

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.
901
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council July 31, 2026

 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 902
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council July 31, 2026

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, 903
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council July 31, 2026

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).) 904
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council July 31, 2026

(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. 905
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council July 31, 2026

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.
906
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council July 31, 2026

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.)
907
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council July 31, 2026

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.
908
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council July 31, 2026

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.

THEREFORE, Lanikai respectfully requests that the City Council grant Lanikai’s appeal, reject Resolution ADM 26-5226, and direct theCity 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
909
Appendix G. VMT Letter dated April 10, 2025
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
April 10, 2025
Via Mail, and Email ([email protected])
Punam Prahalad
Lounsbery Ferguson Altona & Peak
960 Canterbury Pl # 300
Escondido, CA 92025
760.743.1201x137
Re: Lanikai Residential Project – VMT Issue
Dear Punam:

During our phone conference last month, we discussed whether the Lanikai project would require a VMT analysis as part of its CEQA package. I indicated 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 of CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3. The question – which neither of us could answer at the time – was whether Lanikai had conducted an LOS traffic analysis prior to July 1, 2020, i.e., the effective date of the VMT guideline.

I can now answer that question. Attached is a letter from the City of San Marcos (“City”), dated November 19, 2018. On page 5 under “CEQA”, it states “You submitted Biological Resources Letter Report prepared by Helix Environmental Planning and Traffic Report prepared by Urban Systems Associates with your second submittal on October 25, 2018.” The City initially rejected the biology and traffic reports on grounds that Helix and Urban Systems were not on the City’s approved consultant list. However, after Lanikai objected to the City’s position, the City approved the two consultants and accepted their reports.

The traffic items submitted to the City on 10/25/18 include: (1) Traffic Impact Analysis; (2) Line of Site Study; and (3) Driveway Memo (left out at Woodward). Here’s a link to those files:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/mgss03n99sxu6agysa7f7/AEYD-rWAq2rc34- aGauZHUY?rlkey=o1qsgolclxh1qb4wszeoq9dqy&st=y934037g&dl=0 Based on this information, it is clear that Lanikai prepared and submitted its LOS traffic study in the fall of 2018, well before the July 1, 2020 effective date of CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3.

It is equally clear that the City accepted that traffic study prior to July 1, 2020 as well. Therefore, under IBC Business Owners, Lanikai is not required to prepare a VMT analysis for its project. See, Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 926, citing IBC Business Owners.
910
CITY OF SAN MARCOS | LANIKAI MND: STAFF ANALYSIS OF APPEAL | 2
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
Punam Prahalad
Lounsbery Ferguson
Altona & Peak April
10, 2025

Please review these materials and let me know if you agree with my position. If you would like to discuss the matter, I am happy to do so.

Sincerely,
David P. Hubbard
of
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
cc: Larry Jett
Greg Scaduto
Rick Gittings
Attachment: Letter from the City, dated November 19, 2018 911

ATTACHMENT J

EXACTION ANALYSIS OF RIGHT OF WAY

DEDICATION AND FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS
912

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.
913
David Hubbard
August 14, 2025

LOUNSBERY FERGUSON ALTONA & PEAK LLP
As to the requirement to install a class IV bike lane, staff does believe there is a nexus and that this requirement is not an unlawful exaction under the Fifth Amendment and applicable legal precedent, including the recent Court of Appeal determination in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court as detailed in the attached memorandum.

With respect to item (3), the bulb out is required to address the impact of the Mission Road driveway and the development of a senior residential development on the City’s infrastructure.

The nexus for this requirement is also detailed in the attached memorandum.

With regard to item (4), based upon the traffic studies and traffic movements the City has reviewed, the City’s position is that the Woodward entrance and exit must be right turn in/right turn out only and the left-out access from the project onto Woodward should not be permitted.

This is further discussed in the attached memorandum.

We understand that the applicant does not wish to continue debating these four issues. However, we believe the City has provided sufficient basis for requirements it has provided, which basis is consistent with the analysis in the recent determination in the Sheetz case.

In addition to these four issues you identified, there are still a significant number of issues to be addressed before the Project is ready to be presented to the Planning Commission. These outstanding issues are:
o Potential impacts on habitat and wildlife agency consensus on wetland buffer; o Potential impacts on regulatory floodway, draft CLOMR, & revision of the flood analysis;
o Outstanding comments on VMT analysis;
o TDM plan needs to be revised;
o VWD correspondence acknowledging VWD water & study from 2019 does not require an update;
o Updated Fiscal & Economic analysis (existing is out of date); o Updated LOS analysis (existing is out of date);
o Draft MND to be updated with revised Biology Report with bird survey, LOS, VMT, & updated Fiscal & Economic analysis.

If after reviewing the attached memorandum, it is Lanikai’s intent to move forward with the current site plan, please advise whether Lanikai intends to (1) address all other outstanding items and (2) complete CEQA review before presenting the project to Planning Commission. If so, Lanikai should be made aware that it would be moving forward with the risk of a recommendation of denial from staff.
914
David Hubbard
August 14, 2025

LOUNSBERY FERGUSON ALTONA & PEAK LLP
Additionally, staff is concerned that if Lanikai determines it will move forward without addressing the listed outstanding items and/or completing CEQA review, given the condition precedent for approval of CEQA documentation prior to or concurrent with approval of a project, the City’s ability to approve the project would be negatively affected.

Sincerely,
Punam P. Prahalad

LOUNSBERY FERGUSON ALTONA & PEAK, LLP
Enclosure as noted
cc: Michelle Bender, City Manager
Isaac Etchamendy, Development Services Director and City Engineer Joe Farace, Director of Planning
Chris Garcia, Senior Planner
915
LANIKAI DEVELOPMENT:

EXACTION ANALYSIS OF RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION AND

FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS

INTRODUCTION
Lanikai Partners LLC (Lanikai) proposes to construct a senior housing development at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Mission Avenue with Woodward Drive (the Development) (Attachment 1). Analysis of anticipated traffic counts and other aspects of the environmental review conducted to date have identified that the Development will create impacts to the City’s infrastructure, particularly the transportation network. Accordingly, the City has required the Development to dedicate public right-of-way to support transportation improvements and to construct frontage improvements.

The applicant disputes the requirement to dedicate the public right-of-way and to construct the frontage improvements, citing Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825, Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374, and Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (2024) 601 U.S. 267. This memorandum documents the evaluation of those concerns and demonstrates the nexus and the rough proportionality between the imposition of right-ofway dedication and frontage improvements on the one hand and the Development’s impact on the City’s facilities on the other, as required under current law.

METHODOLOGY
The City’s evaluation of whether the exaction of right-of-way and associated frontage improvements for the Development constitutes a taking was conducted using a multi-step methodology grounded in constitutional principles, California statutory requirements, and relevant case law.

The methodology is as follows:

1. Establish the legal framework by identifying the applicable legal standards for land use exactions.

2. Document the development characteristics for use in determining project impacts.

3. Identify and quantify the development impacts to City infrastructure based on project- and site-specific characteristics. These impacts occur at both a citywide and 916
local level. Citywide infrastructure impacts are quantified on both a physical (i.e., 100 linear feet of travel lane) and a financial basis.

4. Identify the required exactions and project requirements, including right-of-way dedication, frontage improvements, public facilities fees, and project impact mitigations. Assess the General Plan consistency implications of the required exactions.

5. Evaluate the essential nexus between the project impacts and the required exactions.

6. Identify and quantify the burden on the development imposed by the required exactions.

7. Evaluate the rough proportionality by comparing the financial and physical scope of the required exactions to the quantified impact of the project on public facilities.

8. Assess the economic viability of the project with the required exactions by evaluating whether the required exactions would deny the developer all economically viable use of the property.

9. Evaluate compliance under the legal framework established in Step 1.

1. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The City’s authority to impose dedications and exactions is constrained by the U.S.

Constitution and California law. The governing principles are:
• Nollan (1987): There must be an essential nexus between a legitimate public purpose and the condition imposed.
• Dolan (1994): There must be rough proportionality between the exaction and the development’s impact.
• Sheetz (2024) 601 U.S. 267, Sheetz (2025) 2025 WL 2116363: These requirements apply even to exactions imposed through legislative frameworks, such as development impact fees or general plan policies.
• Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code §66000 et seq.): The City must make five findings: (1) purpose of the fee; (2) use of fee; (3) benefit relationship; (4) burden relationship; and (5) proportionality. This methodology was found to be consistent with the essential nexus and rough proportionality tests in the 2025 Sheetz v. County of El Dorado decision by the 3rd District Court of Appeals on remand from the Supreme Court. This is further discussed in Attachment 7.
917

2. DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS
Lanikai is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA17-0003), Specific Plan Amendment (SP17-0004), and Multi-Family Site Development Plan (MFSDP19-0001) to construct an age 55+ residential development and associated infrastructure improvements.

The Development proposes to construct 115 units over four floors, with a total building size of approximately 106,300 square feet and 50 feet in height. The Development includes a mix of residential unit sizes including studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units. Interior community areas include a library/TV room, fitness room, and a great room with kitchen.

Exterior spaces include private balconies or patios for each unit and a community patio area with lap pool. A site layout is provided in Attachment 2.

A rate of 3.1 persons per dwelling unit is typically assumed for population growth determination. However, given the age-restricted nature of the proposed 115-unit project, up to 2 persons per unit are assumed. Therefore, the Development would potentially add an estimated 230 people to the area, excluding employees.

The 174,676 square foot project site (Assessor’s Parcel 220-063-04-00) is currently vacant land itself and bounded by vacant land to the north, Woodward Drive to the East, Mission Road to the South, and San Marcos Creek to the West. The surrounding neighborhood includes residential development, light rail transit, a public library, a community center, the Senior Activity Center, regional bike facilities, Richmar Park (0.25 miles west), Hollandia Park (0.8 miles east), and City Hall; see Attachment 3. The site is relatively flat.

The Development proposes to include two separate access points, one on Woodward Street and a second on Mission Road. The Development seeks to have a right-turn-in, left-turn-out entry along Mission Road, which is not consistent with the City’s Urban Street Design Criteria (USDG). The City has offered that it could contemplate allowing the second (Mission Road) driveway access point if the impacts of the new driveway are properly mitigated.

3. DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS
The Development proposes 230 new residents, adding drivers, pedestrians, transit users, and cyclists to Mission Road, Woodward Street, and the City transportation network in general. The traffic study indicates the Development will generate 167,900 Estimated Annual Trips (EAT). In addition, the introduction of senior residents, proposed driveway locations, and the particular site conditions have specific impacts for both citywide and local infrastructure needs.
918
The impacts of the Development on the transportation network are not confined to the segment of street directly adjacent to the site. By definition, transportation infrastructure exists to move people and goods across a connected network; it is by definition a system. A trip generated by the Development will not start and end at the project frontage; it will traverse multiple roadway segments and active transportation facilities citywide. Some of these facilities exist, and others do not.

Consequently, when new residents of the Development travel throughout the community, they will impose incremental burdens on the entire citywide transportation system of roadways, pedestrian walkways, and bicycle facilities, extending well beyond the Development’s immediate frontage. This principle is widely recognized in transportation planning and impact analyses, where facility needs are expressed in terms of miles traveled rather than just along-site frontage segments.

The constitutional “rough proportionality” standard established in Dolan v. City of Tigard (512 U.S. 374, 1994) requires that the extent of an exaction have a reasonable relationship to the magnitude of the project’s impacts. (Sheetz 2025 WL 2116363 *17.) The citywide network serves the entire trip, and all facilities along the trip are needed for that travel to be possible. Therefore, it is proportionate to require the Development to construct improvements along its own frontage; this is a fair and measurable share of the facilities it will rely upon. This is especially true because the frontage is part of a designated facility in the City’s General Plan or Active Transportation Plan, ensuring network continuity and safety.

Even where some or all roadway, pedestrian, or bicycle segments already exist along the frontage, those facilities may require widening, accessibility enhancements, or the addition of missing multimodal elements such as bike lanes, transit enhancements, or sidewalks to complete the Citywide transportation network. In engineering terms, transportation infrastructure is not “present or absent;” it has varying capacity, safety performance, and compliance with standards. A substandard bike lane, for example, may not safely accommodate increased bicycle volumes, especially where vulnerable users (such as seniors) are expected. The additional demand from the Development justifies upgrading that segment to meet the City’s ultimate network as required in the General Plan and Active Transportation Plan. In the absence of these improvements, the new residents’ ability to safely and efficiently complete their trips would be compromised, and the City’s networklevel goals such as congestion mitigation and safety for vulnerable road users, and regional goals such as reduction of vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gases would be undermined.

The transportation network is a system-based public facility, and impacts from the proposed Development will occur citywide, not just at the site frontage. Requiring the Development to 919
construct improvements along its frontage is an equitable and legally defensible method of ensuring that each new development project contributes a proportionate share toward the network it depends on. This approach satisfies the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards under Nollan, Dolan, and Sheetz, and complies with the individualized determination requirement of both federal and California law, as discussed below.
3A. Roadway, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Facility Impacts from the Development Dolan requires “some sort of individualized determination” that the nature and extent of the exaction relate to the development’s projected impacts. In this case, trip generation and citywide roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle demand analyses quantify the incremental facility demand attributable to the project. Those impacts are far greater than the value of the frontage improvements required, satisfying the “extent” prong of Dolan.

The Supreme Court in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (601 U.S. 267, 2024) confirmed that the Nollan/Dolan standards apply equally to legislatively adopted conditions, such as general plan requirements or fee programs. Thus, even when frontage improvements are required pursuant to citywide policy such as the General Plan or the Active Transportation Plan, the City’s approach of matching each development’s responsibility to its own frontage, rather than a greater segment, is a measured and constitutionally sound allocation of the burden.

For purposes of this analysis, the City considered that the predominant impact of the Development to City facilities would be to the transportation network, primarily to pedestrian, roadway, and bicycle infrastructure citywide. The assessment below quantifies the physical improvements that must be constructed citywide to support the proposed Development and attributes financial costs to the same.

Roadway Infrastructure
The City’s adopted Development Impact Fee Nexus Study1 indicates that, “the need for transportation facilities is based on the trip demand placed on the system by development… Vehicle trip generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the citywide system of street improvements across all modes because alternate modes (transit, bicycle, pedestrian) often substitute for vehicle trips.” The Development will generate 167,900 Estimated Annual Trips (EAT) and will therefore place an increased demand on the citywide transportation network.

SANDAG current (2016) data indicates that the project location, Census Tract 200.22, will generate 19.3 vehicle miles traveled per capita per day. The Development population 1 https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument/28857/638639102721170000 920
estimate is 230 residents, neglecting employees. Therefore, Lanikai proposes an impact of 1,162,235 annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to City infrastructure, each trip requiring an average of 9.65 lane miles of roadway infrastructure.

Therefore, the impact of the development on the citywide need for roadway infrastructure is

9.65 lane miles. The cost of providing this roadway infrastructure is a minimum of $2,934,835 (Attachment 6).

Pedestrian Infrastructure
The Development will generate a population of 230 residents. Available documentation does not indicate the number of employees proposed; accordingly, the impact of employees on City infrastructure has not been evaluated and is in addition to the impacts addressed here.

SANDAG’s nonmotorized database system for location 10016_Eleg further west on Mission Road indicates that segment was used by 336 pedestrians and 106 cyclists, indicative of active transportation usage of Mission Road. Assuming a relatively low walk share proportion at 5% from the proposed Development, 23 pedestrian trips per day can be expected based off the 167,900 Estimate Annual Trips.

The City finds no evidence to support Lanikai’s claims in its environmental documents that the age-55+ residents will “recreate onsite” and will not use pedestrian or bicycle facilities.

Quite to the contrary, residents are anticipated to use City pedestrian facilities and therefore are considered to increase pedestrian demand. Key destinations within 0.5 miles are shopping and local businesses, the Inland Rail Trail, city hall, the community center, and two parks, all of which are anticipated to be active transportation destinations for the proposed residents. Based on an individualized assessment of the specific resident population and the destinations to which that population may wish to travel, the City established the three most likely pedestrian destinations for the Development residents as the Civic Center Sprinter Station, San Marcos Public Library, and the San Marcos Senior Activity Center.

These destinations are mapped in Attachment 3.

Table 1: Active Transportation (Pedestrian and Bicycle) Destinations Destination Travel Distance (Feet) Travel
Distance
(Miles)
Sprinter Station 480 feet 0.09 miles
Library 850 feet 0.16 miles
Senior Activity Center 2,065 feet 0.39 miles
921
The impact of the Development on the need for citywide pedestrian facilities is 3,395 linear feet of pedestrian pathway, valued at a minimum of $129,010 (Attachment 6).

Bicycle Infrastructure
Bicycle trips generated by the Development are most likely to be to/from the active transportation destinations described in the Pedestrian Infrastructure section in Attachment 6. Bicycling distances to the destinations described in Table 1 measured roughly the same as the pedestrian distances. Assuming a low bicycle mode share of just 1%, the Development would generate 1,679 bicycle trips per year.

The impact of the Development on the need for citywide bicycle facilities is 3,395 linear feet of bicycle infrastructure, valued at a minimum of $130,368 (Attachment 6). 3B. Local Impacts of the Development
The bike lanes on the frontage of the property are required as part of the Active Transportation Plan in the City’s General Plan and are thus legislatively imposed land use exactions. Additionally, there are required project improvements needed to address specific concerns resulting from the Development design, population, and location. The following sections further analyze the needs of the proposed residents for the transportation improvements required by the City.

Increased Multimodal Demand from Land Use Change
The land use change from Commercial to Senior Residential will shift trip generation from an auto-centric use commercial to a more multi-modal oriented residential use, with senior residents visiting local destinations as shown in Attachment 3 and generating more active transportation trips than a commercial development would likely have generated. This increased multi-modal demand must be mitigated through the provision of appropriate active transportation facilities.

Lack of Resident Access to Active Transportation Network No bike lane exists along the Mission Road frontage of the Development. A bike lane currently exists to the east and the west of the Development; only this segment is missing.

With the impact introduced by a new population of residents, the missing segment of bicycle infrastructure must be provided and must meet the ultimate standards required in the General Plan and Active Transportation Plan. The comment that the street must be widened and the bike lane added was made on the initial improvement plan review for the Development.
922
A refusal to provide the facilities to connect the proposed senior residents to their community via the active transportation network will prevent the residents from using active transportation to access the key destinations identified in this analysis and increase the number of near-distance vehicular trips, impacting vehicle miles traveled and further increasing the burden on the City to reduce vehicle miles traveled citywide.

Pedestrian Crossing Impacts
The Development proposes to introduce senior residents with slower walking speeds, which would increase intersection delay unless mitigated. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System notes that older pedestrians generally walk significantly slower than the standard design walking speed of

3.5 feet per second, requiring adjustments to the signal timing to allow safe crossing (FHWA, 2013). To accommodate this, the Woodward Street/ Mission Road traffic signal must be retimed to extend the pedestrian clearance interval, which would increase vehicular delay at the intersection. The increase in the pedestrian clearance time over Mission Road would decrease vehicular green time through the intersection. Further, this delay would cause extended vehicular idling at a key intersection, increasing greenhouse gas emissions impacts.

The installation of a curb return popout with the frontage improvements, as proposed by the City in its plan review comments, would mitigate at least a portion of this Development impact. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Traffic Handbook and NACTO’s Urban Street Design Guide, curb extensions can reduce crossing distances, thereby lessening the amount of additional green time that is needed for pedestrian clearance, improving intersection efficiency, and enhancing pedestrian safety (ITE, 2010; NACTO, 2013).

The crossing distance from the Development over Mission Road is approximately 112 linear feet. Therefore, the impact from the senior population could increase pedestrian crossing times by up to 6.6 seconds. For instance, it would take an average resident six seconds to travel a distance of 21 feet at the pedestrian crossing, and it would take an average senior resident 7.2 seconds to travel the same distance. Therefore, construction of a curb popout that shortens the crossing distance by 21 feet would reduce the time of crossing, and the associated vehicular delay, by more than half a second per cycle.

Accessible Bus Stop
A bus stop exists along the Development frontage to the north side of Mission Road. The proposed senior residents are a target population for transit, and also a population in need of accessible design, as seniors are significantly more likely to be disabled. The bus stop 923
must provide the proposed residents with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant design to facilitate the use of transit. The ADA-compliant bus stop must not negatively impact vehicular travel, bicycle trips, or pedestrian travel continuing along Mission Road. In addition, the bus stop must consider the conflicting movements of the southbound right turns from Woodward Street onto westbound Mission into the non-standard drop lane and the new driveway the Development proposes to introduce on Mission Road, a prime arterial.

The City-proposed improvements include a curb return popout, separated bike facility, and ADA-compliant bus bay to achieve these requirements.

New Driveway on Mission Creates Conflicts
The senior residential development proposes two new driveways: one on Woodward Street and one on Mission Road.

Mission Road is already a complex arterial. The City’s Urban Streets Design Criteria (USDC) provide that new driveways on an arterial are not allowed if any other access is available.

Driveways may be provided only when “absolutely necessary.” The Development proposes a driveway on Woodward Street, a location that meets the City’s USDC, and therefore a driveway on Mission Road should not be allowed. However, staff contemplated allowing the driveway as a concession through collaboration with the developer and expected staff comments to be addressed. Unfortunately, Lanikai has persisted in proposing the Mission driveway opening while not agreeing to address the staff comments to allow it.

The new driveway on Mission would introduce two new traffic conflict points where none exist today, and it is located less than 400 feet away 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:
o Right turns from Woodward to Mission.
o Cyclists traveling westbound along the bike route.
o Impaired visibility and merging issues with bus operations in the vicinity of the proposed driveway.

Without mitigation, such as a protected bikeway, the additional conflict points would expose roadway users to merging, crossing, and turning vehicles, degrading the safety of the corridor. As the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide notes, even low-volume driveways can meaningfully affect the comfort and safety of cyclists, and protection is especially important where vulnerable users such as senior residents are expected (NACTO, 2014).
924
A separated bikeway is designed specifically to reduce the types of conflicts that Lanikai proposes to introduce with the creation of a new driveway on the Mission Road arterial. The separated bikeway provides a physical separation between bicyclists and moving vehicles.

Caltrans Design Information Bulletin DIB 89 recommends separated facilities in situations with driveways and the need to enhance cyclist safety. The physical protection offered by a separated bikeway allows vulnerable cyclists to safely stop outside of the travel lane if a vehicle is entering or exiting the new driveway, thereby reducing collision risk, and improving corridor safety.

Likewise, without mitigation, the proposed Mission Road driveway introduces a more hazardous situation for bus operations. Collisions could occur as bus operators attempt to arrive or depart from the bus stop as drivers are entering and leaving the proposed Mission Road driveway and cars are simultaneously merging onto Mission Road from Woodward Street.

In order to allow the Mission Road driveway, its impacts must be mitigated. This can be done with the provision of separated bicycling facilities to remove the conflict between driveway traffic and cyclists, and adding a curb return popout to isolate the proposed driveway traffic from merging Woodward traffic.

Woodward Driveway Improvements to Prohibit Exiting Left Turns The Woodward 46 project is on the easterly side of Woodward Street, opposite the Development. Woodward 46 takes its sole access from Woodward Street and has no alternative access available. It was entitled prior to the Lanikai Development with the driveway as proposed.

The Lanikai Development also proposes a driveway on Woodward Street, opposite the Woodward 46 driveway. Vehicles exiting Woodward 46 and the Lanikai Development would need to cross oncoming traffic and travel in the opposing travel lane to avoid colliding with each other (Figure 1). Eliminating the conflicting left turn out of the Lanikai Development avoids the conflicting movements, so the Lanikai driveway can only be constructed as a right-in, left-in, and right-out driveway. The City Engineer and City Traffic Engineer therefore require physical improvements such as a “pork chop” to direct exiting vehicles and prevent the left turn out from the Lanikai Development; vehicles wishing to make the northbound movement can make a U-turn at the Woodward/Mission signal. 925
Figure 1: Woodward Street Turning Movements, Provided by Lanikai

4. REQUIRED EXACTIONS: DEDICATION, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS,

AND PUBLIC FACILITIES FEES
The City requires a dedication of 16 feet along Woodward Drive and a dedication of 14 feet along Mission Road to accommodate the ultimate public improvements. This dedication is needed to address safety and design concerns particular to this proposed Development and to comply with the City’s Active Transportation Plan and the City’s General Plan as further discussed in Attachment 7.

The City requires that the Development construct frontage improvements including pedestrian facilities, bicycle improvements, and pavement widening for the bus stop and the proposed right turn from Mission Road into the Development. The City also requires a curb pop-out to direct right-turning traffic from Woodward around the vehicles turning into the proposed Mission driveway and to shorten the pedestrian crossing over Mission Road to accommodate the proposed senior residents. Finally, the City requires that the Woodward driveway be constructed in a fashion to avoid conflicts from left turns exiting the Development.
926

5. ESSENTIAL NEXUS
A direct and essential nexus exists between the City’s requirements to dedicate and construct transportation improvements and the burden the Development will impose upon City facilities.

The nexus is the introduction of a population that will utilize the citywide transportation network, which includes roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities. This impact is new, additive, and measurable. Development will contribute to citywide traffic, including increasing vehicular delay in portions of San Marcos Blvd. and Twin Oaks Valley Road. The City has a legitimate interest in mitigating the effects of the Development on the citywide traffic and reducing traffic congestion has been found to be a legitimate government interest. (Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 2025 WL 2116363, Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374, 387).

By the addition of new residents, pedestrian and bicycle demand, and vehicular trips, the Development will generate a clear and direct impact on the citywide transportation network.

The right-of-way dedication and the construction of public improvements have an essential nexus to these citywide transportation impacts. The General Plan and Active Transportation Plan identify the ultimate improvements needed to accommodate growth in the city, which are constructed incrementally as new development is proposed.

Further, the Development proposes to cause impacts to bicycle, bus, pedestrian, and vehicular traffic locally, at the intersection of Mission Road and Woodward Street and additional impacts from the Woodward driveway design. Addressing these impacts is warranted and directly related to the impacts posed by Lanikai.

City staff have analyzed the Development and have concluded that the City’s requirements have an essential nexus to legitimate public interests. Further, the City has found that the burden of the City’s exactions are roughly proportional in nature and extent to the impact of the Development on the City’s infrastructure, as discussed below.

6. BURDEN OF THE EXACTION ON THE DEVELOPMENT
The City requires that Lanikai dedicate right-of-way and construct frontage improvements roughly proportional to the demand generated by the Development and to the impacts of the Development on City infrastructure and facilities. Rough proportionality refers to the “degree of connection” between the permit conditions and the projected public impacts or social 927
costs of the Development. (Dolan, supra, 512 U.S. at p. 386; see also Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California (2024) 601 U.S. 267, 275-276). “No precise mathematical calculation is required, but the [government] must make some sort of individualized determination that the [land-use exaction] is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development.” (Dolan, at p. 391, italics added.) In other words, the government “must make some effort to quantify its findings” in support of the required private property dedication beyond mere conclusory statements. (Id. at pp. 395-396, italics added.) One method by which to make an individualized determination of the burden imposed upon the Development by the required dedication and improvement construction is to consider the sum of the value of the land dedicated for public improvements plus the cost of construction of the physical improvements. This cost can then be compared to the burden the development places on citywide facilities to assess the proportionality.

Accordingly, in order to quantify its findings in this analysis, the City determines the extent of pedestrian, bicycle, and roadway improvement demand generated citywide by the Development and compares that demand to the physical extent of the facilities needed citywide to serve this specific development. Additionally, this analysis determines the value of the land to be dedicated by Lanikai and calculates the dollar value of the improvement construction required of the development. Finally, the analysis measures the dollar value of the development’s burden against the dollar value of the citywide improvements needed to serve the development.

Land Value
The City estimates a dedication of less than 15,000 square feet with an estimated value of $369,450. The value of the land is based on the estimated area of dedication multiplied by the average cost per square foot based on recent data for vacant property sold within the City of San Marcos over the preceding 7 months, available through Costar2. Sales data includes similar entitled and non-entitled properties for sale or with active options resulting in an average cost of $24.63 per square foot. Source data is supplied in Attachment 4 to this letter.

Cost of Improvements
Improvement quantity takeoffs are estimated because Lanikai has not provided plans showing the proposed improvements. The estimated cost of improvements in the public 2 Commercial real estate data and analytics system.
928
right-of-way is calculated in Attachment 5 and is based upon City’s approved Unit Price List3.

The total sum of the property dedication and the public improvement construction is given in Table 1 below.

Table 2: Estimated Cost Burden of Required Dedication and Frontage Improvements Location Item Cost
Woodward and
Mission
Right-of-Way Dedication $369,450
Woodward Improvements to Public Right-of-Way $87,560
Mission Improvements to Public Right-of-Way $50,916
Total Impact to the Development: $507,926

7. ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY BETWEEN BURDEN ON DEVELOPMENT
AND THE DEVELOPMENT’S IMPACTS
The improvements required of the Development bear a direct and proportional relationship to the transportation impacts generated by the Development on citywide facilities.

One way to assess the rough proportionality of the burden placed on the Development is to analyze the valuation of the land and improvements required of Lanikai and compare it to the valuation of the Citywide facilities necessitated by the Development. The table below sums the total value of the demand for public facilities to serve the Development.

Table 3: Total Burden Development Places on Citywide Facilities Item Cost
Pedestrian Infrastructure Burden $129,010
Bicycle Infrastructure Burden $130,368
Roadway Infrastructure Burden $2,934,835
Total: $3,194,213
Analyzing only the pedestrian and roadway facilities impacts, the valuation of Development impacts on Citywide infrastructure is $3,194,213. The approximate financial burden placed on the Development for right-of-way dedication and frontage improvements on Woodward 3 https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument/28153/638405912675870000 929
Street and Mission Road is $507,926. Therefore, the impact of the Development on Citywide facilities exceeds the burden placed on Lanikai.

The total area of the right-of-way dedication is estimated at less than 15,000 square feet and represents less than 10% of the gross property area of 174,676 square feet.

The Development will generate a need for 3,395 linear feet each of pedestrian and bicycle facilities Citywide and has been required by the City to construct approximately 985 linear feet each of pedestrian walkway and pavement for bicycles. Similarly, the Development has generated a need for 9.65 lane miles of roadway Citywide and has been required by the City to improve approximately 1,000 linear feet of roadway, less than 0.2 miles. The City’s improvement requirements are only that the Development improve the project frontage to the City transportation network, which is proportional to the Development and its impacts.

8. ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT
Lanikai has indicated that dedication of required right-of-way will necessitate a redesign of the Development, possibly making the project infeasible. However, numerous design permutations are possible on this property.

For example, the current design does not maximize the developable density of the site. The project site has a General Plan designation of Specific Plan Area (Heart of the City Specific Plan – Commercial). Lanikai is proposing an amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan (HOCSP) to change the site to Senior Residential. Commercial uses within the HOCSP have a maximum lot coverage of 35%. The Development proposes lot coverage of approximately 16%, which is far less intense than would otherwise be allowed within the approved Specific Plan and General Plan. As Lanikai’s proposed Development uses a significantly lower percentage of the lot than what was contemplated for a commercial use of the project site, the dedication of the right of way will not prevent Lanikai from designing the Development in a viable way.

Additionally, the Development design includes 135 parking spaces, exceeding the 115- space requirement per the Heart of the City Specific Plan. A redesign of the Development’s site plan to include the required right-of-way dedication may reduce the space for some of these parking spaces, but it would not make the Development infeasible.

The Supreme Court has “long recognized that land-use regulation does not effect a taking if it ‘substantially advance[s] legitimate state interests’ and does not ‘den[y] an owner economically viable use of his land.’” (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825, 834.) Furthermore, “[o]nly when a permit is denied and the effect of the denial is 930
to prevent ‘economically viable’ use of the land in question can it be said that a taking has occurred.” (United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. (1985) 474 U.S. 121, 127.) The required right-of-way dedication will not prevent any economically viable use of the land; many economically viable uses of the project site would still be available.

9. CONCLUSION: EVALUATION OF THE EXACTION
The City has analyzed the specific impacts of the proposed Development on the City’s transportation network and has found an essential nexus between the legitimate government interest of mitigating traffic congestion on the City’s transportation network and the right-of-way dedication and required improvements imposed by the City. Further, the City has provided a financial analysis of the burden placed on the Development and the projected public impact that the Development imposes on City facilities and found that the impacts to the Development are roughly proportional to projected public impact from the Development.

The land use exactions required of the Development have been found to be consistent with the nexus and rough proportionality standards required by Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, Dolan v. City of Tigard, Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (2024) 601 U.S. 267 and Sheetz v. County of El Dorado 2025 WL 2116363.
931
ATTACHMENT 1: DEVELOPMENT LOCATION
932
ATTACHMENT 2: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
933
ATTACHMENT 3: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION DESTINATIONS
934
ATTACHMENT 4: REAL PROPERTY SALES DATA
935
Sale Comps Map & List Report
Sale Comparables Summary Statistics
Sale Attributes Low Average Median High
Sale Price $3,600,000 $7,742,000 $6,500,000 $13,126,000 Sale Price Per SF $464 - $464 $464
Cap Rate - - - -
Sale Price Per AC $307,956 $1,042,928 $1,669,975 $2,389,706 Property Attributes Low Average Median High
Building SF - - - -
Year Built 1973 1973 1973 1973
% Leased At Sale - - - -
Star Rating 0 1 1 2
Summary Statistics exclude For Sale and Under Contract listings Sale Comps List
Property Name
Address Type Built/Renovated Size (% Leased) Sale Date Price Cap Rate 1 1023 Grand Avenue
San Marcos, CA 92078 Land - 7.86 AC 3/28/2025
$13,126,000
($1,669,972.60/-
AC)
-
© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729

7/14/2025
936
Sale Comps List (Continued)
Property Name
Address Type Built/Renovated Size (% Leased) Sale Date Price Cap Rate 2 1100 W San Marcos Blvd
San Marcos, CA 92078
Retail
1973 14,000 SF 2/18/2025 $6,500,000
($464.29/SF) -
3 00 La Moree Rd
San Marcos, CA 92078
Land
- 11.69 AC 2/10/2025 $3,600,000
($307,955.76/AC) -
4 801 S Twin Oaks Valley Rd
San Marcos, CA 92078 Land - 159.90 AC Escrow $5,950,000($37,210.76/AC) - 5 San Marcos Mixed Use Land
302 N Pacific St
San Marcos, CA 92069
Land
- 5.60 AC Under Contract
$4,750,000
($848,214.29/AC) -
6 3600 Grand Ave
San Marcos, CA 92078
Land
- 0.99 AC Escrow
$1,950,000
($1,969,696.97/-
AC)
-
© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729

7/14/2025
937
1 1023 Grand Avenue
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land Sale Summary
Sold 3/28/2025
Sale Price $13,126,000
Land Area AC 7.86
Land Area SF 342,382
Price/AC Land $1,669,973
Price/SF Land $38.34
Price Status Confirmed
Sale Comp Status Research Complete
Sale Comp ID 7117503
Parcel Numbers 219-152-74 +3
Transaction Details
Sale Date 3/28/2025 Recording Date 3/28/2025
Sale Price $13,126,000 Transfer Tax $14,439
Land Price $1,669,973/AC ($38.34/SF) Document Number 0080190 Sale Type Investment
Parcel Number 219-152-79, 219-152-74, 219-152-76, 219-152-77 Contacts
Type Name Location Phone
Recorded Buyer Paloma Townhomes Llc - -
True Buyer California Pacific Homes Irvine, CA 92617 (949) 833-6000 Recorded Seller Aoa San Marcos Llc - -
True Seller Lab Holding LLC Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 966-6661 Transaction Notes
On March 28th, 2025, Community Management Corporation sold the 7.86-site to California Pacific Homes for $13,126,000, approximately $1,669,974.

The buyer is planning to develop a 102-lot SFR townhome community which will be called Paloma Townhomes.

The information provided for this sale transaction was verified by sources deemed reliable.

Sale History
Sale Date Price Sale Type Buyer Seller
3/28/2025 $13,126,000 ($1,669,973/-
AC) Investment California Pacific Homes Lab Holding LLC © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729

7/14/2025
938
1 1023 Grand Avenue
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729

7/14/2025
939
1 1023 Grand Avenue
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land Transportation
Traffic Volume
8,636 on S Bent Ave (2025); 3,180 on Via Vera Cruz (2025); 9,623 on Linda Vista Dr (2025); 145,867 on W San Marcos Blvd (2025); 7,895 on N Las Posas Rd (2025); 8,108 on N Las Posas Rd (2025); 24,413 on S Las Posas Rd (2025); 4,361 on Vallecitos de Oro (2025); 14,342 on la Mirada Dr (2025); 4,361 on Ryan Dr (2025) Transit/Subway Palomar College 19 min walk
Commuter Rail Carlsbad Poinsettia 18 min drive
Airport San Diego International 47 min drive
Walk Score ® Somewhat Walkable (54)
© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729

7/14/2025
940
2 1100 W San Marcos Blvd
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Retail Sale Summary
Sold 2/18/2025
Sale Price $6,500,000 ($464.29/SF)
GLA 14,000 SF
Price Status Full Value
Built 1973
Land Area 2.72 AC/118,483 SF
Sale Comp Status Research Complete
Sale Comp ID 7069189
Parcel Numbers 219-200-47
Transaction Details
Sale Date 2/18/2025 Recording Date 2/18/2025
Sale Price $6,500,000 ($464.29/SF) Zoning C
Land Price $2,389,710/AC ($54.86/SF) % Improved 3.48%
Sale Type Investment Document Number 0039980
Hold Period 41 Months
Parcel Number 219-200-47
Property Details
Tenancy Single Building FAR 0.12
Docks None
Parking Spaces 36 Surface Spaces; Ratio of 2.57/1,000 SF Frontage 200' on West San Marcos Boulevard
Contacts
Type Name Location Phone
Recorded Buyer Sb-hs Lot Option Pool 01 Lp - -
True Buyer Hearthstone, Inc. Calabasas, CA 91302 (818) 385-0005 Recorded Seller San Marcos Development Group Llc - -
True Seller Majid Mortazavi Cardiff By The Sea, CA 92007 (858) 342-1711 Transaction Notes
A private individual sold this 14,000 square foot retail building to Hearthstone Inc. for $6,500,000 or $464.29 per square foot.

The information in this comparable has been sourced from public record. © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729

7/14/2025
941
2 1100 W San Marcos Blvd
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Retail Amenities
• Storage Space
Previous Sale
Sale Date 9/2/2021 Comp ID 5673378
Sale Price $4,600,000 ($328.57/SF) Comp Status Research Complete Sale Type Investment Sale Conditions Redevelopment Project Sale History
Sale Date Price Sale Type Buyer Seller
2/18/2025 $6,500,000 ($464.29/SF) Investment Hearthstone, Inc. Majid Mortazavi 9/2/2021 $4,600,000 ($328.57/SF) Investment Majid Mortazavi The McDonald Group 5/13/2014 $1,700,000 ($121.43/SF) Investment The McDonald Group Sears Roebuck & Company Market Conditions at Sale
Vacancy Rates Current YOY Change Submarket Leasing
Activity Current YOY Change
Subject Property 0.0% 0.0% 12 Month Leased 66,159 SF 17.8% Submarket 1-2 Star 3.6% -1.5% Months on Market 12.6 -
Market Overall 4.2% -0.1%
Market Asking Rent Per
Area Current YOY Change Submarket Sales Activity Current Prev Year Subject Property $2.20/SF 3.0% 12 Month Sales Volume $12.45M $15.14M Submarket 1-2 Star $2.48/SF 1.9% Market Sale Price Per Area $322/SF $258/SF Market Overall $2.98/SF 1.1%
© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729

7/14/2025
942
2 1100 W San Marcos Blvd
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Retail © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729

7/14/2025
943
2 1100 W San Marcos Blvd
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Retail Transportation
Parking Details 36 Surface Spaces; Ratio of 2.57/1,000 SF Traffic Volume
32,333 on S Las Posas Rd (2025); 4,361 on Ryan Dr (2025); 10,363 on Linda Vista Dr (2025); 7,393 on Discovery St (2025); 7,998 on Applewilde Dr (2025); 9,623 on Linda Vista Dr (2025); 38,281 on PkPl (2025); 35,315 on S Pacific St (2025); 8,006 on Pacific St (2025); 3,180 on Via Vera Cruz (2025) Frontage 200' on West San Marcos Boulevard
Commuter Rail Carlsbad Poinsettia 16 min drive
Airport San Diego International 48 min drive
Walk Score ® Somewhat Walkable (59)
Nearby Sale Comparables
Property Name
Address Type Built/Renovated
Size
(% Leased) Sale Date Price Cap Rate
4606 Mission Bay Dr Retail 1971/2018 10,000 SF
(100%)
10/10/2023 $5,250,000
($525.00/SF) -
Sante Fe Center
1031 S Santa Fe Ave
Retail 1991 18,886 SF
(100%)
11/9/2023 $4,387,500
($232.31/SF)

5.00%
Actual
351 E Pennsylvania Ave Retail 1964 10,000 SF
(100%)
1/22/2024 $2,250,000
($225.00/SF) -
6024 Paseo Delicias Retail 1926 9,475 SF
(90.0%)
4/19/2024 $11,247,000
($1,187.02/SF) -
Old California Restaurant Row
1020 W San Marcos Blvd
Retail
-
12,000 SF
(100%)
4/12/2024 $3,000,000
($250.00/SF) -
415 N Ash St Retail 2005 14,000 SF 8/15/2024 $4,000,000 ($285.71/SF) -
7865 Balboa Ave Retail 1977 7,000 SF
(100%)
9/13/2024 $3,745,000
($535.00/SF) -
375 La Costa Ave Retail- 13,119 SF 9/25/2024 $2,800,000 ($213.43/SF) -
Tip Top Meat
6118 Paseo Del Norte
Retail 1980 10,500 SF
(28.0%)
12/31/2024 $4,600,000
($438.10/SF) -
Gerber
535 N Quince St
Retail 1980 10,980 SF 1/17/2025 $2,953,000
($268.94/SF) -
1916 S Coast Hwy Retail 1990 8,844 SF 1/15/2025 $3,060,000 ($346.00/SF) -
South Coast Center
1118-1126 S Coast Hwy
Retail 1956 10,145 SF
(100%)
3/24/2025 $3,200,000
($315.43/SF) -
305-321 N Ash St Retail 1968 7,392 SF 4/4/2025 $1,600,000 ($216.45/SF)

3.91%
Actual
237 E Valley Pky Retail 1982 7,000 SF 2/11/2025 $1,800,000 ($257.14/SF) -
360 Via Vera Cruz Retail- 7,121 SF 6/23/2025 $3,500,000 ($491.50/SF) -
2954 San Luis Rey Rd Retail 1988 7,373 SF 7/1/2025 $2,183,500 ($296.15/SF) -
© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729

7/14/2025
944
2 1100 W San Marcos Blvd
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Retail © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729

7/14/2025
945
3 00 La Moree Rd
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land Sale Summary
Sold 2/10/2025
Sale Price $3,600,000
Land Area AC 11.69
Land Area SF 509,216
Price/AC Land $307,956
Price/SF Land $7.07
Price Status Confirmed
Sale Comp Status Research Complete
Sale Comp ID 7052891
Parcel Numbers 220-341-02
Transaction Details
Sale Date 2/10/2025 Time On Market 7 Months 16 Days
Sale Price $3,600,000 Recording Date 2/10/2025
Land Price $307,956/AC ($7.07/SF) Zoning SFDR
Sale Type Investment Document Number 0034441
Parcel Number 220-341-02
Property Details
Topography Sloping Density Allowed 2-4du/acre
On-Sites Raw land Zoning SFDR
Proposed Use Apartment Units, Mixed Use, Single Family Development Off-Sites No Cable, No Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk, Electricity, Gas, No Irrigation, Sewer, No Streets, No Telephone, Water Zoning Description Heart of the City Specific Plan
Contacts
Type Name Location Phone
Recorded Buyer Sea Breeze Properties LLC San Diego, CA 92130 - True Buyer Sea Breeze Properties San Diego, CA 92130 (858) 205-1199 Recorded Seller Corp Of The Presiding Bishop of the Church Jesus
Salt Lake City, UT 84150 (801) 240-8619
True Seller The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints
Salt Lake City, UT 84150 (801) 240-1000
Listing Broker Lee & Associates Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 929-9700 Transaction Notes
This 11.69 acre plot of land traded between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and Sea Breeze Properties for $3,600,000 or approximately $306,000 per acre. The listing was added to market June 25, 2024 with an initial asking price of $3,100,000 and was on market for 230 days. The land is currently ungraded and will be used for development. The specifics are currently unknown.

The information in this comparable has been verified via the listing brokers. © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729

7/14/2025
946
3 00 La Moree Rd
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land Sale History
Sale Date Price Sale Type Buyer Seller
2/10/2025 $3,600,000 ($307,956/AC) Investment Sea Breeze Properties The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729

7/14/2025
947
3 00 La Moree Rd
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729

7/14/2025
948
3 00 La Moree Rd
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land Transportation
Traffic Volume
2,673 on Calli del Verano (2025); 12,795 on Walnut Hills Dr (2025); 14,156 on Redel Rd (2025); 173,597 on N Twin Oaks Valley Rd (2025); 5,725 on Woodland Pkwy (2025); 7,191 on Mata Way (2025); 14,732 on Woodland Pkwy (2025); 909 on Via del Campo (2025); 2,015 on Cam de la Cima (2025); 6,391 on Woodland Pkwy (2025) Transit/Subway Cal State San Marcos 6 min walk
Airport San Diego International 45 min drive
Walk Score ® Car-Dependent (35)
Nearby Sale Comparables
Property Name
Address Type Built/Renovated
Size
(% Leased) Sale Date Price Cap Rate
Twain Ct Land- 21.82 AC 9/29/2023
$12,000,000
($550,002.89/-
AC)
-
Oceanside Blvd & Melrose Dr Land- 9.15 AC 12/15/2023
$13,000,000
($1,420,765.03/-
AC)
-
Valley Center
Valley Center Rd
Land
-

13.98 AC
(0%)
7/15/2024
$5,500,000
($393,402.89/-
AC)
-
North Village Shopping Center
Valley Center Rd
Land
- 13.51 AC 7/15/2024
$5,500,000
($407,105.57/-
AC)
-
Highway 67 Land- 8.00 AC 1/29/2025
$10,600,000
($1,325,000.00/-
AC)
-
Bella Vista Drive 10.1 Acres
000 Bella Vista
Land
- 10.10 AC 3/19/2025
$11,963,000
($1,184,455.45/-
AC)
-
© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729

7/14/2025
949
4 801 S Twin Oaks Valley Rd
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land Sale Summary
Escrow 886 Days on Market
Asking Price $5,950,000
Number of Lots 1
Lot Size 159.90 AC
Price/AC Land $37,211
Price/SF Land $0.85
Land Area AC 159.90
Land Area SF 6,965,244
Parcel Numbers 222-121-05 +7
Transaction Details
Sale Type Investment Zoning CA-6
Parcel Number 222-190-09, 222-190-11, 222-190-10, 222-180-41, 222-121-27 +3 Property Details
Topography Sloping Current Use Vacant
On-Sites Raw land Zoning CA-6
Off-Sites No Cable, No Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk, Electricity, Gas, No Irrigation, Sewer, No Streets, No Telephone, Water Transaction Notes
801 S Twin Oaks Valley Rd, also known as the "White-Attebury Specific Plan" is the largest contiguous residential specific plan in the City of San Marcos.

The Specific Plan allows 68 dwelling units. The S Twin Oaks Valley property offers builders and developers the opportunity to capture the demand for upscale housing in the City of San Marcos. The subject property is located just South of the high-end Rancho Tesoro and Village O residential communities. The elevation of the property allows for panoramic ocean, mountain, and city views. The newly constructed North City project by Sea Breeze Communities at CSU San Marcos hosts multiple new dining and entertainment options. © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729

7/14/2025
950
4 801 S Twin Oaks Valley Rd
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729

7/14/2025
951
4 801 S Twin Oaks Valley Rd
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land Transportation
Traffic Volume
15,197 on Double Peak Dr (2025); 16,527 on Village Dr (2025); 20,487 on Campus Vw (2025); 4,679 on Little Creek Rd (2025); 15,301 on Eclipse Dr (2025); 1,344 on Windriver St (2025); 15,402 on Echo Ln (2025); 5,435 on Reflection (2025); 24,124 on Discovery St (2025)
Airport San Diego International 47 min drive
Walk Score ® Car-Dependent (5)
© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729

7/14/2025
952
5 302 N Pacific St - San Marcos Mixed Use Land
San Marcos, CA 92069 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land Sale Summary
Under Contract 1,147 Days on Market
Asking Price $4,750,000
Number of Lots 1
Lot Size 5.60 AC
Price/AC Land $848,214
Price/SF Land $19.47
Land Area AC 5.60
Land Area SF 243,936
Transaction Details
Sale Type Investment or Owner User Zoning MU-1
Property Details
Topography Level Dimensions Irregular
On-Sites Raw land Zoning MU-1
Current Use Vacant Land
Proposed Use Apartment Units, Apartment Units - Condo, Hold for Development, Hold for Investment, Mixed Use, MultiFamily, Storefrnt Retail/Residntl, Storefront
Improvements Vacant Land
Off-Sites Cable, No Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk, Electricity, Gas, No Irrigation, No Sewer, No Streets, No Telephone, Water Frontage 883' on W Mission Rd
Contacts
Type Name Location Phone
Listing Broker Doug Ross Real Estate San Diego, CA 92191 - Transaction Notes
Seller may finance. Prime investment opportunity in the heart of San Marcos, CA. © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729

7/14/2025
953
5 302 N Pacific St - San Marcos Mixed Use Land
San Marcos, CA 92069 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729

7/14/2025
954
5 302 N Pacific St - San Marcos Mixed Use Land
San Marcos, CA 92069 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land Transportation
Traffic Volume
14,449 on N Rancho Santa Fe Rd (2025); 16,176 on N Pacific St (2025); 12,133 on Capalina Rd (2025); 20,087 on Capalina Rd (2025); 22,032 on Palm Rd (2025); 8,662 on N Rancho Santa Fe Rd (2025); 142,869 on N Rancho Santa Fe Rd (2020); 9,162 on N Rancho Santa Fe Rd (2025); 9,205 on S Rancho Santa Fe Rd (2025) Transit/Subway Palomar College 20 min walk
Airport San Diego International 48 min drive
Walk Score ® Very Walkable (70)
Nearby Sale Comparables
Property Name
Address Type Built/Renovated
Size
(% Leased) Sale Date Price Cap Rate
NEC Twin Oaks Valley Rd & Ri…
Twin Oaks Valley Rd
Land
- 3.37 AC 11/2/2023
$5,800,000
($1,719,559.51/-
AC)
-
Oceanside Blvd & Melrose Dr Land- 9.15 AC 12/15/2023
$13,000,000
($1,420,765.03/-
AC)
-
1058 Old Taylor St Land- 3.64 AC 8/8/2024
$6,200,000
($1,703,311.74/-
AC)
-
Town Center Pkwy & Mission G… Land- 5.26 AC 1/21/2025
$10,000,000
($1,901,137.37/-
AC)
-
Highway 67 Land- 8.00 AC 1/29/2025
$10,600,000
($1,325,000.00/-
AC)
-
10650 Scripps Ranch Blvd Land- 2.98 AC 1/24/2025
$9,000,000
($3,017,874.46/-
AC)
-
Bella Vista Drive 10.1 Acres
000 Bella Vista
Land
- 10.10 AC 3/19/2025
$11,963,000
($1,184,455.45/-
AC)
-
© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729

7/14/2025
955
6 3600 Grand Ave
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land Sale Summary
Escrow 818 Days on Market
Asking Price $1,950,000
Number of Lots 1
Lot Size 0.99 AC
Price/AC Land $1,969,697
Price/SF Land $45.22
Land Area AC 0.99
Land Area SF 43,124
Transaction Details
Sale Type Investment % Improved 81.36%
Zoning MU-1
Property Details
Topography Level Dimensions Irregular
On-Sites Rough graded Zoning MU-1
Current Use Vacant Land
Proposed Use Apartment Units, Commercial, Hold for Development, Hold for Investment, Mixed Use, Storefrnt Retail/Residntl Improvements Vacant Land
Frontage 238' on Grand Ave
Transaction Notes
The property is located just west of the corner of Grand Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road in the City of San Marcos, County of San Diego. Positioned less than 1/4 mile south of Highway 78, this site is ideally suited for commercial development adjacent to one of San Marcos’ busiest roads. With excellent ingress/egress accessibility and street visibility, this site presents developers, builders, and investors with tremendous current and future financial upside. © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729

7/14/2025
956
6 3600 Grand Ave
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729

7/14/2025
957
6 3600 Grand Ave
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land Transportation
Traffic Volume
3,032 on Kensington Dr (2025); 29,829 on Descanso Ave (2025); 28,032 on 8th St (2025); 8,765 on Pawnee St (2025); 6,913 on Las Flores Dr (2025); 2,085 on S Rancho Santa Fe Rd (2025); 29,371 on Descanso Ave (2025); 9,205 on S Rancho Santa Fe Rd (2025); 10,001 on S Rancho Santa Fe Rd (2025) Commuter Rail Carlsbad Poinsettia 16 min drive
Airport San Diego International 47 min drive
Walk Score ® Very Walkable (77)
Nearby Sale Comparables
Property Name
Address Type Built/Renovated
Size
(% Leased) Sale Date Price Cap Rate
W Citracado Pky & Miller - Lot A
W Citracado Pky
Land
- 0.78 AC 7/27/2023
$797,500
($1,022,429.88/-
AC)
-
Vista Business Park
2232 La Mirada Dr
Land
- 0.61 AC 9/5/2023
$1,125,000
($1,844,234.53/-
AC)
-
Resort View Apartments
Viejo Castillo Way
Land
- 0.87 AC 1/31/2024
$3,565,000
($4,085,755.63/-
AC)
-
M54 Zoned Parcel & Business…
1339 Walnut St
Land
- 0.53 AC 4/29/2024
$782,500
($1,476,402.30/-
AC)
-
N Las Posas Rd Land- 1.95 AC 12/12/2024
$3,700,000
($1,897,435.90/-
AC)
-
2608 S Escondido Blvd Land- 1.78 AC 12/20/2024
$7,650,000
($4,297,741.72/-
AC)
-
Highly Visible Commercial Land
Business Park Dr
Land
- 1.00 AC 6/3/2025
$2,076,500
($2,076,500.00/-
AC)
-
10180-10190 Riverford Rd Land- 1.49 AC 5/30/2025
$2,300,000
($1,541,828.25/-
AC)
-
Retail / Hospitality Developme…
1 Bedford Ct
Land
- 1.88 AC 6/10/2025
$4,400,000
($2,340,419.82/-
AC)
-
© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729

7/14/2025
958
ATTACHMENT 5: IMPROVEMENT COST CALCULATIONS
The City provides the costs for various types of construction in its approved Unit Price List.

As with the calculations for the impact of the Development on City facilities, these calculations likewise neglect grading, demolition, curb and gutter, retaining structures, utility relocations, landscaping, driveways, and other incidental work; clearing and grubbing is included in pavement costs. Land values are calculated separately, as given in Attachment 4.

Woodward Street Frontage
A 16’ dedication is required to accommodate ultimate public improvements. The frontage to Woodward Street measures approximately 550 feet long.

Table 4: Woodward Street Frontage Improvements
Item Quantity Unit Price Total Price
Sidewalk 5’ Wide 2,750 square feet $7.60/sf $20,900
Concrete pavement,
12’ wide
6,600 square feet $7.60/sf $50,160
Curb and Gutter 550 linear feet $30.00/lf $16,500
Total: $87,560
Mission Road Frontage
A 14’ dedication is needed to accommodate ultimate public improvements. The frontage to Mission Road measures approximately 435 feet long. A curb popout is required; 70 linear feet are removed from the frontage curb and gutter length to avoid double-counting.

Table 5: Mission Road Frontage Improvements
Item Quantity Unit Price Total Price
Sidewalk 5’ Wide 2,175 square feet $7.60/sf $16,530
Concrete pavement,
6’ wide
2,610 square feet $7.60/sf $19,836
Curb and Gutter 365 linear feet $30.00/lf $10,950
Curb and Gutter
Pop-out
120 linear feet $30.00/lf $3,600
Total: $50,916
959
ATTACHMENT 6: IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT ON CITY

INFRASTRUCTURE
When new residents of the Development travel throughout the community, they will impose an incremental burden on the entire citywide transportation system of roadways, pedestrian walkways, and bicycle facilities extending well beyond the project’s immediate frontage.

Therefore, the citywide impacts of the Development are considered in this analysis.

Pedestrian Infrastructure
Based on a reasonable and individualized assessment of the specific resident population and the destinations to which that population may wish to travel, The City found the most likely pedestrian destinations from the Development as the Civic Center Sprinter Station, San Marcos Public Library, and the San Marcos Senior Activity Center. The Development has a main entrance located at the corner of Woodward and Mission. Estimated door-to-door distances are measured from this corner and traveling within the public right-of-way to the key pedestrian locations are summarized in Table 3 below.

The City constructs, at minimum, a five-foot-wide pedestrian facility. The City provides the costs for various types of construction in its approved Unit Price List. Neglecting grading, demolition, retaining structures, utility relocations, landscaping, driveways, and other incidental work, and including only the cost of clearing the area and the sidewalk pavement itself, the sidewalk would cost $7.60 per square foot.

Table 6: Estimated Cost of Pedestrian Facilities Required of City Destination Travel
Distance
(Feet)
5’ Wide
Sidewalk
Area (Square
Feet)
Sidewalk
Segment
Cost at
$7.60/ sf
Sprinter Station 480’ 2,400 $18,240
Library 850’ 4,250 $32,300
Senior Activity
Center
2,065’ 10,325 $78,470
Total 3,395 16,975 $129,010
In total 3,395 linear feet of pedestrian pathway, valued at a minimum of $129,010, are needed to support the proposed development.
960
Roadway Infrastructure
SANDAG current (2016) data indicates that the project location, Census Tract 200.22, will generate 19.3 vehicle miles traveled per capita. The Development population estimate is 230 residents, neglecting employees. The employees would add additional trips not calculated here. Therefore, Lanikai proposes an impact of 1,162,235 annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to City infrastructure.

Based upon the traffic study, the Development would generate 167,900 Estimated Annual Trips (EAT). Dividing the 1,162,235 annual vehicle miles traveled by the annual trips indicates that each trip will be an average of 9.65 miles long.

The City provides the costs for various types of construction in its approved Unit Price List.

A travel lane is typically 11 to 13 feet wide. Our calculations assume an average 12-foot lane width. Neglecting grading, demolition, curb and gutter, retaining structures, utility relocations, landscaping, driveways, and other incidental work, and including only the cost of clearing the area and placing 6 inches of aggregate base and 4 inches of asphalt concrete, the cost to the City of providing the necessary facility would be $4.80 per square foot.

The square footage of roadway needed to accommodate the Development’s VMT is:
(9.65 lane miles) x (5280 feet/ mile) x (12-foot lane width) = 611,424 square feet The cost of providing the needed roadway facility is:
(611,424 square feet) x $4.80 per square foot = $2,934,835 The cost of providing the 9.65 lane miles of roadway infrastructure to support the development is $2,934,835.

Bicycle Infrastructure
The Development will generate bicycle trips; the Development will provide one bike parking area per five residential units proposed, resulting in storage for a minimum of 23 bicycles.

Based on a reasonable and individualized assessment of the specific resident population and the destinations to which that population may wish to travel, bicycle trips generated by the Development are most likely to be to/from the active transportation destinations described in the Pedestrian Infrastructure section above. These trips result in the need for 3,395 linear feet of bicycle infrastructure.
961
A bicycle facility can be constructed of either asphalt or concrete, depending upon location.

This analysis assumes asphalt, which results in a lower cost of the burden placed by the Development on the City. A minimum of an eight-foot width is needed for a bicycle facility.

Neglecting grading, demolition, retaining structures, utility relocations, landscaping, driveways, and other incidental work, and including only the cost of clearing the area and placing 6 inches of aggregate base and 4 inches of asphalt concrete, the cost to the City of providing the necessary facility would be $4.80 per square foot.

The square footage of roadway needed to accommodate the Development’s bicycle miles traveled is:
(3,395 linear feet) x (8-foot width) = 27,160 square feet The cost of providing the needed roadway facility is:
(27,160 square feet) x $4.80 per square foot = $130,368 962
ATTACHMENT 7: CITY FEE STUDY, ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN,

AND CONFLICT WITH GENERAL PLAN
2024 Development Impact Fee Study and Nexus Study
In evaluating Lanikai’s position, City staff and consultants have also evaluated the Public Facilities Fees proposed to be assessed to the Development.

General Plan Policy LU-7.2 states: “Update and revise existing fee programs as needed, to ensure adequate funding for infrastructure improvements and community facilities are available to serve new development. Amend appropriate codes to require new projects to pay for the infrastructure and services.” [emphasis added]. The primary policy objective of the City’s Public Facilities Fee (PFF) program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth.

Accordingly, the 2024 Development Impact Fee Nexus Study4 ( Nexus Study) (incorporated here by reference)h analyzed infrastructure demands in San Marcos to support growth through the year 2040 and the development impact fees needed to support that development. City Council adopted the study and fees in the fall of 2024. The City Council’s action ensures that the costs representing future development’s share of necessary public facilities and capital improvements are imposed on that development in the form of a development impact fee or Public Facilities Fee (PFF). The fees studied in the Nexus Study and approved by City Council represent the proportional funding required by developers for the public facilities that are required to be constructed when a property is developed. (Nexus Study p. 51.) The Nexus Study assumes that right-of-way (ROW) will be dedicated by future development as a condition of development and therefore does not consider the costs of ROW acquisition, only the costs of improvement construction.

The Nexus Study analyzes the impact fees contemplated by the City and finds a nexus with a legitimate City purpose and that the fees are reasonably related to the impact of the future development on those public improvements. In the nexus study, the five statutory findings are made: specifically, 1) the purpose of the fee, 2) use of fee revenues, 3) benefit relationship, 4) burden relationship, and 5) proportionality. In the most recent Sheetz case, the Court found that the “Nollan/Dolan test is similar to the reasonable relationship standard employed in California to assess the validity of land-use exactions (e.g., impact fees) in the context of individualized (i.e., project specific) conditions imposed on an ad hoc basis through administrative action.” (Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 2025 WL 2116363, *17.) 4 ttps://www.san-marcos.net/departments/development-services/planning/applications-forms-fees/feeadjustment 963
Accordingly, California’s Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) has effectively incorporated the Nollan/Dolan test and as the City’s PFF was adopted pursuant the Mitigation Fee Act, the City’s PFF thus complies with the nexus and rough proportionality tests required by Nollan/Dolan and Sheetz.

Active Transportation Plan
In its July 24, 2025 letter to the City, Lanikai states that, “Lanikai will not be amending its site plan or any other element of its application to include a bike lane that requires it to dedicate to the City, without compensation, frontage property for such purpose.” However, the bicycle facility is not only appropriate in nexus and in rough proportionality to the Development; it is also required by the General Plan, as discussed below.

Developments must demonstrate consistency with the General Plan prior to approval:
“Local government land use approvals-whether for public or private projects-require general plan consistency.” (Corona-Norco Unified School District v. City of Corona (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 985.) Government Code section 65302 requires cities to adopt a general plan containing specified mandatory elements.

In 2024, City Council adopted the Active Transportation Plan (ATP) as part of its General Plan Mobility Element. The City’s adoption of the ATP aligns with the Active Transportation Program created by:
• Senate Bills 99 and 101 (2013 Active Transportation Program) • Assembly Bill 1358 (California Complete Streets Act, 2008) These state laws require the City to modify circulation plans to increase biking and walking trips while increasing safety and mobility of non-motorized users and creating a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel. As a result of the adoption of the ATP, Developers have a role in implementing these infrastructure elements, which is well supported by the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study. This shows the essential nexus between the legitimate state interest of increasing safety and mobility of non-motorized users and requiring bike lanes to be installed on Mission Road.

The ATP requirements for bicycle facilities on Mission Rd were specifically contemplated in the Nexus Study. The Planned Bike Facilities in the ATP for the City are listed in Table 3.5 on page 17 of the Nexus Study. The Nexus Study analyzed the nexus and rough proportionality 964
of these specific ATP land use exactions using the reasonable relationship test that was upheld in the most recent Sheetz case.

The ATP has ranked Mission Road as the number one Interim Bike Prioritization Roadway, signifying the importance of these improvements being implemented in the City. Mission Road and Woodward Street facilities are included in the General Plan and ATP. The ATP clearly states that Developers will be required to incorporate the ultimate bicycle network recommendations when considering setbacks, frontage improvements, and design, and may be required to construct the ultimate facilities based upon roadway characteristics, adjacent facilities, and the ability to design and construct appropriate transitions into the ultimate improvements.

The Development Impact Fee nexus study already supports the need for these facilities citywide. Without the construction of these facilities in the future, the City’s ability to ensure compliance with the goals of the General Plan and the greenhouse gas reduction goals contained in the City’s Climate Action Plan will be greatly impacted. Further, the Climate Action Plan requires the construction of the bicycle facilities identified in the Active Transportation Plan in order to achieve the required greenhouse gas reductions targets therein.

Conflict with the City’s General Plan
If the improvements associated with the ATP are not installed, the City cannot make the finding that the Development is consistent with the General Plan and approve the Development. A project is consistent with a general plan if “ ‘it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment.’” (Corona-Norco Unified School Dist. at 994.)
Accordingly, if the Development builds according to its existing site plan and does not provide the right-of-way dedication as required, the City will be obstructed from implementation of ATP improvements, which will prevent the City from meeting the City’s and State’s goals for active transportation, complete streets, and greenhouse gas reductions.

Lanikai’s development proposal would place site improvements and portions of the building within land that the City requires as right-of-way for legitimate state interests. In addition, Lanikai proposes to change the land use from Commercial to Senior Residential, which will result in a demand for a greater number and proportion of multi-modal trips than the existing Commercial land use. At the same time as it increases pedestrian and bicycle demand, the Development would prevent the City from being able to construct these bicycle and pedestrian facilities for a period of approximately 50 years, the life of the building, by 965
constructing the building within the same area needed for active transportation improvements. Without appropriate facilities available, trips that could be made by walking or bicycling must instead be made only by vehicle. This forced mode shift would increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the City and the region and reduce the City’s ability to meet greenhouse gas reductions targets adopted in the Climate Acton Plan. These effects would increase the Development’s burden on the City’s transportation network far more than what has been analyzed from a financial perspective in this memorandum. 966
City of San Marcos
Staff Report
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
File #:TMP-2509
MEETING DATE:

SEPTEMBER 8, 2026
SUBJECT:

DISCUSSION OF THE FUTURE OF THE SAN MARCOS HOLIDAY PARADE, INCLUDING WHETHER THE

CITY SHOULD ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR ORGANIZING AND PRODUCING THE EVENT, AS

REQUESTED BY COUNCILMEMBERS LEBLANG AND MUSGROVE
Recommendation
DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION regarding the San Marcos Holiday Parade, as desired.

Board or Commission Action
Not Applicable.

Executive Summary
Councilmembers LeBlang and Musgrove have requested that an item be placed on the agenda for City Council discussion regarding the future of the San Marcos Holiday Parade.

The Holiday Parade has been a longstanding San Marcos community tradition. Historically, however, the parade has not been organized or produced by the City. For many years, the event was organized by the local Kiwanis organization, with the City supporting the parade through financial and in-kind resources.

Earlier this year, the Lake San Marcos Kiwanis Club indicated that it was considering ending its role as parade organizer. In response, City staff began evaluating potential options for continuing the parade and subsequently worked with Kiwanis to explore whether additional City funding, volunteer support, or modifications to the parade route could provide a viable path forward. Following those discussions, Kiwanis provided formal confirmation in July that it would not host the 2026 parade.

Since receiving that confirmation, staff has continued working to identify a feasible alternative. No community organization has agreed to assume responsibility for producing the parade. As a result, continuing the Holiday Parade in 2026 would likely require the City to assume a substantially greater role in planning, funding, and producing the event.

Discussion
The annual Holiday Parade began in 1995 and has traditionally followed an approximately 2.5-mile route beginning at Palomar College and ending at the Civic Center. Historically, Kiwanis has been responsible for the overall organization of the event, including logistics, permitting, sponsorships, marketing, traffic control planning, and coordination with participating agencies and community partners.

City of San Marcos Page 1 of 3 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™967
File #:TMP-2509
The City's role has primarily been supportive. Beginning in 2017, the City entered into an agreement to assist with certain parade costs, including traffic control. City support was subsequently expanded to include additional financial and in-kind assistance. Although the formal agreement expired at the end of 2022, the City continued providing support generally consistent with the prior arrangement.

As the future of Kiwanis' involvement became uncertain, staff evaluated several potential parade delivery models, including continued community organization with City financial support, a City-hosted model utilizing professional event management, City support limited primarily to public safety or in-kind services, and allowing the parade to conclude if a sustainable community organizer could not be identified.

Following Kiwanis' formal confirmation that it would no longer host the parade, City staff contacted a number of community organizations regarding potential involvement, including Rotary, Friends of San Marcos Parks and Recreation, Universidad Popular, Boys & Girls Club, Chamber of Commerce, and others. Several organizations expressed a willingness to potentially assist with volunteers or specific components of the event; however, none expressed an interest in assuming overall responsibility for organizing and producing the parade.

Staff also evaluated the possibility of using professional event management consultant services to minimize the impact on existing City staff. The City-hosted contractor model previously presented to Council was estimated at approximately $146,000, which included $65,000 for consultant services, $24,000 for part-time staff support and the remainder being fixed costs such as sheriff services, traffic control, insurance, etc.

More recently, staff has continued working with community partners to develop a more cost-effective alternative in which the City would assume overall responsibility for the parade while utilizing community organizations and volunteers for appropriate event functions. Preliminary estimates indicate that approximately $50,000 to $70,000 in City funding would be needed for fixed event costs and temporary/part-time staffing support. This estimate does not include the cost of existing full-time City staff who would be required to support the planning and delivery of the event. Existing staff responsibilities would include planning, coordination, contracting, communications, public safety and operational coordination, and day-of-event support. The parade is also typically hosted the day after the City’s long-standing Tree Lighting event, which requires significant staff time and serves a very similar audience, including some overlap in performance groups.

Transitioning the Holiday Parade from a community-organized event to a City-produced event would represent a significant change in the City's role and create an ongoing expectation for City funding and staff resources.

At the same time, the parade is a longstanding community tradition that provides an opportunity for local schools, nonprofits, community organizations, businesses, and residents to participate in a shared community event.

Given these considerations, City Council direction is sought as to whether the City should proceed with planning and funding a City-produced Holiday Parade for 2026.

If Council directs staff to proceed, staff would return with any necessary budget appropriation and related actions and continue developing the event plan in partnership with interested community organizations.

City of San Marcos Page 2 of 3 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™968
File #:TMP-2509
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 associated with providing direction at this time.

If Council directs staff to proceed with a City-produced Holiday Parade in 2026, the final funding requirement would depend on the event plan, route, public safety and traffic control requirements, sponsorships and community partnerships, and other operational considerations.

Any required budget appropriation would be presented to the City Council for approval.

Attachment(s)
July 16, 2026 Letter from Lake San Marcos Kiwanis Club Foundation Prepared by: Darren Chamow, Parks and Recreation Director Reviewed by: Andrea Gonzalez, Parks and Recreation Assistant Director Approved by: Michelle Bender, City Manager
City of San Marcos Page 3 of 3 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™969

LAKE SAN MARCOS KIWANIS CLUB FOUNDATION
1030 LA BONITA DRIVE, Suite 342, SAN MARCOS, CA 92078
(925) 348-3834, www.LSMKiwanis.org
An IRC 501(c)(3) charity, Tax lD #33-0345204
Lake San Marcos Kiwanis Club Foundation
Board of Directors
Toni Johnson, President
Jim Alden, Past President
John Gibbs, President-Elect
Pat Haugen, Secretary
Carrie Clevers, Treasurer
Judy Moen, Director
John Lee, Director
Barbara Wales, Director
David DaCosta, Director
July 16, 2026
Hi Andrea and Sara,
As you know, we notified the city back on April 21st, that the Lake San Marcos Kiwanis Club and Foundation had made the difficult decision that we could no longer host the parade after 28 years.

We explained our decision and hoped the city would be able to find another host for the parade by giving them notice in April. Of course, we offered to provide the new host with whatever information and experience we had to make the transition easier for everyone.

A few weeks ago, you reached out to explore the possibility of our club hosting the parade in 2026 to give the city more time to find a new host. After a couple meetings, multiple emails, and several phone calls, we feel that you both did a superb job presenting what I’m calling the “3 Ps” – the potential for funding from the city, the possibility of gathering volunteers through the Boys & Girls Club’s network, and the proposal of alternate routes for the parade.

Our members and our Board of Directors met on Tuesday and focused on a thorough review and discussion of all the issues.

After careful consideration of all the information you provided, a vote was taken and confirmed that we will stand by our April decision not to host the parade. The issues we stated in our first letter have not changed, and the route change proposals added to those issues. The “3 Ps” that we discussed have not changed our decision. As much as we want to see this tradition continue, we can no longer host the parade.

Again, we will be happy to share information and experiences with the new host, whether the new host comes on board this year or next year.

Thank you for your extra efforts on behalf of the city and for the city’s many years of support for the parade. We are confident you will find a new host to carry on this tradition.

Thank you,
Carrie Clevers
Parade Co-Chair
970
City of San Marcos
Staff Report
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
File #:26-2946
MEETING DATE:

September 2026
SUBJECT:

SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS REPORT (MAYOR JONES) Recommendation
Note and File
Attachment(s)
City of San Marcos Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™971
City of San Marcos
Staff Report
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
File #:26-2947
MEETING DATE:

September 2026
SUBJECT:

LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES REPORT (COUNCILMEMBER MUSGROVE) Recommendation
Note and File
Attachment(s)
City of San Marcos Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™972
City of San Marcos
Staff Report
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
File #:26-2948
MEETING DATE:

September 2026
SUBJECT:

NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT REPORT (DEPUTY MAYOR SANNELLA) Recommendation
Note and File.

Attachment(s)
City of San Marcos Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™973
City of San Marcos
Staff Report
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
File #:26-2949
MEETING DATE:

September 2026
SUBJECT:

NORTH COUNTY DISPATCH JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY REPORT (COUNCILMEMBER LEBLANG) Recommendation
Note and File
Attachment
City of San Marcos Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™974
City of San Marcos
Staff Report
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
File #:26-2950
MEETING DATE:

September 2026
SUBJECT:

CLEAN ENERGY ALLIANCE REPORT (COUNCILMEMBER NUÑEZ)
Recommendation
Note and File
Attachment(s)
City of San Marcos Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™975
City of San Marcos
Staff Report
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
File #:26-2951
MEETING DATE:

September 2026
SUBJECT:

CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS VISITS
Recommendation
Note and File
Attachment(s)
City of San Marcos Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/4/2026
powered by Legistar™976