LANIKAI PROJECT | APPEAL 26-0004
Staff Analysis of Appeal
September 1, 2026
Project Information
Project
SP17-0004 | 115-unit age-restricted senior apartment project Environmental Document
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration ND26-007
Administrative Decision
ADM 2026-5226
Appeal
AA26-0004
Purpose: This document outlines City staff’s analysis of whether the current applicant-prepared MND is presently sufficiently accurate, stable, supported, and internally consistent for the City to circulate it as the City's proposed environmental document.
Summary
Lanikai Management (“Applicant”) proposes a 115-unit, age-restricted senior apartment project on approximately 3.96 acres at the northwest corner of East Mission Road and Woodward Street (Assessor Parcel Number 220-063-04-00) (the “Project”).
The development application was originally submitted on December 21, 2017. The Applicant prepared Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ND26-007 (the “MND”) and first submitted it to the City in 2024. After several iterations of the draft, on July 2, 2026, the City Manager issued Administrative Decision ADM 2026-5226, determining that the MND was not sufficiently complete or adequate to begin public circulation. The Applicant appealed that decision to the City Council with AA26-0004.
A proposed MND represents the lead agency's preliminary environmental determination, including the proposition that the Project as revised will not have a significant environmental effect and that the record contains no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that it may. The City therefore must be able to identify the Project being analyzed and understand the factual and technical basis for the proposed conclusions before it circulates the document.
Appeal Question: Can the City, as CEQA lead agency, circulate the current MND as a proposed environmental document that reflects the City's independent judgment and is supported by an accurate Project description and an adequate factual record? The current MND is not ready for circulation because the City cannot yet support the physical Project and factual record on which the document's proposed environmental conclusions depend. The problem is not the result of a single issue but instead a set of independent and interrelated deficiencies that affect the Project description, including site access, emergency access, and frontage improvements; supporting technical studies; and insufficient analysis to support the requisite finding that the Project will not have a significant environmental impact.
Three core principles inform this analysis and are discussed in detail in Section 3:
1. Principle One: City’s Independent judgment and local authority. The City must exercise independent judgment before circulation. The City is not required to transmit an applicant-prepared document that City staff and responsible officials cannot support as the City's proposed environmental analysis.
2. Principle Two: Analyze a coherent, stable, sufficiently resolved, and complete Project. The MND must analyze a coherent, stable, sufficiently resolved, and complete Project so that all potential impacts under CEQA can be analyzed. Where revisions to the Project are required to reach a project that the City can support and potentially approve, those revisions must be made prior to circulation. Project design, access, frontage improvements, emergency access, and multi-modal considerations must be resolved and sufficiently analyzed.
3. Principle Three: A documented factual basis before circulation. The MND's proposed no-significant-effect conclusions require a documented factual basis before public circulation. The City must have substantial evidence supporting its analysis and must determine that the whole record contains no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may have a significant effect in order to allow the CEQA analysis under an MND.. The 2019 transportation analysis contains specific unresolved limitations concerning signal inputs, study area, trip assignment, near-term and horizon assumptions, cumulative methodology, and reconciliation with more recent information.
Denial of the appeal would not halt the CEQA process or deny the Project. It would not require the Applicant to accept one particular frontage design, nor would it finally resolve any dispute over the legality or proportionality of a future condition of approval.
Denial would affirm the City’s determination that the current document is not ready to be released as the City’s proposed MND. The Applicant may resolve the Project configuration, verify or update the supporting analyses, and resubmit a revised MND. If a revised document is circulated, the City would then consider public and agency comments and any new information and take whatever additional steps are required by CEQA. Principal legal and technical references informing this analysis are included in Appendix B.
Organization of this analysis
1. Analytical Method
2. Project Scope, Existing Setting, and Review History
3. The City's Responsibility Before Circulating the MND
4. Project Access and Emergency Access
5. Site-Specific Frontage Treatment
6. Adequacy of the Transportation and Environmental Technical Record
7. Conclusions and Recommended Action
Appendix A: Consolidated Processing Chronology
Appendix B: Principal Authorities and Technical References Appendix C: Exaction Analysis of Right-of-Way Dedication and Frontage Improvements Appendix D: Vicinity Map
Appendix E: Appeal Letter dated July 10, 2026
Appendix F: Supplemental Appeal Letter dated July 31, 2026 Appendix G: VMT Letter dated April 10, 2025
1. Analytical Method
Each section of this analysis first identifies the governing requirements and record facts, then explains their effect on environmental readiness, and finally cross-references the appeal contentions addressed by the discussion.
This analysis describes some of the key issues that must be resolved, including the Project-description, access/emergency-access, frontage-configuration, and transportation-record deficiencies. These issues are related, but each is independently material. Resolution of one issue does not automatically cure the others.
This analysis does not presume that any unresolved issue will necessarily produce a significant environmental effect. Its conclusion is narrower: the present record is not sufficiently resolved and reliable for the City to make and circulate the proposed MND conclusions.
1.1 Appeal Contention and Response Crosswalk
Contentions of the appeal and a summary of City responses are provided in Table 1.1 below.
Table 1: Appeal Contention Crosswalk
Appeal point
City response
Section
Page
The MND is complete because it has undergone extensive review.
Processing history does not substitute for present legal and factual adequacy. Application completeness and CEQA-information sufficiency are distinct; Guidelines section 15060(a) preserves the City's authority.
Section 3.5
12 The City must circulate the unaltered MND.
The City has no obligation to circulate to the public an MND that is, in the City’s independent judgment as the lead agency under CEQA, incomplete and inadequate.
Section 3.5
12 The disputed items do not need to be resolved in order for the MND to be circulated.
Material Project-description, mitigation, and technical-analysis questions must be resolved sufficiently for the City to present the document as its proposed environmental analysis.
Section 3.5
12 City standards permit the Mission Road driveway.
The criteria allow site-specific review; they do not establish that this location and configuration are acceptable without analysis or treatment.
Section 4.6
15 Mission 316 is controlling precedent.
Mission 316 involved different access rights, physical conditions, and environmental review and therefore does not decide Lanikai.
Section 4.6
15 The Fire Code requires a general-use Mission Road driveway.
A Project-specific Fire determination is required; a gated emergency-only connection or other approved configuration may be possible.
Section 4.6
15 Low driveway volumes eliminate access concerns.
Volume is relevant but does not resolve location-specific geometry, conflict points, bus, bicycle, pedestrian, or emergency-access issues.
Section 4.6
15 The curb treatment is unprecedented or inconsistent with FHWA guidance.
The City's concept is broader than a conventional parking-lane bulb-out; its proper form require site-specific engineering, not an identical precedent.
Section 5.6
19 The City is making Lanikai repair a pre-existing deficiency.
The existing condition is acknowledged, but the Project adds a driveway and has effects on City infrastructure.
Section 5.6
19 Signal timing, push buttons, striping, and delineation fully resolve the issue.
Those measures may address discrete operational questions but do not by themselves resolve crossing length, visibility, driveway conflicts, bus and bicycle operations, frontage standards, or Fire access.
Section 5.6
19 Pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and senior-resident factors are outside CEQA.
Project-generated movement and physical transportation interactions are proper subjects of the Initial Study.
Section 5.6
19 The frontage exaction could be challenged under CEQA.
The legality and cost allocation of a future condition are separate from the duty to analyze the physical Project the City may support.
Section 5.6
19 CEQA Guidelines section 15125 prevents the City from requiring updates to the 2019 transportation analysis.
CEQA does not impose an inflexible baseline rule; the City may require verification where specific evidence shows an input may not be representative.
Section 6.9
22 The existing LOS analysis contains all necessary information.
The LTA is incomplete or unresolved with respect to key inputs, including but not limited to the study area, signal inputs, near-term and horizon assumptions, cumulative method, and trip distribution.
Section 6.9
22 Woodward 46 proves no Lanikai impact.
Woodward 46 is a different Project with different access and movement characteristics. Its conclusion cannot be assigned to Lanikai. Its more recent operating information instead demonstrates why Lanikai’s model and Project-specific incremental effect require verification Section 6.9
23 Low trip generation resolves traffic and safety.
Total volume does not answer movement- and location-specific access, geometry, or emergency-access questions. It also do not resolve the effect of redistributing traffic to Woodward Street if the Mission Road driveway changes.
Section 6.9
23 Remaining transportation work can occur after circulation.
The City may defer normal final-engineering details, but not the Project configuration, traffic assignment, and technical analysis necessary to support the MND’s proposed environmental findings.
Section 6.9
23 2. Project Scope, Existing Setting, and Review History
2.1 Project location and development proposal
The Project site is an approximately 3.96-acre vacant parcel at the northwest corner of East Mission Road and Woodward Street (APN 220-063-04-00). The Applicant proposes 115 age-restricted senior apartment units in a four-story building of approximately 106,300 square feet and approximately 50 feet in height, with 135 parking spaces. The requested entitlements include an amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan, a General Plan Amendment, and a Multifamily Site Development Plan. A vicinity map is included in Appendix D.
2.2 Existing transportation setting
Mission Road is an arterial roadway. Along the Project frontage, the existing westbound roadway includes a lane-transition or merge condition and a bus stop. Bicycle facilities exist east and west of the site, with a gap along much of the Project frontage. The proposed site plan includes one driveway on Woodward Street and a second driveway on Mission Road, less than 400 feet west of the Mission Road/Woodward Street intersection. Figure 2.5 approximately depicts the proposed driveway locations.
The proposed Mission Road driveway is proposed in the same limited area as right-turning motorists from Woodward Street, westbound bicycle movements, bus arrival and departure, pedestrians using the intersection and transit stop, and the existing lane transition. A part of the environmental-readiness question is whether the MND evaluates a physical configuration that can be supported by the City and that addresses those interactions.
2.3 Development-application processing timelines; evolving standards The development application was originally submitted on December 21, 2017. On average, the project has been submitted by the applicant less than once per year for review, as shown below in Table 2.3 below.
Table 2.3 Plan review Turnaround Time by Lanikai Management and City Staff Party
Minimum turnaround
Maximum turnaround
Average turnaround
Lanikai Management
303 days
624 days
388 days
City staff
22 days
32 days
28 days
During the first through the eighth plan submittals, City reviews accounted for approximately 8% of the total processing time, while the application was with Lanikai Management 92% of the time, as shown in Figure 2.3 below.
Figure 2.3: Processing Time Breakdown
A chronology of submittal completeness for the first through eight reviews is summarized in Appendix A. The City determined the development application complete for application-processing purposes on June 3, 2022, during the fifth review, while identifying technical and environmental matters that still required correction or updating.
2.4 Processing of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) The MND was first submitted to the City on May 14, 2024 with the seventh review, over six years from the original application submittal. Subsequent MND submittals occurred on May 27, 2025, September 23, 2025, and April 1, 2026.
Administrative Decision ADM2026-5226 was issued on July 2, 2026 and provided to Applicant on July 6, 2026 after continuing lack of resolution over the project description and technical support for the MND. The City Manager’s resolution determined the MND was incomplete and not ready for circulation pursuant to San Marcos Municipal Code Section 18.04.060(a)(2).
On July 13, 2026, an appeal to Administrative Resolution ADM2026-5226 was filed by David P. Hubbard of Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP on behalf of Lanikai Management (Appendix E). The July 31, 2026 supplemental appeal letter (Appendix F) provides the appellant’s detailed basis for the appeal.
Figure 2.4: MND Preparation Timeline
Over the long lapses in Lanikai Management’s processing of the Project, applicable standards have changed. A long review history does not itself establish environmental adequacy. However, the passage of time does not compel the City to use technical assumptions that are no longer representative. Because the development application and the MND have been processed slowly since 2017, the City’s General Plan, Municipal Code, standards, and policies have changed; roadway operations, signal timing, surrounding development, applicable guidance have shifted; and CEQA law has evolved. A record-based verification of whether each material input remains reliable for the conclusions now proposed is key to an adequate MND.
Contrary to the implications of the appeal, the length of the overall application process does not itself determine whether the MND is ready for circulation. The relevant question is whether the current document accurately describes the Project and contains a sufficient factual basis for the environmental conclusions the City would present to the public. Similarly, CEQA Guidelines section 15060(a) preserves the lead agency’s authority to require information necessary for environmental evaluation after an application-completeness determination.
2.5 Evolution of the access and frontage concepts
The design history is important because it demonstrates that the present issue did not originate as a late effort to repair an unrelated City condition; it developed from review of the specific effects of the Project, including the proposed Mission driveway and its interaction with the frontage. This design history also illustrates the City’s good-faith attempt to negotiate with the Applicant to minimize any impacts to the project, reduce costs of the frontage improvements, and still meet reduced City requirements for the Project frontage.
Staff identified the interaction between the proposed Mission Road driveway and the westbound lane-transition condition during early improvement-plan review. On the first plan check, on 1/11/2018, staff commented, “Proposed driveway on Mission Road: the existing lane end condition of westbound Mission Road conflicts with the proposed driveway location…” The comment goes on to describe conceptual improvements for widening, bicycle facilities, and other frontage work.
Staff initially evaluated a broader ultimate-frontage concept and later developed a reduced concept in response to the Applicant's request to limit right-of-way dedication and frontage construction. The initial concept is compared to the current, reduced frontage concept in Table 2.5 below. The City’s current improvement concept is illustrated in Figure 2.5 below.
Table 2.5: Improvement Concept Comparison
Earlier concept
Current, Reduced Concept
Mission Road: approximately 14 feet of right-of-way dedication; ultimate pedestrian and bicycle facilities; landscape parkway; curbline treatment; minor utility and signal work.
Mission Road: dedication reduced to approximately 4 feet or less; utilities protected in place; ultimate frontage facilities omitted in favor of less impactful interim facilities; limited widening or curbline work for the bus/merge area; enhanced striping; signal work reduced to one pole.
Woodward Street: approximately 16 feet of dedication and ultimate pedestrian, bicycle, and landscape improvements.
Woodward Street: dedication and ultimate frontage improvements omitted from the reduced concept.
Broader implementation of adopted street cross-sections and multimodal frontage objectives reflected in Mobility Element.
Project-specific treatment focused on the driveway, lane transition, bus stop, crossing, and immediate operating conflicts.
Figure 2.5: Current Improvement Concept
Although the City’s improvement requirements have been communicated to the Applicant for years, these negotiations have ultimately been unsuccessful. The Applicant currently desires to be allowed to construct the Mission Road access without constructing the accompanying improvements required by the City. Though the Project will affect City infrastructure, Lanikai Management has expressed that it does not desire to construct any frontage improvements to meet City standards. Lanikai has instead proposed only quick-build solutions that meet neither City standards nor goals and suggested that the interim and the ultimate improvements should be constructed by the City.
The Applicant cannot establish MND readiness merely by rejecting the current frontage improvement concept. If this concept is not accepted, the Project still needs a different supported configuration, and the MND must analyze that configuration and its physical effects.
2.6 Unresolved Project elements
Unresolved project elements continue to affect the Project’s ability to compile a complete and correct analysis in the MND. These include:
Whether the Mission Road connection will operate as a general-use driveway, emergency-only access, or be removed or relocated.
What Project-specific curbline, bus-stop, bicycle, pedestrian, striping, signal, or other frontage treatment meeting City requirements will be proposed.
How Project trips will be distributed between Mission Road and Woodward Street under the supported access design; if the Mission Road connection is not a general-use driveway, those trips will need to be redistributed to Woodward Street.
What Fire Department determination and physical emergency-access configuration apply to the City-supported design.
Confirmation of whether the LTA's baseline inputs, signal timing, study area, near-term and horizon assumptions, cumulative methodology, and trip assignment provide a reliable factual basis.
Whether changes to access and frontage require conforming analysis in drainage, grading, utilities, construction noise or air quality, public services, or other MND sections.
Whether the MND can ultimately substantially support a finding of “no significant impact”.
2.7 Limited effect of denying the appeal
The Applicant has appealed the City Manager’s determination in AMD2026-5226 that the MND is inadequate to be circulated due to the unresolved elements above. City Council will consider the appeal on September 8, 2026.
Denial of the appeal would affirm the City's determination that the current MND is not ready for release. It would not halt CEQA review, deny the Project, require one final frontage design, or be a determination on the exaction dispute. The Applicant may resolve the Project configuration, verify or update the technical analyses, and submit a revised MND. The City would then retain its full duty to consider comments and new information and, as the record warrants, revise mitigation, recirculate, or prepare an EIR before final action.
3. The City's Responsibility Before Circulating the MND Three core principles govern whether the current MND is ready for public circulation. They are related but independently necessary; a failure under any one principle is sufficient to prevent the City from supporting the present MND for circulation.
3.1 Principle One: City’s Independent judgment and local authority Public Resources Code section 21082.1(c) requires the lead agency to independently review and analyze a CEQA document, circulate draft documents that reflect its independent judgment, and make an independent-judgment finding when adopting an MND.
The Applicant may prepare studies and propose text. However, the proposed MND is the City's document for CEQA purposes.
Public review is an essential CEQA step, but it does not replace this pre-circulation responsibility. The City cannot knowingly circulate an MND whose Project description or supporting factual record it cannot yet support and rely on public comments to correct material deficiencies later. The City must first be able to present the proposed MND as its own environmental analysis.
Independent judgment means the City must critically evaluate the work, resolve material conflicts, and be able to explain why the Project description, assumptions, and conclusions are supportable. Here, the Planning Director, City Engineer, City Manager, and reviewing staff have determined that the current document does not yet meet that threshold.
The City's local code reinforces that responsibility. San Marcos Municipal Code section 18.04.060(a)(2) allows the City Manager to make administrative CEQA determinations; subsection (a)(4) authorizes the City Manager to require data and information the City deems necessary and preserves the City's ultimate responsibility for environmental-document content. Section 18.04.100 requires City review of the initial study and requested information and directs that revisions or redesign supporting a no-significant-impact determination occur before public notice.
The December 2019 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed by the Applicant and its CEQA consultants also confirms the City's final authority to determine what must be included for a defensible, transparent, and complete environmental document.
3.2 Principle Two: Analyze a coherent, stable, sufficiently resolved, and complete Project
3.2.1 Accurate, stable, and whole Project description.
CEQA requires an environmental document to describe the Project with sufficient accuracy and stability that the environmental effects may be appropriately analyzed. CEQA Guidelines sections 15063(d)(1) and 15071(a) require the Initial Study and proposed negative declaration to describe the Project. CEQA Guidelines sections 15124(c) and 15378 require consideration of the Project’s technical characteristics and the whole of the action that may cause direct or reasonably foreseeable physical environmental changes. County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185 explains the importance of an accurate, stable, and finite Project description.
The MND need not contain final construction drawings for every improvement. It must, however, identify the physical Project with enough specificity to determine its potential effects and to establish the basis for any proposed less-than-significant findings. Material questions concerning driveway operates for general traffic, where Project trips enter the network, what emergency access is required, what frontage treatment accompanies the access, and whether the transportation model reflects the supported configuration and representative operations determine what physical project is being analyzed. Those questions must be resolved sufficiently to support the proposed MND conclusions before circulation.
The Project description needs to identify the principal physical characteristics and integral improvements with sufficient stability that the public and decision makers are evaluating the same actions the Project proposes. A description that assumes two unrestricted driveways while emergency access, frontage design, and trip distribution remain unresolved does not supply that stable analytical description.
The whole action to be contemplated under CEQA includes physical frontage work that is part of the supported Project, whether that work is labeled a Project feature, required improvement, or mitigation. If the selected access design moves a curb, constructs a bus bay, changes a bicycle facility, relocates signal equipment, modifies drainage, or changes grading or utilities, those physical components and their reasonably foreseeable consequences must be reflected in the MND at an appropriate level of detail.
CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5 may require recirculation when substantial revisions identify a new avoidable effect or show that proposed mitigation will not reduce effects below significance. Circulating to the public before defining and analyzing a project therefore does not eliminate work. However, it may deprive the public of a meaningful review and create an avoidable recirculation requirement if the Project configuration or technical analysis later changes materially.
3.2.2 Required or agreed Project revisions precede circulation.
An MND is appropriate when the initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but revisions made by or agreed to by the applicant before release for public review would avoid or mitigate those effects to a point where clearly no significant effect would occur, and no substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the Project as revised may have a significant effect. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21064.5, 21080(c)(2); CEQA Guidelines, § 15070(b).) CEQA Guidelines section 15071 requires the circulated document to include the proposed finding that the Project will not have a significant environmental effect, the Initial Study supporting that finding, and any mitigation incorporated into the Project. Accordingly, the Project configuration and revisions upon which the MND relies must be sufficiently established before circulation.
These provisions require more than a list of improvements that might later be selected. The City must know the physical Project on which the proposed environmental conclusions rest and whether any revisions or mitigation needed to support those conclusions are part of, or agreed to for, that Project before public review.
3.2.3 Consistency with applicable plans, policies, and engineering requirements.
CEQA Guidelines section 15063(d)(5) directs an initial study to examine whether a project is consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land-use controls. Appendix G also asks whether a project would conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
These provisions do not make every policy inconsistency a significant CEQA impact, and Appendix G is a screening framework rather than an automatic threshold. Those documents do not, by themselves, make a particular curbline concept mandatory under CEQA. However, they inform the City's land-use and engineering review independently of CEQA, and they provide the policy context against which the MND's transportation circulation-system and consistency conclusions must be evaluated.
The City has reviewed the April 2026 MND and determined that it cannot presently make these determinations. The unresolved Project configuration and transportation-analysis issues described in Sections 3 through 6 prevent the City from finding that the current MND accurately analyzes the whole Project and contains the factual basis needed to support its conclusions.
3.2.4 An approvable project.
The Project described in the MND must be a plausible, sufficiently defined proposal that the City can support as the subject of its environmental analysis and that is capable of consideration for approval under applicable City requirements. The City cannot issue proposed no-significant-effect conclusions about a design that remains materially disputed or incomplete.
Unresolved choices are physically different Projects for analytical purposes. They may change where trips enter the network, how pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, buses, and vehicles interact along Mission Road, what frontage construction occurs, and whether grading, drainage, utilities, construction activity, noise, air quality, or public-service analyses must change.
The Project may change in response to review, and the City retains discretion over the requested entitlements. But the City cannot circulate a proposed MND based on a physical design it cannot support under applicable standards while assuming that the disagreement will be resolved later.
3.3 Principle Three: A documented factual basis before circulation.
Public Resources Code section 21080(c) permits a negative declaration when there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the Project may have a significant effect.
Section 21080(e) defines substantial evidence as facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, and expert opinion supported by facts, and excludes speculation and unsubstantiated opinion. CEQA Guidelines sections 15063(d)(3), 15064(f), and 15071(e) require the Initial Study and proposed negative declaration to document the factual basis and reasons supporting the proposed determination.
Accordingly, before circulation, the City must have substantial evidence sufficient to support its analysis, enough reliable information to evaluate whether the record supports a fair argument of a significant effect, and a documented explanation for the proposed conclusion, including appropriate technical studies.
Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 328 confirms that CEQA does not impose one inflexible baseline method and that the lead agency has discretion to determine how existing conditions can most realistically be measured, subject to substantial-evidence review.
3.4 Readiness matrix
The table below presents an overview of the legal framework and whether each requirement is demonstrated by the current MND.
Requirement
Principal authority
Demonstrated?
Current assessment
Independent lead-agency judgment before circulation
PRC § 21082.1(c); SMMC §§ 18.04.060, 18.04.100
NO
Not demonstrated. Responsible City reviewers do not support the current Project description and technical basis.
Project and agreed revisions capable of supporting an MND PRC §§ 21064.5, 21080(c)(2); Guidelines § 15070(b)
NO
Not demonstrated. Access, frontage, fire access, and related revisions remain unresolved or disputed.
Accurate description of the whole physical action
Guidelines §§ 15063(d)(1), 15071(a), 15378; County of Inyo NO
Not demonstrated. The MND does not yet evaluate one supported access/frontage configuration and all related work.
Documented factual basis and no fair argument of significant effect PRC § 21080(c)-(e); Guidelines §§ 15063(d)(3), 15064(f), 15071(e) NO
Not demonstrated. Material LTA inputs, study area, trip assignment, and model reconciliation remain unresolved.
Reasoned consideration of applicable plans and circulation policies Guidelines § 15063(d)(5); Appendix G
NO
Not demonstrated. Conclusions depend on disputed design and incomplete transportation support.
Material analysis completed before public review
Guidelines §§ 15070, 15071, 15073.5; Sundstrom
NO
Not demonstrated. Remaining work includes significance-related inquiry, not only final engineering.
3.5 Appeal contentions addressed by the three-principle framework The analysis above addresses the following appeal contentions in light of Principles 1-3 detailed at the beginning of this document. • The MND is complete because it has undergone extensive review. Processing history does not substitute for present legal and factual adequacy. Application completeness and CEQA-information sufficiency are distinct; Guidelines section 15060(a) preserves the City's authority. • The City must circulate the unaltered MND. The City cannot circulate to the public an MND that is, in the City’s independent judgment as the lead agency under CEQA, incomplete and inadequate. • The disputed items do not need to be resolved in order for the MND to be circulated. Material Project-description, mitigation, and technical-analysis questions must be resolved sufficiently for the City to present the document as its proposed environmental analysis.
4. Project Access and Emergency Access
4.1 Governing access and emergency access requirements
San Marcos Municipal Code section 17.40.060(a) requires streets to be constructed and improved in accordance with the General Plan circulation framework, Master Street Plan, City street design criteria, standard plans, and specifications. The City’s Street Design Criteria, which predate the Lanikai application, restrict new driveway access on a prime or secondary arterial when access is available at another location and contemplate such arterial access only when necessary.
These provisions do not categorically prohibit every driveway on Mission Road. They provide the basis for site-specific review of whether the proposed driveway is necessary and, if retained, what design is needed to address its effects. Because the Project also proposes access from Woodward Street, the Mission Road driveway is not automatically permitted without that review.
Fire apparatus access must separately comply with the adopted Fire Code and be supported via a Project-specific determination by the Fire Department.
The Project plans, Project description, transportation analysis, frontage design, and Fire determination must be complete, consistent, describe the project as a whole, and be supported by factual information.
4.2 Mission Road setting
The Project site is located at the northwest corner of Mission Road and Woodward Street. Mission Road is an arterial roadway. Along the Project frontage, the existing roadway environment includes a westbound merge condition, an existing bus stop, and bicycle facilities to the east and west with a gap along the Project frontage. The Project proposes general use driveways on Woodward Street and on Mission Road, less than 400 feet from the Mission Road/Woodward Street intersection.
The proposed Mission Road driveway would be located on an arterial near the Mission Road/Woodward Street intersection, within the existing westbound lane-transition and bus-stop area and along a bicycle-route gap or transition. The City's concern is not simply that the driveway is proposed or that Mission Road is an arterial. It is the interaction between the Project's new access and the specific physical and operational setting. From the City’s perspective, an exception to allow the Mission Road access may be considered only if the City can support the access need, geometry, operations, and accompanying treatment at this location.
4.3 Project Effects
Lanikai would add new residents, visitors, deliveries, service vehicles, emergency vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. The relevant analysis is whether the Project introduces or exacerbates physical conflicts to the existing condition and what design is needed to accommodate the added activity consistent with City requirements.
The proposed driveway would introduce new turning and crossing interactions in an already complex roadway setting. Those interactions include:
Right turns from Woodward Street onto Mission Road;
Vehicles entering and leaving the proposed driveway;
Westbound bicycle travel;
Pedestrian and transit-user movements;
Buses entering and leaving the adjacent stop;
Visibility and merging conditions; and
Driver expectancy and the presence of slower vehicles entering or leaving an arterial roadway.
Even a comparatively low-volume driveway may create a site-specific geometric or operational concern when located near an intersection transition, merge condition, bus stop, bicycle route, and pedestrian crossing. CEQA Appendix G addresses hazards associated with geometric design features or incompatible uses, conflicts with policies governing roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and inadequate emergency access. The MND must provide a supported factual analysis of those issues.
4.4 Emergency Access and Fire Requirements
The appeal argues that Fire Code requirements make a second access mandatory and therefore require the Mission Road driveway.
However, the applicable Fire requirements must be established through a Project-specific Fire Department determination. The Applicant should coordinate with the Fire Department to meet Fire access requirements. Solutions that could be reviewed by Fire could include, but are not limited to, reducing the unit count of the development, constructing a second driveway at a different location, or proposing an emergency-only access on Mission Road, outfitted with a gate to prevent use by the general public.
The April 2026 MND states that the Fire Marshal reviewed a Project with two driveways and did not identify an emergency-vehicle circulation issue with that configuration. That statement does not establish that the Mission Road driveway must operate as a general-use access. Nor does it establish that the same emergency-access conclusion would apply if the access configuration changes.
4.4 Driveway Precedent
The Appellant points to Mission 316 East and West as precedent for Mission Road access. However, circumstances there are materially different.
Mission 316 East was compliant with the Urban Streets Design Criteria in that its only legal access was to Mission Road. When Mission 316 West was later developed, its EIR evaluated the already existing Mission Road driveway as a potential shared access, and the project also added secondary access on Woodward Street. The sight-distance and physical conditions considered for that development were also site-specific.
A prior approval can inform consistent treatment, but it does not eliminate the need to evaluate Lanikai's location. Lanikai proposes a new driveway downstream of a signalized intersection in the merge/bus-stop area and has another proposed access.
4.5 A supported Project configuration is needed
The current MND assumes two general-use driveways but does not incorporate a Mission Road frontage design accepted by the City. Staff have developed a raised curb extension concept that would reconfigure the frontage and reduce conflicts. The concept is a localized treatment that would include shifting the curb line to reconfigure the existing merge, establishment of a bus bay, reduction of pedestrian crossing distance, improved visibility, accommodation of bicycle travel, and revised signal-related improvements. Several other physical configurations remain possible:
1. Retain the general-use Mission Road driveway with the current curbline/frontage concept or another technically supported, City-accepted treatment.
2. Remove the general-use Mission Road driveway and reassign all or most Project traffic to Woodward Street.
3. Retain a gated Mission Road connection for emergency access only, if accepted by Fire and supported by the site plan.
4. Develop a different access configuration that satisfies Fire, engineering, and land-use requirements.
Each option changes the physical and analytical Project. Removal of the Mission Road driveway would alter Project trip distribution and turning movements and could affect the Mission Road/Woodward Street intersection. Retention of the driveway would require analysis of the driveway’s geometric, multimodal, transit, and operational interactions and the physical frontage treatment relied upon to address them. A changed configuration may also affect emergency access, the site plan, grading, drainage, utilities, construction limits, noise, air quality, and other portions of the MND.
Importantly, emergency access effects associated with the change must be resolved, which could include meeting Fire requirements in a number of ways such as proposing a new general use or emergency-only access point. Determining the ultimate fire access requirements will require project-specific parameters to be discussed with staff, agreed to, and evaluated prior to public release of the MND. If a project-specific Fire determination requires two separated access roads, the MND should analyze the physical access configuration that satisfies that requirement. If one approved fire apparatus access road is sufficient under an applicable exception or other approved configuration, the MND should analyze that supported design instead.
The MND need not analyze every conceivable alternative as if it were an EIR. It must analyze the Project the Applicant proposes and the City can support, together with any revisions or mitigation needed for the MND's conclusions.
Changes to access could affect the project description, trip distribution and transportation analysis, emergency circulation, roadway improvements, the site plan, and potentially other technical sections. Staff does not presume that these changes would necessarily cause a significant environmental effect. The purpose of resolving the design is to determine whether the technical conclusions in the MND remain valid for the Project that may actually be approved.
4.6 Appeal contentions addressed by the access analysis The analysis above addresses the following appeal contentions. • City standards permit the Mission Road driveway. The criteria allow site-specific review; they do not establish that this location and configuration are acceptable without analysis or treatment. • Mission 316 is controlling precedent. Mission 316 involved different access rights, physical conditions, and environmental review and therefore does not decide Lanikai. • The Fire Code requires a general-use Mission Road driveway. A Project-specific Fire determination is required; a gated emergency-only connection or other approved configuration may be possible. • Low driveway volumes eliminate access concerns. Volume does not resolve location-specific geometry, conflict points, bus, bicycle, pedestrian, or emergency-access issues.
5. Site-Specific Frontage Treatment
5.1 Governing framework
CEQA Guidelines section 15063(d)(5) directs an initial study to examine whether a project is consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land-use controls and requires a reasoned, factually supported evaluation of policies that bear on physical environmental effects.
The relevant local framework includes Proposition R, the City's Code, street and access criteria such as the Urban Street Design Criteria, General Plan Mobility Element Goal M-1 and Policies M-1.1 through M-1.7, and the Active Transportation Plan.
San Marcos voters approved Proposition R in 1988, requiring adequate infrastructure and services for new development. Proposition R, codified in SMMC Chapter 20.315, requires all new development to bear the cost of providing public facilities, and services needed to manage the new development and to mitigate the impacts created by that new development.
For instance, Mobility Element Policy M-1.1 directs the City to “safely and efficiently accommodate traffic generated by development”.
Policy M-1.2 directs the City to require new development to finance and construct internal adjacent roadway circulation and City-wide improvements as necessary to mitigate project impacts, including roadway, transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Other Mobility Element policies direct that the City should work with new development to provide connectivity and redundancy in the mobility network; to proactively improve the quality, safety, and environmental performance of roadways; and to provide complete streets with safety, comfort, and connectivity for all modes.
San Marcos Municipal Code section 17.40.060(a) requires streets to be constructed and improved in accordance with the General Plan circulation framework, Master Street Plan, City street design criteria, standard plans, and specifications.
The Active Transportation Plan identifies ultimate bicycle and pedestrian networks and guides development-related frontage implementation.
Among other things, those policies support multimodal, safety, connectivity, and development-responsibility objectives and provide a non-CEQA basis for requiring an acceptable frontage solution. The MND must then analyze the physical solution actually included in the supported Project.
At the same time, Public Resources Code section 21080(g) preserves an applicant’s ability to challenge the legality of a condition of approval separately from the environmental-review process. A dispute over who may ultimately be required to construct or fund an improvement does not eliminate the need to identify and analyze the physical Project.
5.2 Requirements for improvements
The City’s adopted Development Impact Fee Nexus Study indicates that, “the need for transportation facilities is based on the trip demand placed on the system by development…” The Project generates, among other effects, pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular trips and transit effects to citywide infrastructure, including to Mission Road and Woodward Street. The City finds no evidence to support Lanikai Management’s claims that the age 55+ residents will “recreate onsite” and will not use pedestrian or bicycle facilities. Accordingly, residents are expected to use City facilities and therefore to increase pedestrian and bicycle demand.
In its Exaction Analysis of Right-of-Way Dedication and Frontage Improvements (Appendix C), City staff found that Lanikai will contribute approximately 1,160,000 annual vehicle miles traveled to City roadways and the need for approximately 3,395 linear feet each of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
In addition, the proposed driveways introduce specific issues that must be addressed. The exact frontage treatment can evolve so long as it addresses Project effects, is consistent with City documents and standards, and is supported by the City. If the supported Project will include a curbline change, bus bay, bicycle transition, signal work, drainage modification, or other frontage construction, that work is part of the physical action to be described and analyzed.
The City may require frontage improvements independently of CEQA in conformance with its code, plans, and standards. Those documents do not, by themselves, make the exact current curbline concept mandatory as a CEQA mitigation measure. Their significance is twofold: they inform the City's land-use and engineering review independently of CEQA, and they provide the policy context against which the MND's transportation circulation-system and consistency conclusions must be evaluated. CEQA's separate role is informational: to evaluate the physical Project, including improvements that form part of it, and to determine whether Project revisions or mitigation are needed.
5.3 Site-specific frontage treatment and alternatives
Staff identified the relationship between the proposed driveway and the existing lane-end condition during the initial improvement-plan review in 2018. The City initially considered a broader frontage concept involving additional right-of-way, roadway widening, ultimate pedestrian and bicycle improvements, utility relocation, and signal relocation. After the Applicant objected to the burden of that approach, staff developed a reduced concept intended to address the Project-specific concerns with less impact to the Project. The developer did not provide frontage improvement designs for City review and comment on between 2019 and 2023. The installation of a curb extension has been proposed by the City in its plan review comments since 2023.
The City Engineer's March 5, 2024 email to the Lanikai consultant described a context-specific concept involving localized reallocation of right-of-way, moving the curb line south, removing or reconfiguring the substandard merge, establishing a bus bay, reducing pedestrian crossing distance, improving pedestrian visibility and signal operations ahead of the proposed driveway, and providing a treatment with a reasonable nexus to the proposed development. It is illustrated in Figure 2.5, repeated here for ease of reference.
Figure 2.5: Current Improvement Concept
The existing westbound Mission Road merge condition predates the Project. That fact does not eliminate the need to analyze how the Project’s new driveway and Project-generated vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit activity would interact with the City network.
The Applicant argues that the raised curb extension lacks precedent and is inconsistent with Caltrans and/or Federal Highway Administration guidance for conventional curb extensions on higher-speed roadways without on-street parking. The City’s concept is not the same as a conventional parking-lane bulb-out. It is a broader, location-specific curbline and access treatment intended to address the interaction of the new driveway with the merge condition, bus stop, intersection, bicycle travel, and pedestrian crossing. An identical treatment at another City location is not required before the City may address a site-specific design issue.
NACTO uses 'curb extension' as an umbrella term covering several applications, including bus bulbs and other segmented treatments, and identifies potential benefits such as shorter crossings, improved visibility, tighter turning radii, and operational improvements. Such geometric treatments can address multiple functions and should be evaluated based on context. The raised curb extension may reduce pedestrian exposure distance, improve visibility, affect turning geometry, improve accessibility and curb-ramp placement, and provide other operational benefits.. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Traffic Handbook and NACTO’s Urban Street Design Guide, curb extensions can reduce crossing distances, lessening the amount of additional green time that is needed for pedestrian clearance, improving intersection efficiency, and enhancing pedestrian safety (ITE, 2010; NACTO, 2013). Those potential benefits, as well as any effects on vehicle, bicycle, and transit operations, should be supported by the final engineering analysis.
Other alternatives may be supportable. If competent technical analysis demonstrates that an alternative adequately addresses the identified effects, meets the City’s plans and requirements, and the City accepts and incorporates it into the Project, the MND may analyze that design. The mere existence of an asserted alternative does not demonstrate that the current Project design adequately addresses the identified concerns.
5.4 Pedestrian Considerations
The Project is adjacent to a bus stop and near the Civic Center SPRINTER station, public library, restaurants, and other destinations. Project-generated vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit movements may interact with the proposed Mission Road driveway, turning traffic, the merge condition, bicycle facilities, bus operations, and the Mission Road/Woodward Street crossing. These are proper subjects of the Initial Study where they bear on circulation-system policies, geometric hazards, or emergency access.
The Project’s age restriction does not in itself create an environmental impact or the need for improvements. It is relevant only where supported evidence connects the characteristics of anticipated residents to the physical design or operation being analyzed, such as the appropriate pedestrian walking-speed assumptions or assumptions regarding the likely use of nearby transit and community destinations.
For instance, the California MUTCD 2026, section 4I.06, uses 3.5 feet per second as the general pedestrian-clearance speed, directs consideration of a slower speed where slower pedestrians routinely use the crosswalk, and specifically states that 2.8 feet per second should be considered where older or disabled pedestrians routinely use it (CA MUTCD section 4I.06).
The Applicant’s traffic engineer has proposed a longer pedestrian-clearance interval and estimates that a slower crossing-speed assumption would add approximately 8 to 11 seconds when the pedestrian push button across Mission Road is activated. The engineer describes the estimate as planning-level and subject to confirmation with City traffic engineering staff and the coordinated signal plan. This additional time may impact vehicular traffic on Mission Road.
The Applicant’s proposed striping, delineation, and signal-timing measures may be evaluated as alternatives. Signal timing, however, addresses only one component of the physical setting. It does not shorten the crossing, eliminate vehicle conflict points, improve pedestrian-motorist visibility, address the driveway and merge interaction, resolve bicycle and bus-stop operations, or determine emergency access.
The Applicant may propose other treatments as an alternative to raised curb construction. Competent analysis must show that the alternative addresses the driveway, merge, bus, bicycle, pedestrian, and visibility issues at this location and complies with applicable standards. The existence of a possible alternative does not make the current MND complete when the alternative has not been fully analyzed, accepted by the City, or incorporated into the Project.
5.5 The exaction issue is separate from MND readiness
The Applicant challenges the right-of-way dedication and frontage work, stating that they lack the essential nexus and rough proportionality required by Dolan, and Ehrlich and therefore cannot lawfully be imposed. Constitutional limits on development conditions remain fully applicable.
The City prepared a Project-specific Exaction Analysis of Right-of-Way Dedication and Frontage Improvements (Appendix C) in August 2025. The analysis calculates the proportionality of the Project burden on citywide infrastructure to the burden placed on the developer, including pedestrian, bicycle, and roadway improvements and neglecting appurtenant work like grading and drainage structures for both scenarios. The analysis found that the Project will create approximately $3,194,213 in Project burden on the City’s facilities, which provides sufficient nexus to require the right-of-way dedication and frontage improvements.
The 2025 Exaction Analysis was based upon the ultimate right-of-way dedication and burden of ultimate improvements, as discussed in Table 2.5 above. For those ultimate improvements, the value of the right-of-way to be dedicated was calculated at approximately $369,450 while the high-level improvement burden was calculated at $138,476, together totaling $507,926. The area of right-of-way to be dedicated for the ultimate scenario was approximately 15,000 square feet, representing less than 10% of the gross property area of 174,676 square feet.
The Exaction Analysis did not contemplate the significantly reduced scope of the interim improvements and much less significant right-of-way dedication the City has since offered to Lanikai Management. (Table 2.5 above). The burden to the developer of these interim improvements would be just a fraction of the burden of the ultimate improvements.
However, the environmental-readiness question at hand is narrower than the exaction issue. If the supported Project includes physical frontage changes, the MND must evaluate them. If the City concludes a disputed element cannot or should not be imposed, the MND must analyze a different supported design. The parties' disagreement over who must fund or construct an improvement does not permit the environmental document to avoid the physical design question.
Public Resources Code section 21080(g) expressly preserves an applicant's ability to challenge the legality of a condition separately and explains the environmental consequence if a condition necessary to avoid a significant effect is later set aside.
5.6 Appeal contentions addressed by the frontage analysis The analysis above addresses the following appeal contentions. • The curb treatment is unprecedented or inconsistent with FHWA guidance. The City's curb extension concept is broader than a conventional parking-lane bulb-out; its proper form and label require site-specific engineering, not an identical precedent. • The City is making Lanikai repair a pre-existing deficiency. The existing condition is acknowledged, but the Project adds a driveway and has effects on City infrastructure. • Signal timing, push buttons, striping, and delineation fully resolve the issue. Those measures may address discrete operational questions but do not by themselves resolve crossing length, visibility, driveway conflicts, bus and bicycle operations, frontage standards, or Fire access. • Pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and senior-resident factors are outside CEQA. Project-generated movement and physical transportation interactions are proper subjects of the Initial Study. • An exaction challenge makes the frontage work irrelevant to CEQA. The legality and cost allocation of a future condition are separate from the duty to analyze the physical Project the City may support.
6. Adequacy of the Transportation and Environmental Technical Record
6.1 Governing framework
The April 2026 MND relies on the LTA to support conclusions concerning consistency with the General Plan Mobility Element. The adequacy of the LTA therefore matters to conclusions the MND itself makes.
Mobility Element Policy M-1.1 directs the City to safely and efficiently accommodate traffic generated by development. Policy M-1.2 addresses development financing and construction of internal, adjacent, and citywide roadway, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements necessary to mitigate Project impacts. Other Mobility Element policies address connectivity, redundancy, roadway safety, environmental performance, and complete streets. CEQA Guidelines section 15063(d)(5) and Appendix G require the Initial Study to examine consistency with applicable plans and policies that bear on environmental effects.
Previously, CEQA required vehicular Levels of Service (LOS) to be analyzed to identify traffic impacts under CEQA. On July 1, 2020, that metric shifted to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), consistent with the requirements of SB743. The City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (TIAG) indicate that the City may continue to require congestion-related transportation analysis and improvements through its land-use approval process and to ensure consistency with General Plan transportation policies. The General Plan Environmental Impact Report establishes a Level of Service D or better for Mission Road.
CEQA Guidelines section 15125 describes the baseline principle for describing environmental conditions, while section 15063 requires the Initial Study to identify the environmental setting and to provide a factual basis adequate for the lead agency's conclusions.
6.2 The role of the transportation analysis
The April 2026 MND relies on the LTA to characterize roadway performance, assess the Project’s contribution under the City’s accepted Level of Service framework, and support conclusions concerning consistency with the General Plan Mobility Element.
The City is not asserting that every inconsistency with a General Plan policy is automatically a significant CEQA impact. The MND must nevertheless provide a factual basis for its conclusion that the Project is consistent with the environmentally relevant Mobility Element policies upon which it relies. Not every policy tension will be a significant effect, but the MND must accurately explain how the supported design and transportation analysis relate to those policies.
The transportation record affects more than a congestion calculation. Its assumptions inform Project access, geometric hazards, emergency access, pedestrian and bicycle interactions, transit operations, and Mobility Element consistency. The supported frontage configuration may also require conforming review of grading, drainage, utilities, signal equipment, construction traffic, construction noise or air quality, and public services, as applicable. The MND need not assume every conforming change is significant. It should identify the physical changes and verify that the affected technical conclusions remain valid.
The combination of estimated signal timing, changed corridor operations, an expired near-term scenario, an unverified horizon and cumulative method, an omitted directly affected segment, and a potentially changed access configuration prevent the City from determining that the LTA presently supplies a reliable factual basis for the MND's transportation, access, emergency-access, and Mobility Element conclusions.
6.3 Analytical Framework
The LTA was prepared in September 2019 using January 2018 traffic counts.
The metric for transportation impact analysis shifted from Level of Service (LOS) to Vehicular MiIes Traveled (VMT) in July, 2020. In his April 10, 2025 letter to the City Attorney (Appendix G), David P. Hubbard of Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP on behalf of Lanikai Management argued that, based on IBC Business Owners for Sensible Development v. City of Irvine (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 100, 123-124, a VMT analysis is not required where a project’s Level of Service (LOS) traffic study was undertaken before the effective date for the VMT metric in CEQA guidelines Section 15064.3. For purposes of this Project, the City Attorney agreed that the applicable LOS framework could be used because of the timing of the original analysis.
The City nonetheless needs a complete and internally consistent LOS analysis using a supported Project configuration, study area, traffic assignment, and operational assumptions. The City may also use congestion analysis for General Plan consistency and land-use requirements.
6.4 Transportation baseline and changed conditions
The Project has been processing for entitlement approvals since 2017, submitting on an average once per year, and at times extending over 600 days between submittals. Over this extensive processing time, standards and conditions have changed.
The appeal argues that CEQA Guidelines section 15125 establishes the environmental baseline when analysis begins and does not require technical studies to be continuously updated. However, the baseline principle does not require the City to disregard evidence of changed conditions. As explained in Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, CEQA does not impose a uniform, inflexible baseline rule. The agency has discretion to determine how existing physical conditions can most realistically be measured, provided the determination is supported by substantial evidence.
Analyzed here is the combined effect of specific issues with the LTA. For background, the traffic counts were collected in January 2018, the LTA was prepared in September 2019, and the MND was first submitted in 2024. Among other issues, the following matters require correction or verification:
Existing-condition counts were collected before COVID-related changes in travel patterns; Signal phasing and timing were estimated because actual timing sheets were unavailable in 2018 and are available now; Subsequent City signal-system upgrades and coordination of the Mission Road corridor; A cumulative/background methodology that requires clarification or verification; Changed development and traffic conditions in the Project area; A near-term analysis based on 2023, a year that has passed; A 2035 horizon year rather than the 2050 horizon used in more recent City and regional analyses; Omission of the Mission Road segment between Pico Avenue and Woodward Street; and A Project configuration that may change and therefore alter trip assignment, emergency access, and intersection operations.
The Applicant may demonstrate through competent traffic-engineering analysis that particular older inputs remain representative. Where they are not representative, they should be updated. What the City cannot do is disregard the combined effect of these documented issues while relying on the LTA to support the MND’s conclusions.
6.5 Signal timing and current operations
The 2019 LTA states that actual timing sheets were unavailable and that signal phasing and timing were estimated using engineering judgment and geometric measurements. Those estimates underlie the LOS values carried into the MND. The City subsequently upgraded its signal system and coordinated signals along arterial corridors, including Mission Road, in 2024. Current timing sheets are available. Because signal timing materially affects intersection-delay calculations, the LTA should verify the model using supported timing inputs.
This issue is also relevant to the Applicant’s pedestrian-timing proposal. Any longer pedestrian interval should be evaluated within the current coordination plan and with supported Project pedestrian assumptions. The proposal to increase pedestrian clearance time may address pedestrian clearance but could also affect intersection or segment operations in a manner not evaluated in the current LTA.
Signal timing materially affects calculated delay, queueing, pedestrian clearance, and coordination. The LTA should therefore either reanalyze current timing or provide a supported engineering explanation showing why the earlier estimates remain appropriate for the analytical scenario. The same current model should test the Applicant's proposed longer pedestrian interval so that the analysis does not compare incompatible signal plans.
6.6 Near-term, horizon-year, and cumulative conditions
The September 17, 2019 traffic study states that existing-condition traffic volumes were obtained on January 25, 2018. The LTA correctly states that it must adhere to SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies in the San Diego Region, which provide that “the data used in the TIS [Traffic Impact Study] should generally not be more than two years old”, and that “if recent traffic data is not available, current counts must be made by the project applicant/consultant.” In this case, vehicular volumes and travel patterns changed significantly after COVID, the data still reflects the patterns from over eight years ago, and the project applicant has not provided current counts to the City.
The LTA applied a one-percent annual growth factor for five years to January 2018 counts and designated 2023 as the near-term year. Because the MND was first submitted in 2024 and is being considered in 2026, that scenario no longer provides the forward-looking five-year condition described in the LTA. The MND should explain how that expired scenario represents the relevant near-term condition or select a supported near-term replacement year.
The LTA uses 2035 as its horizon year. Staff requested a horizon year 2050 analysis in 2025, consistent with more recent City and regional planning work. The final analysis should identify the controlling City or regional guideline and explain why the selected horizon is appropriate for this Project since the Project does not rely on the year 2050 as other recent projects do.
Additionally, new developments in the area have been constructed, and other new developments are reasonably anticipated. These include but are not limited to the Kaiser Permanente expansion, North City, Woodward 46, and other projects. CEQA Guidelines section 15063(b)(1) requires the Initial Study to consider whether the Project, individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect. Therefore, the effects of these projects must be considered cumulatively with the effects of the proposed Project to determine potential significant impacts. The MND should clearly identify and support the methodology used to represent approved and reasonably foreseeable development affecting the study area or update that methodology as necessary. The analysis must allow the City and public to distinguish existing conditions, background or cumulative traffic, and Project-added traffic based on a transparent record.
6.7 Study area and trip distribution
The LTA omits the Mission Road segment between Pico Avenue and Woodward Street even though the proposed Mission Road driveway is located on that segment and a substantial share of Project traffic is described as using it. The directly affected segment should be analyzed or the record should contain a supported technical reason for its exclusion.
Trip distribution is foundational: it determines the affected segments, turning movements, intersection increments, and the operating effect of the Project. If the Mission Road connection becomes emergency-only or is removed, general Project trips must be reassigned to Woodward Street and the Mission Road/Woodward Street intersection.
The appeal emphasizes approximately 460 average daily vehicle trips, 23 AM peak-hour trips, 32 PM peak-hour trips, and approximately six to seven outbound peak-hour vehicles using the Mission Road driveway. Those figures are relevant and may show that certain effects are small. They do not determine whether a new driveway creates a geometric conflict at a specific arterial, bus-stop, merge, bicycle, and intersection location.
A supported analysis may ultimately conclude that the Project increment is less than significant and that a limited treatment is sufficient. However, the City cannot reach that conclusion merely by comparing total trips. It must evaluate the movement, location, geometry, and operating conditions that give those trips their effect.
6.8 Comparison with Woodward 46
The appeal argues that Woodward 46 generates more peak-hour trips than Lanikai and nevertheless produced an acceptable Project-specific transportation result. Gross trip totals from a different project do not determine Lanikai's effect. The projects have different access locations, turning movements, trip distribution, geometry, and incremental trip assignments.
Woodward 46 is relevant for a different reason: its more recent analysis reports materially worse base operations at Mission Road/Woodward Street than the older Lanikai analysis. Lanikai, relying on its unapproved 2019 LTA, reports approximately LOS D in its older existing/near-term scenarios, while Woodward 46 reports a 2026 near-term base LOS F in the AM peak and LOS E in the PM peak.
Woodward 46's small incremental effect on this intersection establishes only its own Project effect under its own assumptions. It cannot be transferred to Lanikai. The divergence in base conditions instead supports verification of the Lanikai model and calculation of Lanikai's own increment using the supported Lanikai access design, trip assignment, signal inputs, and applicable LOS criterion.
Staff is not predetermining that Lanikai will exceed the City's LOS criterion or cause a significant transportation effect. The present record is insufficiently reliable to make that determination. However, the Woodward 46 study corroborates the need for an updated model review.
6.9 Appeal contentions addressed by the technical-record analysis The analysis above addresses the following appeal contentions. • CEQA Guidelines section 15125 prevents the City from requiring updates to the 2019 transportation analysis. CEQA does not impose an inflexible baseline rule; the City may require verification where specific evidence shows an input may not be representative. • The existing LOS analysis contains all necessary information. The LTA is incomplete or unresolved with respect to key inputs, including but not limited to the study area, signal inputs, near-term and horizon assumptions, cumulative method, and trip distribution. • Woodward 46 proves no Lanikai impact. Woodward 46 is a different Project with different access and movement characteristics. Its conclusion cannot be assigned to Lanikai. Its more recent operating information instead demonstrates why Lanikai’s model and Project-specific incremental effect require verification. • Low trip generation resolves traffic and safety. Total volume does not answer movement- and location-specific access, geometry, or emergency-access questions. They also do not resolve the effect of redistributing traffic to Woodward Street if the Mission Road driveway changes. • Remaining transportation work can occur after circulation. The City may defer normal final-engineering details, but not the Project configuration, traffic assignment, and technical analysis necessary to support the MND’s proposed environmental findings.
7. Conclusions and Recommended Action
Appeal Question: Can the City, as CEQA lead agency, circulate the current MND as a proposed environmental document that reflects the City's independent judgment and is supported by an accurate Project description and an adequate factual record?
7.1 Independent and interrelated deficiencies
The record supports the City's conclusion on multiple grounds. The Project description is not sufficiently stable because the access, emergency-access, and frontage configuration remain unresolved. The access analysis is not sufficiently supported because the MND assumes a general-use Mission Road driveway without an accepted treatment and without a final Fire access determination without that driveway. The transportation record is not sufficiently reliable because material inputs, study limits, trip distribution, and comparison data remain unresolved. Each deficiency independently bears on readiness; together they affect the core of the MND's proposed findings.
The City need not show at this stage that the Project necessarily causes a significant effect. The City must determine whether it can support the proposed conclusion that the Project as revised will not cause one and that no substantial evidence supports a fair argument to the contrary. On the current record, the city cannot responsibly make that preliminary determination under guiding Principles one through three of this analysis.
7.2 Path to a circulable document
1. Resolve the general-use and emergency-access configuration through coordinated Planning, Engineering, Traffic, and Fire review.
2. Identify the Project-specific and City-supported frontage treatment associated with that configuration, including its location, principal dimensions, function, and performance requirements.
3. Applicant must incorporate, or agree to incorporate, any Project revisions or mitigation on which an MND would rely before public circulation.
4. Verify or update the LTA using the supported access configuration, consistent trip assignment, a complete study area, supported current or representative signal inputs, and explained near-term, horizon, and cumulative methods. Reconcile the LTA with the Woodward 46 information without transferring another project's significance conclusion.
5. Revise the Project description and all affected MND sections to analyze the whole physical action, including frontage construction and reasonably foreseeable secondary effects.
6. Reevaluate whether the complete record supports an MND. If substantial evidence supports a fair argument of a significant effect, prepare the appropriate CEQA document; if not, circulate the revised MND for public and agency review.
7.3 The City's decision remains limited
Affirming ADM 2026-5226 would not deny the Project or require the Applicant to accept one conceptual frontage improvement scenario. It would require the Project and environmental analysis to converge on the same supported physical action before the City asks the public to review the proposed MND.
If a revised MND is later circulated, the City remains obligated to consider comments and new information. Depending on the record, the City may obtain additional analysis, revise mitigation, recirculate the MND, or prepare an EIR before final action. Denial of this appeal therefore preserves, rather than prejudges, the City's later CEQA and land-use responsibilities.
7.4 Conclusion
Conclusion: The City finds in its independent judgment as lead agency under CEQA that the current document does not yet provide a sufficiently accurate and stable Project description, a coordinated access and emergency-access design, a supported frontage configuration, or a sufficiently reliable technical basis for the City's proposed environmental conclusions. The City may deny Appeal AA26-0004 and affirm ADM 2026-5226 without denying the Project or selecting the final Project design.
Appendix A. Consolidated Processing Chronology
Application Timeline
Review
Submittal
Date & Application Status
Return Date/ Summary of Review
1st
12/21/17
Incomplete
1/2018
Notified applicant on not exempt under CEQA
Missing submittal items: GPA supplemental studies/information, Traffic Study, Water & Sewer study, Lighting plan, Roof plan, biology report, Incomplete information on plans: Mission Road frontage improvements, Woodward driveway, on-site pedestrian circulation & connection, CAP requirements/checklist, on-site amenities, elevations, impacts on floodway/floodplain, emergency access/requirements, geotechnical report, SWQMP sizing BMPs. 2nd
10/20/18
Incomplete
11/15/2018
Traffic Study and Biological Resources letter report not accepted by City Inconsistencies with land use requirements
Missing items: Floodway analysis, VWD water & sewer study, Complete CAP submittal, GHG analysis 3rd
10/8/2019
Incomplete
11/8/2019
Missing items: Public benefit analysis, land use analysis, infrastructure & community services impact analysis, redlined SPA & GPA, GHG, complete CAP submittal, VWD water sewer study, sight distance exhibits, traffic queueing analysis Inconsistencies with land use requirements
4th
8/30/20
Incomplete
9/3/2020
Missing items: Public benefit analysis, land use analysis, infrastructure & community services impact analysis, redlined SPA & GPA, GHG analysis, complete CAP submittal, sight distance exhibits, VMT analysis, Flood analysis 5th
5/3/22
Deemed Complete
6/3/2022
Application was deemed complete
Requires updated VMT analysis, sight distance memo, geotechnical report, public benefit analysis, land use analysis, and infrastructure & community services impact analysis Need items to be submitted all together including draft MND, biological report Project requires CLOMR submittal to FEMA
6th
4/15/23
5/15/2023
Requires updated VMT analysis, sight distance memo, geotechnical report, public benefit analysis, land use analysis, and infrastructure & community services impact analysis, public notice package Need items to be submitted all together including draft MND, biological report Project requires CLOMR submittal to FEMA
7th
5/14/24
6/13/24
Requires updated VMT analysis, draft MND, biological report, flood analysis, fiscal & economic analysis, VWD memo ATP improvements required
TDM plan required
Project requires CLOMR submittal to FEMA
8th
05/27/25
Requires updating Traffic Study traffic data, 2018 traffic data not representative of existing conditions Requires Traffic Study to analyze missing roadway segment where Mission driveway was proposed, address trip distribution, and base analysis on existing traffic signal timing.
ATP improvements required
Project requires CLOMR submittal to FEMA
9th
09/23/25
Requires updating Traffic Study traffic data, 2018 traffic data not representative of existing conditions Requires Traffic Study to analyze missing roadway segment where Mission driveway was proposed, address trip distribution, and base analysis on existing traffic signal timing.
ATP improvements required
Project requires CLOMR submittal to FEMA
ADM 2026-5226
07/02/2026
City Manager issued Administrative Decision determining MND was not sufficiently complete or adequate to begin public circulation.
Appeal AA26-0004
July 13, 2026
Applicant appealed ADM 2026-5226 to City Council via AA24-0004. A supplemental appeal letter was submitted on July 31, 2026.
Appendix B. Principal Authorities and Technical References B.1 Statutes, regulations, and local code
Public Resources Code § 21064.5 — Defines an MND and requires applicant-made or agreed revisions before public review. Source Public Resources Code § 21080(c)-(g) — Sets the negative-declaration/fair-argument framework, defines substantial evidence, and preserves separate challenges to conditions. Source Public Resources Code § 21082.1(c) — Requires independent review, analysis, circulation of documents reflecting independent judgment, and an independent-judgment finding.
CEQA Guidelines §§ 15060(a), 15063, 15064(f), 15070, 15071, 15073.5, 15124(c), 15125, 15378 — Govern information requests, Initial Study content, fair-argument review, MND preparation and content, recirculation, project description, baseline, and the whole action.
San Marcos Municipal Code §§ 18.04.060, 18.04.100, 18.04.130 — Assign local responsibility, authorize information requests and expanded study, require revisions before public notice, and govern negative declarations. Source San Marcos Municipal Code § 17.40.060(a) — Requires street construction and improvement consistent with adopted circulation plans, design criteria, standards, and specifications.
General Plan Mobility Element — Provide local roadway, multimodal, safety, connectivity, and development-improvement policy. Source Active Transportation Plan — Focuses on encouraging non-motorized modes of transportation—primarily walking and biking. Source B.2 Cases
County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193 — Explains the need for an accurate, stable, and finite Project description for meaningful CEQA review. Source Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 328 — Rejects an inflexible baseline rule while requiring substantial-evidence support for the selected measurement. Source Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 306-309 — Rejects deferring impact study and mitigation formulation until after negative-declaration approval. Source Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412 — Distinguishes permissible later detail from deferral of material information needed to understand foreseeable effects. Source IBC Business Owners for Sensible Development v. City of Irvine (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 100 — Addresses the LOS-to-VMT transition relied upon by the Applicant; scope of the City's agreement should be confirmed in the record.
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825 – Established that condition must have an essential nexus to public problem created caused by new development.
Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374 – Requires that extent of an exaction have a reasonable relationship to the magnitude of the project’s impacts, a rough proportionality.
Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (2024) 601 U.S. 267,
Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854.
B.3 Transportation and pedestrian guidance
California MUTCD 2026, § 4I.06 — Uses 3.5 ft/s for general pedestrian clearance and directs consideration of 2.8 ft/s where older or disabled pedestrians routinely use the crosswalk. Source FHWA, STEP Crosswalk Visibility Enhancements — Describes conventional curb extensions and other geometric, visibility, signing, lighting, refuge, and marking tools; warns that a conventional extension should not intrude into travel or bicycle lanes. Source FHWA Handbook for Designing Roadways for the Aging Population (Report No. FHWA-SA-14-015) — Describes importance of curb design and radii for right-turning design vehicles as a consideration of pedestrian crossing time and the safe handling of vehicle/pedestrian crossing conflicts. Source NACTO Urban Street Design Guide, Curb Extensions — Describes curb extension as an umbrella term and identifies potential crossing, visibility, turning-speed, bus, and drainage considerations. Source City of San Marcos Urban Street Design Criteria — Provides local arterial-access and street design criteria; exact applicable edition and quoted language must be placed in the record. Source Appendix C. Exaction Analysis of Right-of-Way Dedication and Frontage Improvements dated August 14, 2025 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-of-way 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:
Establish the legal framework by identifying the applicable legal standards for land use exactions.
Document the development characteristics for use in determining project impacts.
Identify and quantify the development impacts to City infrastructure based on project- and site-specific characteristics. These impacts occur at both a citywide and local level. Citywide infrastructure impacts are quantified on both a physical (i.e., 100 linear feet of travel lane) and a financial basis.
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.
Evaluate the essential nexus between the project impacts and the required exactions.
Identify and quantify the burden on the development imposed by the required exactions.
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.
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.
Evaluate compliance under the legal framework established in Step 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.
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.
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.
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 network-level 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 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 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
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.
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 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:
Right turns from Woodward to Mission.
Cyclists traveling westbound along the bike route.
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).
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.
Figure 1: Woodward Street Turning Movements, Provided by Lanikai 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.
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.
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 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 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
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 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.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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
ATTACHMENT 1: DEVELOPMENT LOCATION
ATTACHMENT 2: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
ATTACHMENT 3: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION DESTINATIONS
ATTACHMENT 4: REAL PROPERTY SALES DATA
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 Type Built/Renovated Size Sale DatePriceCap Rate$13,126,000 1 1023 Grand Avenue San Marcos, CA 92078 Land - 7.86 AC 3/28/2025($1,669,972.60/-AC)- Property Name Type Built/Renovated Size Sale DatePriceCap Rate$13,126,000 1 1023 Grand Avenue San Marcos, CA 92078 Land - 7.86 AC 3/28/2025($1,669,972.60/-AC)- 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)
-
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)
-
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 Con-tract
$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)
-
111023 Grand Avenue
1 1
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
AC)AC)3/28/2025 $13,126,000 ($1,669,973/-
AC)
AC)
Investment California Pacific Homes Lab Holding LLC
111023 Grand Avenue
1 1
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025
111023 Grand Avenue
1 1
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/SubwayPalomar College19 min walkTransit/SubwayPalomar College19 min walk Transit/Subway
Palomar College
19 min walk
Transit/Subway
Palomar College
19 min walk
Commuter RailCarlsbad Poinsettia18 min driveCommuter RailCarlsbad Poinsettia18 min drive Commuter Rail
Carlsbad Poinsettia
18 min drive
Commuter Rail
Carlsbad Poinsettia
18 min drive
Airport San Diego International 47 min drive
Walk Score ® Somewhat Walkable (54)
221100 W San Marcos Blvd
2 2
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. 221100 W San Marcos Blvd
2 2
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%
221100 W San Marcos Blvd
2 2
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Retail © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025
221100 W San Marcos Blvd
2 2
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
Commuter RailCarlsbad Poinsettia16 min driveCommuter RailCarlsbad Poinsettia16 min drive Commuter Rail
Carlsbad Poinsettia
16 min drive
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
--Built/ Renovated
-
-
Size (% Leased)
Sale Date Price Cap Rate
TypeType4606 Mission Bay Dr Retail 1971/2018 10,000 SF (100%) Type
Type
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 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)
3.91%
Actual
-
-
-
221100 W San Marcos Blvd
2 2
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Retail 3300 La Moree Rd
3 3
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. 3300 La Moree Rd
3 3
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
3300 La Moree Rd
3 3
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025
3300 La Moree Rd
3 3
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/SubwayCal State San Marcos6 min walkTransit/SubwayCal State San Marcos6 min walk Transit/Subway
Cal State San Marcos
6 min walk
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
TypeTypeBuilt/ Renovated
Type
Type
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 Land - Valley Center Rd13.98 AC(0%)7/15/2024$5,500,000 ($393,402.89/-AC)-$5,500,000 North Village Shopping Center Land - 13.51 AC7/15/2024($407,105.57/--AC)Land$10,600,000 Highway 67 - 8.00 AC1/29/2025($1,325,000.00/--AC)$11,963,000 Bella Vista Drive 10.1 Acres Land - 10.10 AC3/19/2025($1,184,455.45/--AC) Valley Center Land - Valley Center Rd13.98 AC(0%)7/15/2024$5,500,000 ($393,402.89/-AC)-$5,500,000 North Village Shopping Center Land - 13.51 AC7/15/2024($407,105.57/--AC)Land$10,600,000 Highway 67 - 8.00 AC1/29/2025($1,325,000.00/--AC)$11,963,000 Bella Vista Drive 10.1 Acres Land - 10.10 AC3/19/2025($1,184,455.45/--AC)Valley Center Rd 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)
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)
000 Bella Vista
44801 S Twin Oaks Valley Rd
4 4
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. 44801 S Twin Oaks Valley Rd
4 4
San Marcos, CA 92078 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025
44801 S Twin Oaks Valley Rd
4 4
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)
55302 N Pacific St - San Marcos Mixed Use Land
5 5
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. 55302 N Pacific St - San Marcos Mixed Use Land
5 5
San Marcos, CA 92069 (San Diego County) - San Marcos Submarket Land © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025
55302 N Pacific St - San Marcos Mixed Use Land
5 5
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)
-
663600 Grand Ave
6 6
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. 663600 Grand Ave
6 6
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
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, areneeded to support the proposed development.In total 3,395 linear feet of pedestrian pathway, valued at a minimum of $129,010, areneeded to support the proposed development.
In total 3,395 linear feet of pedestrian pathway, valued at a minimum of $129,010, are needed to support the proposed development.
In total 3,395 linear feet of pedestrian pathway, valued at a minimum of $129,010, are needed to support the proposed development.
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 feetThe cost of providing the needed roadway facility is:(611,424 square feet) x $4.80 per square foot = $2,934,835The 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 feetThe cost of providing the needed roadway facility is:(611,424 square feet) x $4.80 per square foot = $2,934,835 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 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.
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.
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 feetThe cost of providing the needed roadway facility is: (27,160 square feet) x $4.80 per square foot = $130,368The 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 feetThe cost of providing the needed roadway facility is: (27,160 square feet) x $4.80 per square foot = $130,368Neglecting 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 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 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/fee-adjustment 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 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 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.
Appendix D. Vicinity Map
E. Mission RdE. Mission RdProject SiteProject SiteWoodward StWoodward StN. Twin Oaks Valley RdN. Twin Oaks Valley Rd E. Mission Rd
E. Mission Rd
Project Site
Project Site
Woodward St
Woodward St
N. Twin Oaks Valley Rd
N. Twin Oaks Valley Rd
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.
2762 Gateway RoadT760.431.9501Carlsbad, California 92009F760.431.95122762 Gateway RoadT760.431.9501Carlsbad, California 92009F760.431.9512gdandb.com 2762 Gateway Road
T
760.431.9501
Carlsbad, California 92009
F
760.431.9512
2762 Gateway Road
T
760.431.9501
Carlsbad, California 92009
F
760.431.9512
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
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.
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 pedestrian-friendly 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.
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.
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.
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 trips, when added to anticipated ambient traffic levels from 2026 through 2050, would not result in any significant effect in terms of LOS at any road segment or intersection, including the very same road segments and intersections affected by the Lanikai project. (Id.) Interestingly, because the Lanikai development is for seniors only, it generates fewer vehicle trips than Woodward 46 does – 23 versus 29 in the AM Peak, and 32 versus 37 in the PM Peak. It thus stands to reason that Lanikai, like Woodward 46, will produce no significant traffic impacts, which is precisely what the Lanikai MND has concluded.
So, given the traffic data of these two projects, why is City staff claiming that Lanikai’s project will create significant traffic impacts that must be mitigated by road improvements such as the raised curb bulb-out – something never mentioned in any of CEQA document prepared for Woodward 46? The only explanation is that staff are imposing a double-standard: one set of rules for Lanikai and another, more relaxed set of rules for everyone else.
Environmental Effects of Required Modifications.
Next, the Resolution, in “WHEREAS” item 3, contends that because Lanikai has refused to incorporate the “design revisions” demanded by staff (i.e., the raised curb-bulb out), “the draft MND does not provide a legally adequate basis to conclude that potentially significant effects have been avoided or mitigated to a less-than-significant level.” (Resolution, Item 3, pp. 2-3.) The Resolution is in error and has placed the slipper on the wrong foot. The traffic data set forth in the MND (and discussed in this letter) clearly establish that the Project will not have a significant impact on any road segment or intersection in the City. Accordingly, there is no basis for the City to demand mitigation from Lanikai, and the City has provided no evidence to the contrary. In short, there is no reason for Lanikai to study traffic mitigation in the MND. There is no need for it, and no legal justification for the City insisting upon it.
The same is true of the Project’s alleged contribution to pedestrian crossing delays at Woodward and Mission. According to data provided by City staff and the City Attorney, Lanikai’s project will generate only 23 pedestrian trips per day. (See Letter from City Attorney Punam Prahalad to David Hubbard, counsel for Lanikai, dated August 14, 2025, p. 9 of 54, attached hereto as Exhibit
6.) While those 23 pedestrian trips will likely be taken by senior citizens who walk more slowly than non-seniors, the resulting delay impact is de minimis. First, the number of pedestrian trips is incredibly small, even when allocated over a shortened day (i.e., daylight hours only). Second, those trips can be accommodated by simply installing new signal devices at the Woodward/Mission intersection that provide extra crossing time when activated by the pedestrian. The devices then revert back to normal signal timing after the pedestrian makes it to the other side of the street. The project’s traffic consultant, Justin Schlaefli, explains this simple operational fix as follows:
The Mission crossing is approximately 118 feet, with a reported existing crossing time of about 31 seconds. The California MUTCD standard walking speed is 3.5 ft/s (about 34 seconds for this crossing); the recognized speed for older/disabled pedestrians is 2.8 ft/s, which yields about 42 seconds. Retiming to the 2.8 ft/s senior walking speed would therefore add roughly 8 to 11 seconds of pedestrian clearance time.
The operational effect is negligible, for two reasons. First, the pedestrian phase only runs when the push button is actuated - per the City's own figure, about 23 pedestrian crossings per day, mostly outside peak hours. Second, the pedestrian clearance runs concurrently with the parallel vehicle green, so the added time simply extends that green when a pedestrian is present; the longer minimum is absorbed within the signal cycle. Averaged over the day, the change in delay for the intersection is a fraction of a second per vehicle and would not change the intersection's level of service. If the signal runs in coordination, the City would verify the longer pedestrian minimum fits the cycle - at the cycle lengths the City typically runs, it does.
The City operates Type 2070 controllers, and pedestrian Walk and Flashing Don't Walk intervals are programmable parameters. The work consists of a timing analysis, revised timing sheets, and implementation/field verification by the City's signal technician. At a planning level, I would estimate:
Engineering analysis and revised timing sheets: $3,000 - $5,000 City staff implementation and field check: $500 - $1,500 (often absorbed as routine in-house work) Coordination plan check, if the City requires one because the intersection runs coordinated: $1,500 - $3,000 Total: roughly $5,000 - $10,000, and potentially near zero if the City simply retimes it in-house as routine maintenance. No new poles, heads, or push buttons are required (existing equipment is assumed to remain). For contrast, the bulb-out the City proposes is a construction project - curb, gutter, drainage, and ADA ramp work typically well into six figures - to shorten the crossing by only 10-12 feet, which at standard walking speed saves about four seconds.
In short, the pedestrian crossing concern in Item 4 is fully addressable through signal timing at nominal cost, without the bulb-out or roadway widening the City proposes. (Schlaefli email to Greg Scaduto (Lanikai), dated July 14, 2026, attached hereto as Exhibit 7.) Simply put, the Project’s pedestrian traffic does not rise to the level of a significant impact as defined by CEQA. And even if it did, that impact can be easily and inexpensively mitigated by installing more refined signal timing devices at the Woodward/Mission intersection. There is no need for the raised curb bulb-out demanded by City staff.
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 right-of-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.
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.
Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter 303.4 provides that curb extensions (bulb-outs) “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.
Curb extensions are designed primarily to reclaim the sight distance occupied by on-street parking and to improve sight lines past parked cars. There is no on-street parking on either Mission Road or Woodward Street at this intersection, so the design premise for a bulb-out is absent.
A condition of approval must be roughly proportional to an impact the development actually creates. At approximately 23 pedestrian trips per day (the City’s own estimate), the Project adds a negligible increment to crossing demand at Mission Road and Woodward Street. There is no engineering basis to conclude that this level of pedestrian activity necessitates a raised curb extension, much less one funded entirely by the Project. The existing signalized crossing already serves pedestrians, and any incremental senior-pedestrian demand is accommodated through signal timing (see 3.4), not through curb geometry.
A single-corner bulb-out can increase, rather than reduce, pedestrian exposure.
Extending the curb into the roadway at one corner narrows the effective travel way and brings waiting pedestrians closer to, and more directly in line with, westbound through traffic on Mission Road.
At an operating speed of 45 mph and with no on-street parking to buffer the corner, this placement does not improve the safety margin for pedestrians and may degrade it.
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 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.
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 complete-streets goals for the corridor.
These are legitimate City objectives, but they reflect a pre-existing condition of the public street and a longer-term corridor circulation program; they are not impacts created by a 115-unit senior community generating 460 daily trips. The cost and responsibility of remedying a pre-existing roadway deficiency 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, 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:
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; includes turning movement diagrams showing how the Project’s traffic is distributed on a street-by-street and intersection-by-intersection basis; 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).) 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; 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 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.
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.
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.) 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. 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 the City Manager to release the draft the MND to the public, as CEQA requires.
Sincerely,
David P. Hubbard of
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
Cc: Lanikai Management
Rick Gittings
City Attorney, Helen Holmes Peak
City Attorney, Punam Prahalad
City Manager, Michelle Bender
City Clerk
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.
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 2 © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 7337297/14/2025Page 17/14/2025Page 1 © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025
7/14/2025
© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 7337297/14/2025Page 57/14/2025Page 5 © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025
7/14/2025
© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 7337297/14/2025Page 107/14/2025Page 10 © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025
7/14/2025
© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 7337297/14/2025Page 147/14/2025Page 14 © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025
7/14/2025
© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 7337297/14/2025Page 177/14/2025Page 17 © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025
7/14/2025
2 Commercial real estate data and analytics system.2 Commercial real estate data and analytics system. 2 Commercial real estate data and analytics system.
2 Commercial real estate data and analytics system.
© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 7337297/14/2025Page 207/14/2025Page 20 © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 © 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025
7/14/2025
3 https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument/28153/6384059126758700003 https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument/28153/638405912675870000 3 https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument/28153/638405912675870000 3 https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument/28153/638405912675870000 | 1
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLPGatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLPGatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLPL A W Y E R SRebecca Jones, MayorMembers of City Council July 31, 2026Page 10Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLPL A W Y E R SRebecca Jones, MayorMembers of City Council July 31, 2026Page 10 Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
L A W Y E R S
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council July 31, 2026
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
L A W Y E R S
Rebecca Jones, Mayor
Members of City Council July 31, 2026
CITY OF SAN MARCOS | LANIKAI MND: STAFF ANALYSIS OF APPEAL