RESOLUTION NO. 2026-9652
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS DENYING AN APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE RESOLUTION OF THE CITY MANAGER (ADM 26-5226) DETERMINING THE DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND26-007) FOR THE LANIKAI SENIOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT TO BE INCOMPLETE AND UNABLE TO BE CIRCULATED AA26-0004 / ND26-007
LANIKAI PARTNERS I, LP
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2017, the City received an application from Lanikai Partners I, LP requesting a Specific Plan Amendment, General Plan Amendment, and Multi-Family Site Development Plan (SP17-0004, GPA17-0003, MFSDP19-0001) to develop a 115-unit, age-restricted senior apartment project (“Project”) on approximately 3.96 acres at the northwest corner of East Mission Road and Woodward Street in the Heart of the City Specific Plan (SPA) Zone more particularly described as:
Brief Legal Description: All of Lot 2 and the southerly 209 feet of Lot 1, all in Block 60 of Rancho Los Vallecitos de San Marcos, in the City of San Marcos, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof 806, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County December 21, 1895.
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 220-063-04-00
WHEREAS, the Project proposes access from both East Mission Road and Woodward Street and must include frontage, circulation, pedestrian, bicycle, drainage, grading, and other public and private improvements that are part of the physical development to be considered by the City; and WHEREAS, to support the Project, Lanikai Management (“Appellant”), through its consultant, prepared a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to analyze the effects of the proposed Project on the environment as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); and WHEREAS, the Appellant first submitted the MND for City review on May 14, 2024, and submitted the most recent iteration of the same to the City for review on April 1, 2026; and WHEREAS, the City of San Marcos (“City”) is the lead agency for environmental review of the Project under CEQA; and WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c) requires the lead agency to independently review and analyze the environmental documents and to circulate draft documents that are consistent with the City’s independent judgement; and WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration must contain an accurate and stable Project description prior to public circulation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(c) and County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 185, 193; and WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Sections 21064.5 and 21080(c)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b) require that the Mitigated Negative Declaration include agreed-upon revisions prior to circulation to the public; and WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(a) requires that the Mitigated Negative Declaration include an accurate description of the whole action, and material studies of effects on the environment cannot be deferred; and WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15070 and 15071 require that the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration contain information and evidence to support a finding that the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment before circulation to the public; and WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(d)(5) requires that the Initial Study examine the Project’s consistency with existing zoning and plans; and WHEREAS, after review of the Draft MND and supporting technical materials, the City identified unresolved deficiencies in the MND; and WHEREAS, these deficiencies include, among other issues, the Project description, access configuration, transportation and circulation information, and transportation effects associated with the proposed project access; and WHEREAS, the deficiencies also include the lack of analysis of environmental effects associated with those Project modifications, frontage improvements, and emergency access modifications as may be required reach a Project design that can be supported by the City; and WHEREAS, on July 2, 2026, the City Manager issued Administrative Resolution ADM26-5226 determining the draft MND to be incomplete and not adequate to begin public circulation under CEQA and the San Marcos Municipal Code, which decision was distributed to the Appellant on July 6, 2026; and WHEREAS, on July 13, 2026, an appeal (AA26-0004) was filed by Gatzke Dillon & Balance LLP on behalf of the Appellant disagreeing with the decision of the City Manager made in Administrative Resolution ADM 26-5226. The appeal contends, among other things, that the Draft MND should be circulated in its current form and challenges City staff's positions regarding transportation analyses and frontage improvements; and WHEREAS, the Appellant has raised separate constitutional exaction arguments under Dolan v. City of Tigard 512 U.S. 374, 394-395 (1994) and Ehrlich v. City of Culver City 12 Cal. 4th 854 (1996); and WHEREAS, the City Council held an appeal hearing on September 8, 2026, which was duly noticed and held in the manner prescribed by law; and WHEREAS, the Appellant was given the opportunity to participate in the public hearing through oral testimony and submittal of written comments; and WHEREAS, the City, as the lead agency under CEQA, is required to independently review and analyze the Mitigated Negative Declaration and to circulate draft documents that reflect the lead agency’s independent judgment and make a finding of the same; and WHEREAS, after consideration of the evidence of the entire administrative record, at the public hearing on September 8, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-9652 denying the appeal (AA26-0004) and affirming ADM26-5226.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve as follows:
The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference into this Resolution. The City Council also hereby incorporates the findings and factual determinations in ADM26-5226.
The City Council, having independently heard, considered, and weighed all the evidence in the record presented on behalf of all parties and being fully informed of the Project, including ADM26-5226, attached hereto, and the staff report and attachments, oral and written public testimony, and all other documents and evidence in the public record on the Project and the appeal , hereby finds that the Appellant has not shown, based on evidence in the record, that the City Manager’s decisions were made in error. This determination is based on the appeal documentation, staff report, and attachments to the staff report, which are incorporated herein by reference.
The City Council denies the appeal and upholds the City Manager’s decision determining the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Lanikai Senior Residential Development Project to be incomplete and unable to be circulated. The denial of the appeal is not a denial of the Project as a whole.
The City Council’s decision is based on the following findings and determinations:
Where the supported Project configuration includes curb, roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, signal, bus-stop, drainage, grading, utility, or frontage work, the City must determine in its independent judgment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c) whether those reasonably foreseeable physical changes require corresponding updates to the MND or technical studies. The environmental document cannot omit material physical components of the Project configuration on which its conclusions depend.
Appellant has refused to address safety concerns created by the addition of a Project driveway on Mission Road and incorporate these revisions into the MND as required pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21064.5 and 21080(c)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b), and thus the driveway would contribute to a safety hazard and cannot be permitted without appropriate frontage improvements to mitigate the hazard.
The record contains the unresolved disagreement over whether the Mission Road driveway may operate as proposed, what frontage and safety treatment would accompany it, and what access configuration would apply if it is removed or materially modified. Therefore, trip distribution, circulation, emergency access, pedestrian and bicycle interactions, frontage construction, and potentially the site plan and the reasonably foreseeable physical effects of that configuration have not been sufficiently studied in the MND as required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(a).
The proposed frontage improvements suggested by the Appellant do not ensure the safety hazard created by the Mission Road driveway will be mitigated.
Without the driveway on Mission Road, the Project is limited to the driveway on Woodward Street, and the environmental impacts of this configuration of the Project have not been studied in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Without the driveway on Mission Road, the Project will need to determine how it will address California Fire Code requirements for emergency access in this unknown configuration. The Draft MND concludes there is no emergency-access impact based on two driveways, but the environmental document should be consistent with a clear project-specific fire-access determination.
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G expressly addresses circulation programs for transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and geometric-design hazards. The MND must provide a factual basis for its site-specific safety and access conclusions.
The Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) submitted by Appellant is incomplete, specifically:
The LTA does not analyze the Mission Road segment between Pico Avenue and Woodward Street where the Appellant’s proposed Mission Road driveway would be located. Additionally, the project-only peak-hour assignment appears inconsistent with the written distribution assumption. These matters must be reconciled because trip routing informs access, turning movements, queueing, safety, and other transportation-related environmental analyses.
The LTA does not analyze the trips that would be redistributed to the Woodward Street driveway since the Mission Road driveway cannot be permitted without addressing the safety concerns. Additionally, the Project’s increase in pedestrian crossing times and associated effects to Mission Road have not been analyzed. Council finds that these project changes, f proposed, must be described and analyzed in the MND.
The 2019 LTA relies on January 2018 traffic counts. However, changed background conditions and more recent nearby analysis provide specific reasons to verify whether the older assumptions remain representative or to update them where necessary. The City Council does not find that its age alone invalidates this technical study, and the updated information must be studied in the LTA to provide an accurate assessment of the existing conditions.
The 2019 LTA states that actual signal timing sheets were unavailable at the time of preparation, requiring estimated signal timing to be analyzed rather than actual signal timing. The Mission Road signal timing is available and has been retimed and coordinated since 2018, similarly resulting in changed conditions. City Council finds that the changed conditions must be analyzed in the MND and inputs updated or verified.
The LTA is not representative of traffic from development in the area since 2018, including but not limited to Kaiser Permanente hospital, North City, and Woodward 46, added traffic from regional trips through Mission Rd and other reasonably foreseeable development. City Council finds that the cumulative conditions must be analyzed in the MND and transportation conclusions updated or verified.
The General Plan Mobility Element and Active Transportation Plan provide relevant policy and design context for multimodal access, complete streets, safety, and developer frontage implementation. City Council finds that the MND has not analyzed the Project’s consistency with these plans as required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(d)(5).
Council finds that the unresolved Project access/frontage configuration and the LTA issues independently support the conclusion that the MND is not ready for circulation to the public. The Council's decision is based upon these multiple factors independently and does not depend on the ultimate outcome of any one disputed engineering feature, such as the disputed access/frontage configuration.
The Council has rejected Appellant’s suggestion that the City considers age itself an environmental impact. The Project's age restriction may be considered only to the extent a disclosed project characteristic is supported by technical evidence relevant to design or operations, such as pedestrian-clearance assumptions, not the age of future residents as such.
The Appellant’s arguments regarding Dolan v. City of Tigard 512 U.S. 374, 394-395 (1994) and Ehrlich v. City of Culver City 12 Cal. 4th 854 (1996) concern the legality of particular dedications or improvement conditions if ultimately imposed. These arguments are distinct and separate from the central question of whether the MND is complete and ready to be circulated for public review and are not under consideration in this Resolution.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration, without a defined Project configuration and description and with a deficient Local Transportation Analysis, is incomplete and cannot support a finding that the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment as required under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15070 and 15071.
The City Council cannot find that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City’s independent judgment as required under Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c), as it is an incomplete document that will not provide the public with enough information to understand the effects of the Project on the environment.
The City Council finds that the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration is not adequate or complete and shall not be circulated in its current form as it does not include agreed upon revisions as required by Public Resources Code Sections 21064.5 and 21080(c)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b).
The City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration must be revised to ensure the Project’s effects on the environment are properly studied and incorporated and the applicant shall submit a revised environmental document for City review. If and when a revised MND or other environmental document is circulated, the City shall consider comments and it shall retain its full authority, independent judgment, and duty under CEQA to require additional information or analysis, revise the Project or incorporate mitigation measures, recirculate a revised document when legally required, or prepare an environmental impact report if substantial evidence or other information in the administrative record so requires before final action on the environmental document or Project.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of San Marcos, California, at a regular meeting thereof, held on this 8th day of September, 2026, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
APPROVED:
Mike Sanella, Deputy Mayor
ATTEST:
Phillip Scollick, City Clerk
Attachment(s):
EXHIBIT A – Administrative Resolution ADM 26-5226
Resolution No. 2026-9652
AA26-0004
September 8, 2026