MEETING DATE:
SEPTEMBER 8, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-9652 - APPEAL (AA26-0004) OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE RESOLUTION OF THE CITY MANAGER (ADM 26-5226), WHICH DETERMINED THE DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND26-007) FOR THE LANIKAI SENIOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT TO BE INCOMPLETE AND UNABLE TO BE CIRCULATED.
Recommendation
Recommendation
ADOPT a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the City Manager.
Body
Board or Commission Action
Not Applicable
Organization Of This Report
This report is organized into the following sections:
A. Executive Summary
B. Project Background
C. Legal Framework
D. Appeal Contentions, City Responses, and Effect on MND Readiness
E. Environmental Review
A. Executive Summary
Lanikai Management (“Applicant”) proposes 115 age-restricted senior apartments on approximately 3.96 acres at the northwest corner of East Mission Road and Woodward Street (Assessor Parcel Number 220-063-04-00) (“Project”).
The applicant prepared a draft IS/MND (Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration ND26-007 or “MND”). A draft version of the MND is included as Exhibit 10 of Attachment F. On July 2, 2026, the City Manager issued Administrative Decision ADM 2026-5226 determining that the MND is not presently adequate or complete to commence circulation. The applicant has appealed that decision to the City Council.
The question is whether the City, as the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) lead agency, must circulate as its proposed environmental document an MND that City staff, the City Engineer, the Planning Director, and the City Manager cannot presently support as an accurate and factually adequate analysis of the project.
The issue before the City Council is narrow and expressly related to MND circulation. The action contemplated is not to approve or deny the Project itself. It is important to note that:
• A denial of the appeal simply requires the applicant to provide a complete and factually correct MND that reflects the City’s independent judgment before public circulation.
• A denial of the appeal is not a halt in the CEQA process.
• A denial of the appeal is not a denial of the Project itself.
• A denial of the appeal is not a determination on the frontage requirements; that is a separate question not under consideration with this action.
• The Project may continue forward in the process.
• The applicant may still dispute City access/frontage requirements after circulating a complete environmental document.
Related to the MND dispute is the second project access, which is proposed on Mission Road. This driveway would introduce new conflict points very close to the Mission Road and Woodward Street intersection and adjacent to the existing bus stop, specifically conflicting movements between the proposed driveway and right turns from Woodward Street, bus operations, and cyclists.
Staff require an acceptable improvement, such as a raised curb extension, to address the conflicts from the proposed driveway. If the driveway is to be allowed, the raised curb extension or other acceptable mitigation must be included and analyzed in the MND. If driveway conflicts are not sufficiently addressed, the Mission Road driveway must be removed, project trips rerouted to the Woodward Street access point, and emergency access concerns resolved - all of which would also need to be analyzed in the MND. Regardless of the way the applicant proceeds, the MND must accurately describe the whole project and analyze the effects.
Significant concerns with the transportation analysis also remain unaddressed and prevent circulation of the MND in its current form.
Although the present appeal does not determine the Project’s improvement obligations relative to the proposed Mission Road driveway, the City Council’s eventual decision on the Project may have significant policy and environmental implications.
San Marcos voters approved Proposition R in 1988, requiring adequate infrastructure and services for new development. Proposition R, codified in SMMC Chapter 20.315, requires all new development to bear the cost of providing public facilities, and services needed to manage the new development and to mitigate the impacts created by that new development.
Accordingly, the City has historically required development projects to construct or fund improvements reasonably related to their CEQA and non-CEQA related effects, such as the improvements to address the Mission Road driveway, which address both. Departing from that approach for this project, such as constructing the driveway without mitigation, could create an inequitable application of City standards and burden the larger community, which may bear responsibility for resolving developer impacts with public dollars. Over time, the cumulative result could be a substantial transfer of infrastructure burden from private development to the public.
If City Council grants the appeal, the MND will be circulated without revision, leaving unresolved discrepancies between the project analyzed in the environmental document and the project that may ultimately be considered for approval. This could create vulnerabilities for the City. Additionally, releasing an MND for public circulation that does not accurately describe the Project or its potentially significant impacts would misrepresent the Project to the public and would not facilitate public comment on the full range of potentially significant effects. Furthermore, the City’s authority under CEQA to ensure that the project environmental document is complete and accurate based on the City’s independent judgment could be undermined for future projects.
If City Council grants the appeal and later finds that the Project must mitigate its driveway and citywide impacts through the construction of certain improvements, the MND will not have analyzed the impacts of those improvements.
If the appeal is denied, staff will work with the Applicant to revise the project description, the supporting technical studies, and the related portions of the MND so that a revised document may be circulated as expeditiously as possible.
The action before City Council is purely to determine whether the MND is adequate and accurate for circulation, and whether it represents the City’s independent judgment as the CEQA lead agency.
The City, as lead agency, has assessed whether it can make the finding that the environmental document in its current form reflects the independent judgment of the City. However, City staff, the Planning Director, the City Engineer, and the City Manager agree that the MND does not, in fact, reflect the independent judgment of the City and therefore cannot be circulated.
Therefore, staff recommend denial of the appeal. The City should circulate a proposed MND only when it can exercise independent judgment over a sufficiently defined Project and the factual basis supporting the MND’s environmental conclusions.
B. Project Background
B.1. Project Location
The 3.96-acre vacant Project site (APN 220-063-04-00) is located at the northwesterly quadrant of the Mission Road and Woodward Street intersection. Mission Road is an arterial roadway with two lanes and a merge lane in the westbound direction and two through lanes, a left turn, and a right turn lane in the eastbound direction. A bus stop exists in the merge lane along the project frontage to Mission Road. Bicycle facilities exist to the east and west of the project site, with a gap along the Project frontage. Project driveways are proposed on Woodward Street and on Mission Road, less than 400 feet from the intersection. A vicinity map is included in Attachment A and aerial imagery of the existing site and Mission Road frontage conditions is provided in Attachment B. Draft project plans are included in Attachment C.
B.2. Project Scope
The matter before City Council currently is the narrow issue of whether the Project MND must be circulated for review. Lanikai Management’s larger project application includes an amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan (HOCSP), a General Plan Amendment, and a Multifamily Site Development Plan to construct 115 age-restricted, market-rate apartment units in a four-story building. The building will be approximately 106,300 square feet and 50 feet in height with a total of 135 parking spaces.
B.3. Processing of the Development Application
The development application was originally submitted on December 21, 2017. On average, the project has been submitted by the applicant less than once per year for review, as shown below in Table B.3.
Table B.3: Application Processing Turnaround Times Between Plan Resubmittals
|
|
Lanikai Management |
City Staff |
|
Turnaround Time (Min- Max) |
303 Days (Min) 624 Days (Max) |
22 Days (Min) 32 Days (Max) |
|
Turnaround Time (Average) |
388 Days |
28 Days |
B.4. Traffic Analysis Metrics for the Project
Previously, CEQA required vehicular Levels of Service (LOS) to be analyzed to identify traffic impacts under CEQA. On July 1, 2020, that metric shifted to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), consistent with the requirements of SB 743. The City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (TIAG) indicate that the City may continue to require congestion-related transportation analysis and improvements through its land-use approval process and to ensure consistency with General Plan transportation policies. The General Plan Environmental Impact Report establishes a Level of Service D or better for Mission Road.
In his April 10, 2025 letter to the City Attorney (Attachment H), David P. Hubbard of Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP on behalf of Lanikai Management argued that, based on IBC Business Owners for Sensible Development v. City of Irvine (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 100, 123-124, a VMT analysis is not required where a project’s Level of Service (LOS) traffic study was undertaken before the effective date for the VMT metric in CEQA guidelines Section 15064.3.
B.5. Processing of the MND
The MND was first submitted to the City on May 14, 2024 with the seventh review, and was most recently resubmitted on April 1, 2026. Administrative Decision ADM2026-5226 was issued on July 2, 2026 and provided to Applicant on July 6, 2026 after a continuing lack of resolution over the project description and technical support for the MND. The City Manager’s resolution determined the MND was incomplete and not ready for circulation pursuant to San Marcos Municipal Code Section 18.04.060(a)(2).
B.6. Appeal (AA26-0004)
On July 13, 2026, an appeal to Administrative Resolution ADM2026-5226 was filed by Mr. Hubbard on behalf of Lanikai Management (Attachment E). The July 31, 2026 supplemental appeal letter (Attachment F) provides the appellant’s detailed basis for the appeal.
C. Legal Framework Governing This Appeal
The City Council is deciding whether the applicant-prepared MND has reached the point at which the City, as CEQA lead agency, can release it as the City's proposed environmental document under the provisions of CEQA. Key aspects of the legal framework are highlighted in Table C.1 and discussed further in this section.
Table C.1: MND Consistency with the Legal Framework
|
Legal Reference |
Requirement |
Requirement Met? |
|
Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c); SMMC 18.04.170 |
The City Must Exercise Independent Judgment Before It Circulates a Proposed MND |
No |
|
CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(c) County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 185, 193 |
CEQA Requires an Accurate and Stable Project Description Prior to Public Release |
No |
|
Public Resources Code Sections 21064.5 and 21080(c)(2) CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b) |
The MND Requires a Supported Project and Agreed-Upon Revisions Prior to Public Release |
No |
|
CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(a) |
CEQA Requires an Accurate Description of the Whole Action and Material Studies Cannot be Deferred. |
No |
|
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15070 and 15071 |
The MND Must Contain Substantial Evidence to Support a Finding of No Significant Impact Before Public Circulation. |
No |
|
CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(d)(5) |
CEQA Requires Initial Study to Examine Consistency with Existing Zoning and Plans |
No |
Chiefly, the City, as lead agency, must exercise independent judgment before it circulates a proposed MND. The applicant may prepare studies and provide information, but the environmental document to be circulated is the City’s own document for CEQA purposes.
The City must find in its independent judgment that the project description contained in the MND is accurate and stable prior to releasing the document for public review. The Initial Study must consider all phases of project and contain a project description and evidence supporting the environmental effect determinations. An accurate project description accounting for all phases of work is essential because environmental consequences, mitigation, and alternatives cannot be fully evaluated when the project description shifts or excludes integral components. Additionally, material studies cannot be deferred under CEQA, and the City, as lead agency, must supply a complete project configuration and technical studies to support the finding of no significant impact in the MND before circulating the environmental document.
The City has assessed whether it can make the finding that the environmental document in its current form reflects the independent judgment of the City. However, City staff, the Planning Director, the City Engineer, and the City Manager agree that the MND does not, in fact, reflect the independent judgment of the City and therefore cannot be circulated.
D. Appeal Contentions, City Responses, and Bearing on MND Completeness
The Appellant has argued that the MND is complete and it should be circulated in its current form. Each of Appellant’s contentions and the City‘s responses are described in detail below. Further staff analysis is also included in Attachment I - Lanikai Project Appeal AA26-0004: Staff Analysis of Appeal. The appellant also challenges the City's right-of-way dedication and frontage requirements under Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 394-395 (1994). and Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, 12 Cal. 4th 854 (1996). That exaction dispute is analytically separate from whether the current MND is ready for circulation and will not be finally resolved in this appeal.
Staff recommends denial of the appeal and affirmation of ADM 2026-5226. Staff identified material issues including the unresolved Project description, the access/frontage configuration; transportation and circulation information and analysis, and transportation effects associated with the proposed project access. The deficiencies also include the lack of analysis of environmental effects associated with those Project modifications, frontage improvements, and emergency access modifications as may be required to reach a Project design that can be supported by the City. These issues affect the factual basis for the MND’s transportation impact findings because it presents hazards created by the proposed driveway, emergency-access concerns, inconsistency with the Mobility Element, and other conclusions.
D.1. Applicant Contention: The MND is complete; City Must Circulate It.
The appellant contends that the April 2026 MND adequately describes and analyzes the Project and that there are no remaining studies or significant effects preventing circulation.
City Response 1: An Accurate and Sufficiently Stable Project Description is Required.
CEQA review must evaluate the whole of the project that the agency may actually approve, and the MND must contain an accurate and stable project description and a statement that the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
The MND assumes two driveways, one on Woodward Street and one on Mission Road. The Mission Road access/frontage design is disputed. If Mission Road access is retained, the MND must analyze a supported design and the physical improvements that form the basis for its significance determinations related to hazard and access. If the supported design instead changes or removes Mission Road access, the MND must analyze the resulting transportation trip distribution, emergency access, and site plan effects. Whichever route will be pursued, the Project description must accurately describe the whole of these improvements.
City Response 2: Lead Agency Independent Judgment is Required Prior to Circulation.
The City must exercise independent judgment before circulation. Although applicants may submit studies, comments, and proposed environmental analyses, the document circulated must be one the City can support as its own proposed environmental analysis. The unresolved access/frontage configuration, emergency access issues, and technical questions prevent the City from determining that the current MND describes and analyzes a sufficiently stable physical Project and provides a factual basis adequate for the City's proposed environmental conclusions.
D.2 Applicant Contention: The Mission Road Driveway is Allowed and Has Precedent.
The Appellant contends that the City routinely permits driveway access on Mission Road, that the Urban Streets Design Criteria do not categorically prohibit the proposed driveway, and that the Mission 316 East and West approvals demonstrate that Mission Road access is acceptable even where Woodward Street access is also available. The Appellant further argues that the Project's low driveway volumes do not justify the City's requested roadway changes.
City Response 1: The Urban Streets Design Criteria and Site-Specific Conflicts Require that the Mission Road Driveway Be Evaluated.
SMMC Section 17.40.060(a) states, “[a]ll streets shall be constructed and improved in accordance with the standards indicated on the San Marcos General Plan Circulation Element and Master Street Plan and City of San Marcos Street Design Criteria and in accordance with City standard plans and specifications as approved by the City Council”. The City of San Marcos Street Design Criteria (“SDC”), which predate the 2017 Project application, restrict new driveway access on a prime or secondary arterial where access is available at another location.
Lanikai proposes a driveway on Woodward Street in addition to the one on Mission Road, and Mission Road is an arterial roadway. Since the Project has access on Woodward Street, the Mission Road driveway would not normally be permitted. That does not establish that Mission Road access can never be permitted, but it gives the City the basis to evaluate whether access on arterial roadways is necessary, and if allowed, what site-specific design is required.
The proposed Mission Road driveway is less than 400 feet from the Mission Road and Woodward Street intersection, in an area containing both an existing merge condition and a bus stop. It would introduce, among other issues, new turning and crossing interactions with:
§ Right turns from Woodward Street to Mission Road.
§ Cyclists traveling westbound along the bike route.
§ Impaired visibility and merging issues.
§ Bus operations
The Applicant has declined to revise the Project design to incorporate improvements and project features identified by the City as necessary to comply with applicable City requirements and standards and to address site access, emergency access, and frontage improvement effects.
The driveway must be removed if the Mission Road driveway is not analyzed and conflict points are not addressed. The MND must then be updated to contemplate the project without the Mission driveway, such as reallocating the project vehicular trips to the remaining Woodward Street driveway and analyzing potential effects of this trip reallocation on the Woodward Street and Mission Road intersection. Importantly, emergency access effects associated with the change must be resolved.
These are not merely details; they determine where Project traffic and emergency services enter and exit the public street network and what physical improvements form part of the Project. Because those Project components and revisions have not been incorporated into the Project description or agreed to by the Applicant, the draft MND does not provide a legally adequate basis to conclude that potentially significant effects have been avoided or mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
City Response 2: The MND Does Not Analyze a Sufficiently Resolved Access and Frontage Configuration.
The current MND reaches less-than-significant or no-impact conclusions based on access from both Mission Road and Woodward Street, while the record shows a continuing disagreement concerning the Mission Road driveway. The access decision determines Project trip distribution, turning movements, emergency access, conflict points, and the frontage work that forms part of the physical Project. A less-than-significant conclusion for the conflicts created by the proposed driveway or emergency access depends on the frontage configuration and cannot be considered separately from it.
A revised access/frontage design may also require conforming review in other MND sections. Changes to pavement, curb, sidewalk, grading, drainage facilities, signal equipment, utilities, construction limits, or traffic distribution may affect hydrology/stormwater, construction air quality or noise, emergency access, or other technical analyses.
Staff need not presume that any resulting effect will be significant. The City must instead determine whether the relevant technical conclusions remain valid after the physical Project and its description is sufficiently resolved.
City Response 3: The Mission 316 Driveways Do Not Establish a Comparable Precedent.
Mission 316 West was constructed after Mission 316 East. The Mission 316 East project had legal access only to Mission Road; no other access was available so the Mission road driveway was allowed. The Mission 316 West EIR evaluated sharing the pre-existing shared driveway with the adjacent development.
Additionally, the Mission Road driveway for the Mission 316 projects did not introduce the same potential effects as the proposed Lanikai driveway. Lanikai’s driveway is proposed less than 400 feet downstream from the Mission/Woodward intersection, in an area with a merge lane and existing bus stop. Introduction of the new driveway poses movements that potentially conflict with right turns from Woodward to Mission and impaired visibility and merging issues with bus operations in the vicinity of the proposed driveway.
D.3. Applicant Contention: The Mission Road Driveway is Required by the Fire Code.
The Appellant contends that because the Project contains 115 dwelling units, California Fire Code Appendix D requires two separate fire apparatus access roads and that the separation requirement prevents both accesses from being placed on Woodward Street. The appeal asserts that one driveway must be on Mission Road and also refers to a stricter local requirement for projects exceeding 50 units.
City Response 1: The Cited Fire Code Does Not Establish that Mission Road Access is Mandatory.
Fire Code states that multifamily housing of more than 100 dwelling units generally needs two separate approved fire access roads.
The Applicant should coordinate with the Fire Department to meet Fire access requirements. Solutions to be reviewed by Fire could include, but are not limited to, reducing the unit count of the development, constructing a second driveway at a different location, or proposing an emergency-only access on Mission Road, outfitted with a gate to prevent use by the general public.
Determining the ultimate fire access requirements will require project-specific parameters to be discussed with staff and agreed to prior to public release of the MND.
City Response 2: The MND and Fire Determination Must Evaluate the Same Supported Access Configuration.
The April 2026 MND states that the Fire Marshal reviewed the Project with two driveways and did not identify emergency-access or circulation issues. That statement is relevant to whether the two-driveway design can function for emergency access. It does not establish that the Fire Marshal determined that the Mission Road driveway is legally required to be available for use by residents or that the same emergency-access conclusion would apply to a materially different access configuration.
If the Mission Road access changes, the emergency-access conclusion should be confirmed for the supported design. If the Mission Road driveway remains, the geometric and multimodal interactions at that location still require analysis. Low trip generation does not resolve either question.
D.4. Applicant Contention: The City Cannot Require Updates to the Transportation or Level of Service Analysis.
The appeal contends that the traffic information was current when submitted in 2019, that CEQA generally establishes the baseline when environmental analysis begins, and that CEQA does not require technical studies to be continuously updated as time passes.
City Response 1: Traffic Study Inadequacies Are Not Based Solely on the Age of the Data.
Although CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a)(1) states that the agency should describe the physical environmental conditions at the time the environmental analysis commenced, “neither CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines mandates a uniform, inflexible rule for determination of the existing conditions baseline. Rather, an agency enjoys the discretion to decide, in the first instance, exactly how the existing physical conditions without the project can most realistically be measured, subject to review, as with all CEQA factual determinations, for support by substantial evidence.” Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010), 48 Cal. 4th 310, 328.
The traffic counts were taken in January 2018, the report was written in 2019, and the MND was not submitted to the City until 2024.
The City's concern is a specific combination of issues identified in this record, including:
• January 2018 pre-COVID counts;
• Signal timing that was estimated because actual timing sheets were unavailable;
• Subsequent Mission Road signal coordination;
• Changed background conditions;
• Cumulative impacts of projects constructed or entering entitlement since 2018;
• Disputed near-term and horizon-year assumptions;
• Omission of a directly relevant Mission Road segment; and
• Unresolved trip-assignment inconsistency.
Importantly, the resolution to the dispute regarding the Mission Road driveway will change traffic routing, impacts to Mission Road, Woodward Street, and the intersection, and emergency access to the Project.
The MND uses the local transportation analysis (LTA) to characterize current/near-term roadway performance, to evaluate the Project's contribution under the accepted LOS framework, and to support General Plan Mobility Element consistency and must be complete and use substantiated evidence in its analysis of project effects.
City Response 2: Material Changes Must Be Considered.
The September 17, 2019 traffic study states that existing-condition traffic volumes were obtained on January 25, 2018. Phasing and timing were estimated using engineering judgment and geometric measurements from Google Earth because actual signal timing sheets for the study intersections were unavailable. Those inputs underlie the LOS values that the April 2026 MND continues to use.
Signal timing sheets are available. City staff has identified that the Mission Road corridor signal system was coordinated in 2024, changing signal timing and operations. Traffic patterns have changed significantly in the last eight to nine years, particularly due to COVID, and warrant verification of the older inputs.
Kaiser Permanente Emergency Department, North City construction, the Woodward 46 development, and other reasonably foreseeable development in the immediate Project area, are among the changes that should be considered when determining whether the old counts and assumptions remain representative.
The applicant may demonstrate through competent traffic-engineering analysis that particular older inputs remain representative; where they do not, they should be updated.
City Response 3: Study Area and Project Trip Distribution are Incomplete or Unresolved.
The LTA does not analyze the Mission Road segment between Pico Avenue and Woodward Street, even though the proposed Mission Road driveway assigns a substantial portion of Project traffic to it.
If the Mission Road driveway is to be removed because frontage improvements will not be constructed, then trips must be redistributed to Woodward Street, and the effects to the intersection must be analyzed.
D.5. Applicant Contention: Woodward 46 Proves That Lanikai Cannot Have a Significant Transportation Impact.
The Appellant argues that the nearby Woodward 46 project generates more AM and PM peak-hour trips than Lanikai, yet the City found Woodward 46's transportation effects acceptable.
City Response 1: Gross Trip Totals From a Different Project Do Not Determine Lanikai's Project-Specific Effect.
No one project can demonstrate that another project would not create an impact - an appropriate analysis must make that determination. Woodward 46 and Lanikai have different access locations, turning movements, trip distribution, site geometry, and project-specific traffic assignments. Woodward 46 calculated its own incremental effect using its own project trips and design. The fact that one project may generate somewhat more total peak-hour trips does not establish that the two projects place the same movements at the same locations or have the same incremental effect at a particular intersection or driveway.
City Response 2: Woodward 46 Identifies Materially Worse Mission Rd/Woodward St Intersection Operating Conditions Than the Older Lanikai Analysis.
The April 2026 draft Lanikai MND, relying on the 2019 study, reports the Mission Road and Woodward Street intersection at approximately LOS D under the older existing/near-term analysis. However, the more recent Woodward 46 EIR reports the Mission Road and Woodward Street intersection under Near-Term Year 2026 base conditions at a Level of Service E or F, depending upon time of day demonstrating a clear and material difference in conditions that must be considered.
Woodward 46 demonstrated in its analysis that its project traffic effects were below the significance criteria. That result cannot simply be assigned to Lanikai. Lanikai's own incremental delay must be calculated using Lanikai's project characteristics.
D.6. Applicant Contention: The Project's Relatively Low Trip Generation Resolves Potential Traffic Impacts.
The Appellant argues that the Project’s low volumes cannot create meaningful queuing, traffic, or safety impacts and therefore do not support additional roadway analysis or improvements.
City Response 1: Trip-Generation Screening Does Not Resolve a Site-Specific Concern.
A relatively low-volume driveway may still require focused analysis when the location presents site-specific access, safety, or operational issues. The number of daily trips does not in itself determine whether the geometry of a new driveway on an arterial roadway near a signalized intersection, merge condition, bus stop, and bicycle facility creates a conflict.
D.7 Applicant Contention: The Raised Curb Extension Has No Precedent Within the City and Therefore Is Not a Proper Project Requirement.
The Appellant argues that the raised curb treatment is unprecedented or inconsistent with treatments used elsewhere in San Marcos and that comparable roadway conditions have been addressed through striping or other lower-cost measures.
City Response 1: CEQA and Local Engineering Review Are Site-Specific.
Neither CEQA nor the City's project-review record makes the existence of an identical improvement at another intersection the test for whether a site-specific access or safety issue must be analyzed. The Mission 316 West example cited by the Appellant itself demonstrates site-specific review: the EIR evaluated sight distance at that particular driveway, identified a particular obstruction, and required resolution of that condition before concluding that the driveway would not substantially increase hazards. The absence of an identical prior improvement does not eliminate the need to analyze the Project-specific conflict.
City Response 2: The General Plan and ATP Provide Policy Context but Do Not Make the Exact Raised Curb Treatment Universally Mandatory.
The General Plan Mobility Element and Active Transportation Plan support complete-street, multimodal, pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and conflict-reduction objectives and authorize consideration of development-related frontage and transition improvements. Staff do not represent those plans as categorically requiring this exact raised curb configuration at Lanikai. Their relevance is that they provide policy and design context for the City's site-specific review.
D.8. Applicant Contention: The Applicant Disputes the City-Requested Frontage Changes, So the MND Does Not Need to Analyze Them.
The Appellant contends that the raised curb extension, lane modifications along Mission Road or removal of the proposed driveway on Mission Road cannot be required because the City does not have a legal basis to demand them. Therefore, the MND cannot be withheld from circulation because the applicant refuses to study the impact of these improvements. Furthermore, the Appellant contends that right-of-way dedication, bicycle improvements, curbline treatment, and related frontage requirements lack the essential nexus and rough proportionality required by Dolan and Ehrlich, and therefore these exactions cannot lawfully be imposed.
City Response 1: The Exaction Issue and CEQA Readiness Are Analytically Separate.
The City still must know what physical Project it can support and analyze the environmental consequences of that Project. The issue at hand is the readiness of the MND for public circulation. The applicant retains the ability under the law to challenge the City’s exactions at a later date.
Additionally, in August 2025, the City prepared a project-specific "Exaction Analysis of Right of Way Dedication and Frontage Improvements" (Attachment J). The analysis identified the appropriate nexus for the public improvements required of the Project. Additionally, the analysis established proportionality by comparing the estimated burden of the ultimate proposed dedication and frontage work at approximately $507,926, compared with an estimated $3,194,213 in Project demand on citywide pedestrian, bicycle, and roadway facilities. This Project demand on citywide facilities was determined by calculating the length of sidewalk, bicycle, and roadway improvements needed citywide to support the proposed Project, then estimating the burden to the public of constructing those improvements.
Staff initially required of the Project a broader ultimate-frontage concept consistent with City plans and policies. When the Applicant requested to limit right-of-way dedication and frontage construction, staff developed a dramatically reduced interim improvement concept. The Exaction Analysis considers only the broader, ultimate scope of right-of-way dedication and improvements, which are more burdensome to the developer than the interim improvement scenario the City later offered. Because proportionality was established with the more burdensome improvements, it must still hold with the significantly reduced interim improvement scope.
D.9. Applicant Contention: The Raised Curb Extension Only Corrects a Pre-Existing City Deficiency and Conflicts With CalTrans/FHWA Guidance.
The Appellant contends that the existing westbound Mission Road merge is a pre-existing public-street deficiency for which Lanikai is not responsible.
City Response 1: The Relevant Question Is Whether the Project Adds or Exacerbates Physical Conflicts in the Existing Setting.
The proposed Project introduces a new Mission Road driveway, new turning movements, and new Project-generated vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit activity at the location of the existing merge and bus stop. The relevant question is the Project's interaction with the existing roadway condition, and overall project configuration needs to be decided before effects under the MND can be properly studied.
City Response 2: The Curb Extension Addresses Effects of the Proposed Mission Road Driveway.
The City Engineer's March 5, 2024, email described a context-specific concept involving localized reallocation of right-of-way, moving the curb line south, removing or reconfiguring the substandard merge, establishing a bus bay, reducing pedestrian crossing distance, improving pedestrian visibility and signal operations ahead of the proposed driveway, and providing a treatment with a reasonable nexus to the proposed development.
The record also shows that staff identified the conflict between the proposed Mission Road driveway and the westbound lane-end condition during the initial improvement-plan review in 2018, well before the present appeal, and discussed lane-drop, widening, and bicycle treatments at that time. The later curb extension concept was developed as another approach to the same site-specific conflict in consideration of the applicant’s request to minimize project frontage improvements. Whether the final treatment uses the current concept or another supported design, the whole of the Project is to be evaluated in the MND.
D.10 Applicant Contention: Pedestrian Push Buttons, Signal Timing, Striping, and Delineation Fully Resolve the Pedestrian and Safety Concerns.
The Appellant's traffic engineer proposes signal-timing changes to accommodate a slower pedestrian clearance speed and contends that striping and delineation can address the roadway condition without a raised curb extension or frontage improvement construction.
City Response 1: Signal Timing and Striping Does Not Resolve the Separate Driveway, Merge, Bicycle, Transit, and Access-Geometry Issues.
If technical review demonstrates that revised pedestrian timing and additional button proposal adequately addresses the pedestrian-clearance issue, it may be an appropriate component of the supported design. However, the evidence presented to staff does not indicate that the pedestrian crossing and driveway concerns can be fully addressed through signal timing alone or that it would be supported by applicable standards.
Allowing pedestrians more time to cross while vehicles traveling in the same direction have a green light does not eliminate the potential traffic effects. When an older pedestrian presses the crossing button, the signal must remain green long enough to provide the additional time needed to for the senior resident to cross the street. Because the MND does not estimate the number of pedestrian crossings or calculate the additional signal time they would require, it is not possible to determine whether these longer signal cycles would cause significant delays at the Mission Road and Woodward Street intersection or along the nearby roadway. Additionally, the MND must address the safety and exposure risk for older pedestrians on a multi-lane arterial.
Additionally, the record separately identifies questions on the new Mission Road driveway, right-turn and merge movements from Woodward, westbound bicycle travel, bus-stop operations, visibility, curbline geometry, and emergency-access. A pedestrian timing adjustment may address one element of the analysis without resolving those other physical conflicts.
City staff have expressed significant concern that the striping and delineation alternatives do not adequately mitigate driveway impacts and create additional risks for pedestrians, and have repeatedly rejected the proposal. The argument that the pedestrian crossing concern can be fully addressed through signal timing and striping alone is not supported by the facts of this project or applicable standards. Adjusting clearance time and striping alone do not reduce total exposure time, eliminate conflict points, improve mutual visibility between pedestrians and motorists, or reduce vehicle turning speeds.
D.11. Overall Effect of the Appeal Contentions on MND Readiness for Public Circulation.
Taken together, the appeal contentions do not establish that the City must circulate the current MND.
The material issues are the unresolved Project and access/frontage configuration; emergency-access questions; inconsistent access descriptions; the need for a Project-specific Fire and emergency access determination; and technical analysis issues. These issues affect the factual basis for the MND’s transportation, geometric-hazard, emergency-access, Mobility Element, and potentially other conclusions.
Accordingly, staff recommends denial of the appeal and affirmation of ADM 2026-5226. The City's decision to withhold the current MND from circulation is not a project denial and is not a determination that the applicant must accept one particular conceptual curb treatment as a condition of approval. It is a lead-agency determination that material project-description and factual-basis issues must be corrected and evaluated before the City presents the document to the public as its proposed MND. Furthermore, the December 2019 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed by the Applicant and its CEQA consultants also confirms the City's final authority to determine what must be included for a defensible, transparent, and complete environmental document. The MOU is included as Attachment G.
The applicant may resolve the Project configuration, verify or update the supporting technical analyses, and resubmit a revised MND. If a revised MND is circulated, the City retains its authority and duty to consider comments and new information and, as required by CEQA and the record, obtain additional analysis, revise the Project or mitigation, recirculate, or prepare an EIR before final action.
E. Environmental Review
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the proposed project (ND26-007). The MND was first submitted for City review on May 14, 2024 and last submitted on April 1, 2026. The MND project description does not include the Mission Road frontage improvements required to support the proposed project design nor does it include a complete traffic and transportation analysis and is therefore incomplete. Updates must be made to the project description and to the supporting technical analyses accordingly.
As the MND is not complete, the MND cannot be circulated as required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073. As such, Administrative Resolution ADM 26-5226 (Attachment D) was reviewed and approved by the City Manager on July 2, 2026 determining the MND for the project to be incomplete and unable to be circulated, pursuant to San Marcos Municipal Code Section 18.04.060(a)(2).
Attachment(s)
Adopting Resolution:
1. Resolution No. 2026-9652 DENYING the appeal
A. Vicinity Map
B. Aerial Photo / Mission Road Frontage
C. Draft Project Plans
D. Resolution ADM 26-5226
E. Appeal Letter dated July 10, 2026
F. Supplemental Appeal Letter dated July 31, 2026
G. Memorandum of Understanding
H. Letter dated April 10, 2025
I. Lanikai Project Appeal AA26-0004: Staff Analysis of Appeal
J. Exaction Analysis of Right of Way Dedication and Frontage Improvements
Prepared by: Chris Garcia, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Kyrenne Chua, Principal Engineer
Eddmond Alberto, City Traffic Engineer
Stephanie Kellar, Deputy City Engineer
Submitted by: Joseph Farace, Planning Division Director
Isaac Etchamendy, Development Services Director / City Engineer
Approved by: Michelle Bender, City Manager