Appendix Q
Responses to Comments
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-1
Responses to Comment Letters Received on
the Draft MND
The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration ( MND) was circulated for public review from August 21, 2023, through September 20, 2023, in accordance with Section 15105(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A total of seven (7) written comment letters were received on the Draft MND from agencies, organizations, and individuals, as shown in Table 1. Each of the written comment letters has been assigned an alphanumeric label, and the individual comments within each written comment letter are bracketed and numbered.
For example, Comment Letter A1 contains eight comments that are numbered A1-1 through A1-8.
The responses to each comment on the Draft MND represent a good -faith, reasoned effort to address the environmental issues identified by the comments. Pursuant to Section 15074(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Marcos (City), as lead agency, is required to consider all comments received during the public review period, however written responses to comment letters submitted during the public review period of an MND are not required. Nonetheless, the City is providing the following written responses to each raising environmental issues.
Table 1. Comment Letters and Commenters
Comment Letter Commenter Date Received
Agency
A1 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) September 20, 2023 Organizations
O1 San Diego County Archaeological Society Inc. September 5, 2023 O2 Charro Rancho Bernardo Inc. dba Cocina del Charro September 8, 2023 O3 Charro Rancho Bernardo Inc. dba Cocina del Charro September 19, 2023 O4 Radiant Holdings September 19, 2023
O5 Fish House Vera Cruz September 20, 2023
Individuals
I1 Tatiana Katanic August 21, 2023
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-2
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-3
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-4
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-5
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-6
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-7
Response to Comment Letter A1
Agency
California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans )
September 20 , 2023
A1-1 Caltrans expresses appreciation for being included in the environmental review process for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Restaurant Row Project located near State Route 78 (SR-78). The comment provides a summary of Caltrans’ mission. The comment provides an introduction to our comments that follow. The comment does not raise any specific issues related to the adequacy of the MND.
A1-2 The comment expresses that Caltrans looks forward to potential opportunities to coordinate with the City to make improvements to safety, access, and mobility; reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; and maintain access during project construction. Most of the construction activities and staging would occur on the project site. Once new driveways and internal streets are built, those will be used for the vertical part of proposed construction-related activities. For any potential construction-related activities in the public right-of-way during the construction period, applicable City regulations and policies require two-way traffic to be maintained. Bicycle and pedestrian access will be maintained to the project site via the existing driveways on Via Vera Cruz during project construction. The existing bus stop on the corner of Via Vera Cruz and San Marcos Boulevard will also be maintained during project construction.
Thus, the construction of the proposed project will not significantly affect multi -modal access to or around the project site.
During operation, primary access for the project would be provided via two driveways on West San Marcos Boulevard, and a secondary access would be from Via Vera Cruz via the alleyway (private drive G). In alignment with the San Marcos Boulevard Multi -Way Complete Street Project, the project would modify the existing center median along the project frontage on West San Marcos Boulevard.
This would eliminate the left-turn ingress and egress movements at the western project driveway. The project driveway along Via Vera Cruz would provide for full turning movements. Both project driveways along San Marcos Boulevard will be restricted to right -in and right-out only turning movements. All of the project driveways would be designed to meet the design requirements codified in the California Fire Code. Additionally, adequate corner and stopping site distances would be maintained at all driveway locations. The project has been designed to incorporate all required San Marcos Fire Department standards to ensure that its implementation would not result in hazardo us design features, or inadequate emergency access to the site or areas surrounding the site.
As concluded in Section s 2.8 and 2.17 of the MND, the project would result in less -than-significant construction and operational impacts related to GHG emissions and traffic and circulation.
A1-3 The comment states that there is a strong link between transportation and land use, and the City should continue to coordinate with Caltrans to implement improvements where there is joint jurisdiction. The City acknowledg es this comment. The comment does not raise any specific issues related to the adequacy of the MND.
A1-4 The comment states that an encroachment permit would be required for any work within the Caltrans right-of-way; the project would be required to provide an approved final environmental document; and the document must address all impacts within the Caltrans right -of-way and any impacts from
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-8
avoidance or mitigation. The City acknowledges this comment, and the project would comply with this requirement. The comment does not raise any specific issues related to the adequacy of the MND.
A1-5 The comment recognizes that teleworking and remote learning reduces traffic impacts, including reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and GHG emissions. The comment also states that reliable high- speed broadband is a key component in reaching the state’s transportation and climate action goals.
The comment does not raise any specific issues related to the adequacy of the MND.
A1-6 The comment states that any direct and cumulative impacts to the State Highway network should be eliminated or reduced to a level of insignificance pursuant to CEQA and National Environmental Policy Act standards. As outlined in Section 2.17 of the MND, the implementation of the proposed project would not result in any direct or cumulative significant transportation related impac ts. Therefore, no significant impacts were identified to the State Highway network, and no mitigation is required.
A1-7 The comment states that any work performed within Caltrans’ right -of-way will require discretionary review and approval by Caltrans, and an encroachment permit will be required for any work within the Caltrans’ right-of-way prior to construction. The City acknowledges this comment The comment does not raise any specific issues related to the adequacy of the MND.
A1-8 The comment includes concluding remarks. The comment does not raise any specific issues related to the adequacy of the MND.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-9
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-10
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-11
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-12
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-13
Response to Comment Letter O1
Organization
San Diego County Archaeological Society
(James W. Royle, Jr. )
September 5, 2023
O1-1 The commenter, representing San Diego County Archaeological Society, provides an introduction and states that the organization concurs with the inclusion of the mitigation measures relating to archeological and tribal cultural resources impacts detailed in Section 2.5 of the MND . The comment does not raise any specific issues related to the adequacy of the MND.
O1-2 The commenter questions the conclusions of the MND relating to historical resources. The commenter requests further analysis of those buildings proposed to be demolished as part of the project.
A Built Environment/Historic Resources Memorandum was prepared for the subject site by Dudek in July 2023, and was included as Appendix O to the Draft MND. The Memorandum determined that no previously identified built environment cultural resources including the extant buildings located within the project site qualify as a historic resource, and none have been previously recorded, evaluated, considered eligible, or were found during research to be formally listed in a federal, state, or local register. Nonetheless, in response to this comment, additional evaluation of the site was conducted by South Environmental in September 2023. The additional analysis has been added to Section 2.5 of the MND, and the report is provided as Appendix P to the Final MND. This Historical Resources Technical Report determined that the subject property was found not eligible under all designation criteria due to a lack of historical associations and a lack of architectural merit and integrity. Therefore, the subject property is not considered a historical resource under CEQA. The findings of the additional evaluation confirm that no historic resources are present on the project site, and no further mitigation measures are required than those already circulated for public review in the Draft MND. Because the additional evaluation does not change the significance of the impacts disclosed in the Draft MND, no recirculation of the MND is required.
O1-3 The commenter requests to be notified when further additional built environment analysis is available for public review. Pursuant to CEQA and City requirements, all responses to comments would be available 10 days prior to hearing. The comment does not raise any specific issues related to the adequacy of the MND.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-14
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-15
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-16
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-17
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-18
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-19
Response to Comment Letter O2
Organization
Charro Rancho Bernardo, Inc.
(John J. Abbene)
September 8, 2023
O2-1 This is an introductory comment summarizing the contents of the letter, which generally allege that the proposed project will severely impact parking available for patrons of Cocina Del Charro and violates parking requirements set forth in the San Marcos Municipal Code (SMMC).
As a threshold matter, CEQA generally does not co nsider the adequacy of a project’s parking or “impacts” to parking to be an environmental impact, unless it will result in significant secondary effects on the physical environment. Reductions in parking is considered a social impact, and not an environmental impact, for purposes of CEQA.
Nonetheless, to the extent that the comments included in the letter allege inconsistencies with the San Marcos Municipal Code (SMMC), each comment included in the letter is addressed in detail below.
Additionally, as demonstrated by the Old California Restaurant Row Parking Analysis, October 10, 2023, which was included as an attachment to the proposed project’s Specific Plan (Appendix M to the MND), the proposed project will be able to accommodate all of its own parking demand on site, and will be able to fulfill its obligations to adjacent uses required by the historic agreements and easements in place.
Notably under CEQA, only inconsistencies with land use regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect are relevant. (See CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Section XI(b).) O2-2 This comment states Cocina Del Charro and Buffalo Wild Wings are not a part of the proposed redevelopment, though they are on the same parcel. It is acknowledged that Cocina Del Charro and Buffalo Wild Wings are not part of the proposed project but are on the same parcel.
O2-3 This comment states that Cocina Del Charro’s restaurant use commenced before the property was zoned MU-1, and therefore Cocina Del Charro is operating as a commercial nonconforming prior use, not a mixed use. The commenter states that because Cocina Del Charro and Buffalo Wild Wings are both restaurant uses, the parcel is not a mixed use parcel, and mixed use parking requirements do not apply. This statement is incorrect for two reasons. First, Cocina Del Charro is a sit down restaurant, which is a use permitted within the Mixed Use 1 (MU-1) zone. Second, mixed use parking requirements apply to all parcels that are su bject to mixed use zoning. As the commenter notes, Cocina Del Charro and Buffalo Wild Wings are both in the Mixed Use 1 (MU-1) zone. Mixed Use Parking Requirements, set forth in Table 20.340-2 of the SMMC, require 8.5 spaces/1,000 square feet for sit down restaurants and 6.5 spaces/1,000 square feet for take -out restaurants. As Cocina Del Charro is a sit -down restaurant, it requires 8.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet to comply with City parking requirements. As shown in the table below, both restaurant uses currently meet these requirements and will continue to do so with the implementation of the proposed project.
Site
Size (square
feet) Parking Ratio
Required
Parking
Parking
Provided
Surplus /
Deficit
Cocina Del Charro 11,160a 8.5 Parking Spaces /
1,000 square feet
95 98 +3
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-20
Site
Size (square
feet) Parking Ratio
Required
Parking
Parking
Provided
Surplus /
Deficit
Buffalo Wild Wings 5,445 8.5 Parking Spaces /
1,000 square feet
46 49b +3
Notes:
a Cocina Del Charro square footage has been updated from the Old California Restaurant Row Restaurant Parking Analysis , dated August 17, 2023, to accurately represent the building size reflected in the building plans from the 1986 expansion of the Cocina Del Charro site (a copy of these plans is attached as Attachment 3 hereto). b Note there are currently 56 parking spaces within the Buffalo Wild Wings site. The number included within the table accounts for the seven parking spaces that will be removed to accommodate the implementation of the Multi-Way.
The commenter misunderstands the application of legal nonconforming use regula tions. The SMMC defines a nonconforming use as “a use that was legally established and that has been continuously conducted at the same location, but that because of the application of [the zoning ordinance], is no longer authorized at that location ” (SMMC , Section 20.600.160). The City’s nonconforming use regulations “apply to all nonconforming uses and structures, which includes all buildings, structures, land, and land uses that become nonconforming due to reclassification of Zones ” (SMMC, Section
20.345.020). In other words, nonconforming use regulations permit a lawfully established business to continue to operate notwithstanding a change in the law that causes the business to be under-parked or fail to comply with another subsequently adopted developme nt standard. That is not the case for Cocina Del Charro. The reclassification of Cocina Del Charro property from a commercial to MU-1 zone did not cause on-site restaurant uses to become a nonconforming use and did not result in the site becoming nonconforming as to parking requirements. The MU -1 zone requires fewer parking spaces than the prior commercial zoning. Therefore, the application of MU-1 zoning to Cocina Del Charro does not cause it to be nonconforming as to parking.
A property owner/operator cannot insist on the application of outdated regulations to avoid compliance with or analysis of the property under current standards. Cocina Del Charro’s restaurant use conforms to uses pe rmitted in the MU -1 zone and the Mixed Use Parking Requirements set forth in Table 20.340-2 apply to Cocina Del Charro.
O2-4 This comment states Section 20.340.030.C of the SMMC, entitled “Existing Facilities,” provides “Any building or use for which park ing facilities become substandard by the adoption of this chapter shall be considered a nonconforming use. Such nonconforming use may continue, but no enlargement or expansion in such a use or building shall be made unless the required number of parking sp aces or parking area, as designated by this chapter are provided.” In addition, SMMC, Section 20.340.030(F), entitled “Change of Parking Requirements,” provides that “[w]hen parking requirements, as set forth in this chapter, are amended, such amendments shall not invalidate a previously approved permit.” As noted above in Response to Comment O2-2, Cocina Del Charro is not a nonconforming use. SMMC Section 20.430.030(C) refers to uses “for which parking facilities become substandard by the adoption of this chapter.” The application of MU-1 Zoning did not cause Cocina Del Charro’s parking facilities to become substandard. Instead, it reduced the number of parking spaces that Cocina Del Charro is required to have to comply with applicable zoning. I t is unclear why the commenter cites to Section
20.340.030(F), which states zoning amendments that change parking requirements do not invalidate a previously approved permit. The commenter does not indicate that Cocina Del Charro is governed by a previously issued permit.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-21
O2-5 This comment states that SMMC Section 20.340.040 provides the requirements of the City’s parking ordinance “shall be applied uniformly, based on land uses, regardless of the Zone in which a land use is to be located, unless otherwise specified” and that Section 20.340.040 (A) requires each use to provide the minimum number of parking spaces required to Table 20.340-1.
As noted by the commenter, Section 20.340.040 requires parking requirements to be applied uniformly based on land uses across all zones “unless otherwise specified .” As outlined in SMCC Section
20.225.020, the City has separate off-street parking requirements for land uses within Mixed Use Zones, such as the OCRR site . As such, Mixed Use zones are governed by Mixed Use Parking Requirements set out in Table 20.304-2. This qualification— “unless otherwise specified”—also applies to the “Minimum Standards” in Section 20.340.040(A) cited by the commenter. Therefore, the specific parking requirements applicable to Mixed Use zones set forth in Table 20.304 -2 control the general parking provisions the commenter references.
O2-6 This comment states Cocina Del Charro is required to provide 180 parking spaces based on parking requirements for sit down restaurants set forth in SMMC Table 20.340-1. As explained above, Cocina Del Charro is subject to the Mixed Use Parking Requirements set forth in Table 20.340 -2. The Mixed Use Parking Requirements require 8.5 spaces/1,000 square feet for restaurant uses. Therefore, the applicable parking requirement for Cocina Del Charro is as follows:
11,160a ÷ 1,000 x 8.5 = 95
Note:
a Cocina Del Charro square footage has been updated from the Old California Restaurant Row Restaurant Parking Analysis , dated August 17, 2023, to accurately represent the building size reflected in the building plans from the 1986 expansion of the Cocina Del Charro site (a copy of these plans is attached as Attachment 3 hereto).
The Mixed Use Parking Requirements apply within mixed use zones, even if Cocina Del Charro itself is not part of a mixed use project. The MU zone facilitate s and encourages both horizontal and vertical mixed use developments in designated zones and the development of the proposed project will create a mixed use environment within the larger center of which it and Cocina Del Charro are a part, and the center as a whole will function as a mixed use site, particularly since most parcels within the site share public amenities. Even if no mixed use development were proposed, however, the Mixed Use Parking Requirements would apply to the MU zone.
Assuming, arguendo, that 1361 parking spaces are required under the SMMC, as the comment states, the proposed project still does not cause Cocina Del Charro to be in violation of that parking requirement. The remaining OCRR site, not included within the Specific Plan Area, has 154 parking spaces (56 with the vicinity of Buffalo Wild Wings and 98 within the vicinity of Cocina Del Charro), the nonexclusive right to use 54 parking spaces on the adjacent Fish House Vera Cruz property, and access to 1,129 parking spaces in the larger Los Vallecitos De San Marcos site (please see the table below) pursuant to a 1996 Declaration of Reciprocal Easement Agreements recorded on November 7, 1996, as Document No. 1996 -0564623 and modified by First Amendment to Declaration of Reciprocal Easement Agreement recorded on April 19, 1999 , as Doc. No. 1999 -0258087. A copy of these agreements are attached as Attachment 1 to this Responses to Comments document . These
1 Note: The comment cited a requirement of 180 spaces, which is incorrect. Outdoor dining under 25% of indoor space does not require parking spaces (reference SMMC Table 20.340-1). Use the following adjusted calc = 11,160/100 = 111 parking spaces + 25 employee spaces = 136 “non-conforming spaces required.”
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-22
agreements ensure that Cocina Del Charro has access to more than 136 parking spaces if the Table 20.340-1 requirements were to apply. Further, given that only 95 parking spaces are required under the mixed use zoning, Concina del Charro also has access to at least 95 parking spaces as required by Table 20.340-2 requirements apply.
Parcel (APN) Use(s)
Parking
Spaces
2192003000 OCRR Site 100
2192003100
2192004500
2192004600 Cocina Del Charro 98
Buffalo Wild Wings 49a
2192002000 Wells Fargo 25
2192004200 338 Via Vera Cruz Office Building 132
2192004400 Regal Edwards San Marcos 725
2192005200
2192005100 Theater Restaurants
Total 1,129
Note:
a There are currently 56 parking spaces within the Buffalo Wild Wings site. The number included within the table accounts for th e seven parking spaces that will be removed to accommodate the implementation of the Multi-Way.
Further, Cocina Del Charro has sufficient parking on its own premises to satisfy its peak demand. As outlined in the Old California Restaurant Row Restaurant Parking Analysis, dated October 10, 2023, which was included as an attachment to the proposed project’s Specific Plan (Appendix M to the MND), the current parking demand for the three sit down restaurants within the larger Via Los Vallecitos De San Marcos center (Cocina Del Charro, Buffalo Wild Wings, and Fish House Vera Cruz) were observed to be 7. 74 spaces per 1,000 square feet of restaurant space during peak times. 2 Based on the observed parking counts included in the Old California Restaurant Row Restaurant Parking Analysis, dated October 10, 2023, the peak parking demand across all three restaurant sites occurred at 6:00 on a Friday night , with a total demand of 199 spaces for the three restaurants combined . With the implementation of the proposed project, there will still be 229 parking spaces provided for these three site (98 for Cocina Del Charro, 49 for Buffalo Wild Wings, and 82 for Fish House Vera Cruz); therefore, a sufficient number of parking spaces will be maintained to accommodate the peak demand.
More specific to the Cocina Del Charro, The maximum observed parking demand for the parking areas around Cocina Del Charo specifically was 93 spaces (12:00 p.m. on a Sunday afternoon), which is well below the demand for 136 spaces, as the comment indicates, and also below the 95 spaces required by the mixed use zoning . Cocina Del Charro has 98 parking spaces on its site, which is more than adequate parking to serve its peak hour demand for approximately 93 parking spaces on Sunday afternoons and 93 parking spaces on Sundays (please refer to the parking counts included as Attachment 2 to this document).
2 This supports that that the parking ratio outlined in Table 20.340 -2 of the SMMC—8.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of sit down restaurant use—is appropriate for both the Cocina Del Charo and Buffalo Wild Wings locations.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-23
O2-7 This comment states t hat Cocina Del Charro currently has nonexclusive rights to use 822 parking spaces on the Restaurant Row property and 54 parking spaces on the Fish House Vera Cruz property, and that Fish House Vera Cruz has the right to use 36 parking spaces on the Restaurant Row property.
The comment goes on to state the proposed project will remove 829 parking spaces and provide 69 parking spaces for its nonresidential uses. The commenter believes the removal of parking will result in violation of the parking requirements under the SMMC applicable to Cocina Del Charro and have a devastating impact on Cocina Del Charros business.
The comment misrepresents the scope of the parking to be removed by the proposed project.
Specifically, the commenter does not acknowledge that , as detailed in the project description, the proposed project is demolishing 63,484 square feet of commercial use and replacing it with only 10,400 square feet of commercial uses that will park on site. This is also described in the Old California Restaurant Row Restaura nt Parking Analysis, dated October 10 , 2023. The commenter is also mistaken in saying the proposed project is only providing 69 open parking spaces for nonresidential uses; it will provide 100 spaces that will be available to residential guests, retail pat rons, and park users (please refer to the Restaurant Row Specific Plan included as Appendix M to the MND, page 78), and subject to the existing shared use agreements/easements . Cocina Del Charro also fails to recognize that the proposed project will provide 401 mostly garaged parking spaces that are exclusive for use by the proposed 202 residences. The elimination of more than 50,000 square feet of commercial uses and the provision of garage and other exclusive parking for residences will significantly reduce parking demands for the center. The Old California Restaurant Row Restaurant Parking Analysis, dated October 10 , 2023 , demonstrates that th e proposed project will provide sufficient parking for the proposed project without causing any existing users, including Cocina Del Charro, to become deficient with respect to parking.
As noted above, Cocina Del Charo will have access to 1, 129 parking spa ces in the larger center pursuant to a 1996 Declaration of Reciprocal Easement Agreements recorded on November 7, 1996, as Document No. 1996 -0564623 and modified by First Amendment to Declaration of Reciprocal Easement Agreement recorded on April 19, 1999 , as Doc. No. 1999 -0258087. In addition, as the commenter notes, Cocina Del Charro has the nonexclusive right to use 54 parking spaces on the Fish House Vera Cruz property pursuant to a Covenant for Easement recorded July 18, 1989, and recorded as Document No. 89-378260, though Fish House Vera Cruz also has a nonexclusive right to use 36 parking spaces on the Restaurant Row property pursuant to an Easement Agreement dated July 21, 1989, and recorded as Document No. 90-050972 (see Attachment 1.) Cocina Del Charro also has 98 on-site parking spaces, which should be more than sufficient to support the restaurant’s busiest hours, especially considering the abundance of other nearby parking that patrons can utilize under shared parking agreements.
The elimination of parking at the proposed project site will not cause Cocina Del Charro to be in violation of SMMC requirements for the reasons stated in Response to Comment O2-6.
O2-8 This comment notes that the proposed project is not providing new parking in proximity to commercial uses on the east side of the project and that providing only 69 parking spaces and relying on existing parking erodes the available parking spaces for patrons of Cocina Del Charro and violates the parking requirements applicable to Cocina Del Charro. The commenter also states the 69 parking spaces added for nonresidential uses are not convenient for patrons of Cocina Del Charro, particularly on Sunday, which is the restaurant’s busiest day when such spaces will likely be used by persons using the park facilities.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-24
Similarly, the removal of parking will not cause Fish House Vera Cruz to be in violation of SMMC parking requirements. Fish House Vera Cruz is also subject to MU-1 zoning and therefore requires 8.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Fish House Vera Cruz’s building is 9,100 square feet and thus requires 77 parking spaces to comply with SMMC requirements (9,100 ÷ 1,000 x 8.5). Fish House Vera Cruz has 83 parking spaces on its parcel and therefore can satisfy parking requirements without reliance upon shared parking agreements, though 36 additional parking spaces through the aforementioned Easement Agreement are available. As addressed in Response to Comment O2-1, neither the reduction in parking spaces that Cocina Del Charro believes will occur as result of the project, nor any purported inconsistencies with SMMC parking regulations that have been superseded by reduced (and less impactful) parking ratios are environmental issues for purposes of CEQA.
Old California Restaurant Row Restaurant Parking Analysis, dated October 10, 2023, demonstrates the proposed project will provide sufficient parking for the proposed project, including the park. This will include 100 open parking spaces available to park patrons, commercial users of the proposed project and Cocina Del Charro, and 401 parking spaces for exclusive use by residents of the proposed project.
These parking spaces, in addition to the hundreds of other parking spaces available in the center t o Cocina Del Charro, ensures adequate parking, even on a busy Sunday, for the restaurant. Pursuant to the Old California Restaurant Row Restaurant Parking Analysis, dated October 10, 2023, by Intersecting Metrics, parking counts taken on Sunday September 24, 2023 revealed that peak parking demand for Cocina Del Charro occurs at noon, where 93 parking spaces were observed to be occupied (see Attachment 2.) As Cocina Del Charro has 95 parking spaces on site, it can satisfy this peak demand without relying on off -site parking. Nevertheless, there is an abundance of nearby parking available pursuant to the above-described easement agreements in easy walking distance for most Cocina Del Charro patrons, as shown in the figure below.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-25
The figure above displays the number of public parking spaces within walking distance of the Cocina Del Charo site.
O2-9 This comment states the proposed redevelopment will violate a lease provision requiring Cocina Del Charro’s landlord to maintain parking sufficient to meet governmental requirements.
The lease between Cocina Del Charro and its landlord is a private agreement that does not concern an environmental impact requiring a response under CEQA. As discussed in Response to Comment O2-6, the proposed project will not cause Cocina Del Charro to be in violation of the City’s parking requirements. The SMMC requires the two existing restaurants remaining on the OCRR site (Condina Del Charro and Buffalo Wild Wings) to provide a ratio of 8.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet, resulting in a parking requirement of 141 parking spaces [8.5 X (11,160+5,445)/1,000]. Thus, the parking requirement will be maintained based on the existing 147 parking spaces on site and the public spaces that will be provided within the larger center pursuant to parking agreements. As indicated in Response to Comment O2-6, Cocina Del Charro will have access to 1,129 public parking spaces within the larger center with the implementation of the proposed project. Finally, the re are currently six accessible parking spaces located within the portion of the OCRR site that is outside of the Specific Plan Area (four spaces adjacent to Cocina Del Charro and two spaces near Buffalo Wild Wings), which is consistent the
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-26
ADA requirement3 of 6 accessible spaces for parking lots with 151 to 200 total spaces total spaces.
Additionally, three of the six accessible spaces are accessible to vans, which is above the ADA requirement of one van space for every six accessible spaces. Thus, the portion of the OCRR site not included in the specific plan area , will remain compliant with the City’s parking requirements , as well as ADA parking requirements, after development of the proposed project.
O2-10 This comment is a summary stating the proposed project violates parking requirements applicable to the commercial nonconforming prior use of Cocina Del Charro and will result in significant damages to the restaurant.
For the reasons described above, the proposed project will not cause Cocina Del Charro to violate City parking requirements. Further, Cocina Del Charro is not a “nonconforming use ,” as explained in Response to Comment O2-3. Nonconforming uses do not operate in a way that allows one to insist on the application of outdated regulations that they may prefer to avoid evaluation under currently applicable regulations that a property can comply with. Finally, these issues ar e not considered environmental impacts under CEQA.
O2-11 This comment requests continuing dialog with the City during the proposed project review process and reserves the right to submit additional comments on specific provisions of the MND and Specific Plan.
Comment noted.
3 https://adata.org/factsheet/parking.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-27
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-28
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-29
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-30
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-31
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-32
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-33
Response to Comment Letter O3
Organization
Charro Rancho Bernardo, Inc.
(John J. Abbene)
September 1 9, 2023
O3-1 This is an introductory comment that refers to comment letter O2, included and responded to, above.
Further, this comment introduces that this comment letter raises specific deficiencies with the MND.
The specific issues raised in the letter are addressed in the responses below.
O3-2 The commentor notes the number of existing parking space s that will be redeveloped within the proposed project site, as well as the number of open public parking spaces that will be provided within the Old California Restaurant Row (OCRR) site with the implementation of the proposed project.
However, the comment incorrectly states that only 69 spaces will be available to the public. As shown in Section 5.5 of the Specific Plan, 100 parking spaces will be available and open to the public with the implementation of the project. The 31 open bay parking spaces identified to accommodate residential guest parking will not be reserved and will be open to any user within the proposed project site or the other parcels that are part of the 1996 Declaration of Reciprocal Easement Agreements recorded on November 7, 1996, as Document No. 1996-0564623; the modified by First Amendment to Declaration of Reciprocal Easement Agreement recorded on A pril 19, 1999 , as Doc. No. 1999 -0258087; and Easement Agreement recorded on January 30, 1990 , as Document Number 90 -050972 (a copy of these agreements are attached as Attachment 1 hereto). See also Response to Comment O2 -1 regarding why parking-related impacts are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
O3-3 The commenter states that because Cocina Del Charro is a nonconforming use, the parcel is not a mixed use parcel , and the mixed use parking requirements do not apply. Please see Response to Comment O2-3 and O2-4 regarding why Cocina Del Charro is not a legal nonconforming use. See also Response to Comment O2-6 regarding observed peak parking demand at the Cocina Del Charo site.
O3-4 The commenter states their opinion that the Old California Restaurant Row Restaurant Parking Analysis, dated August 17, 2023, included as an attachment in the Specific Plan is deficient for several reasons.
Responses to Comments O3-5 through O3-15 below address their direct comments on the memo.
O3-5 The commenter questions footnote 3 on page 6 of the Old California Restaurant Row Restaurant Parking Analysis, dated August 17, 2023 , and states that it erroneously ignores SMMC Section
20.340.040(A). As explained in Response to Comment O2 -5, SMMC Section 20.340.040 requires parking requirements to be applied uniformly based on land uses across all zones “unless otherwise specified.” Section 20.225.020 of the SMMC specifies that Mixed Use zones are governed by Mixed Use Parking Requirements set out in Table 20.304-2. The statement included in footnote 3 of page 6 of Old California Restaurant Row Restaurant Parking Analysis, dated August 17, 2023, appended to the Specific Plan, is correct.
O3-6 The comment states that the Old California Restaurant Row Restaurant Parking Analysis, dated August 17, 2023, ignores the fact that Cocina del Charo is a nonconforming use. As noted in Response to Comments O2-3, O2-4, and O3-5, Cocina Del Charo is not a nonconforming use. It is located within an MU-1 Zone; thus, the City applies the Mixed Use Parking Requirements, set forth in Table 20.340-2 of
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-34
the SMMC. Based on the correct requirements for their zoning, both Cocina Del Charro and Buffalo Wild Wings currently provide more parking than what is required within their respective sites, as shown in the table below:
Site
Size ( square
feet ) Parking Ratio
Required
Parking
Parking
Provided
Surplus /
Deficit
Cocina Del Charro 11,160a 8.5 Parking Spaces /
1,000 square feet
95 98 +3
Buffalo Wild Wings 5,445 8.5 Parking Spaces /
1,000 square feet
46 49b +3
Notes:
a Cocina Del Charro square footage has been updated from the Old California Restaurant Row Restaurant Parking Analysis , dated August 17, 2023, to accurately represent the building size reflected in the building plans from the 1986 expansion of the Cocina Del Charro site (a copy of these Plans is attached as Attachment 3 hereto). b Note there are currently 56 parking spaces within the Buffalo Wild Wings site. The number included within the table accounts for the seven parking spaces that will be removed to accommodate the implementation of the Multi-Way.
O3-7 This comment notes that private easement agreements provide Cocina Del Charro patrons with the right to use 56 parking spaces on the Fish House Vera Cruz site and give Fish House Vera Cruz the right to use 36 parking space s on the Restaurant Row property. Purported inconsistencies with private agreements is not a potential environmental impact for purposes of CEQA. Regardless, the project will maintain 100 open parking spaces within the OCRR site , and Fish House Vera Cruz w ill have the continued right to use 36 of the open parking spaces included on the proposed project site, on a nonexclusive basis, consistent with the terms of the Fish House Vera Cruz 36 Space Parking Easement Agreement. Importantly, the agreement does not require that 36 parking spaces be reserved exclusively for any specific party; nor does it guarantee that the spaces will be unoccupied at any time.
Please see Response to Comment O2-7 for additional information responsive to this comment.
It should also be noted that the Fish House Vera Cruz site also falls within the MU -1 zoning and the parking requirements outlined in SMMC Table 20.340-2 are applicable, not those that may have been in effect when the easement agreements were entered into. As shown in th e table below, Fish House Vera Cruz provides sufficient parking on site to meet the SMMC requirements:
Site
Size
(square
feet ) Parking Ratio
Required
Parking
Parking
Provided
Surplus /
Deficit
Fish House Vera Cruz 9,100 8.5 Parking Spaces /
1,000 square feet
78 82 +4
O3-8 This comment states that the placement of new restaurants and retail next to the new park and Cocina Del Charro will severely impact the parking for existing restaurants. T he commenter states that the developer is not providing any new parking in proximity to the new commercial uses on the east side of the project, but rather relying on the existing parking. The commenter provides the opinion that the commercial locations are better suited facing San Marcos Boulevard per mixed use guidance.
The location of the proposed 2,600-square-foot commercial node adjacent to the park was sited to create a synergy with the proposed public park area and existing commercial uses to the east. The
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-35
proposed commercial location was supported through community outreach, specifically the pickleball community who confirmed support of the commercial use in this area. Additionally, the placement feeds into the integration of the viewing deck over to the park as part of the aesthetic experience for the planning area. Regarding parking in proximity to the proposed commercial uses, please refer to Responses to Comments O3-5 through O3-7.
O3-9 The commentor states their opinion that the data that the Old California Restaurant Row Restaurant Parking Analysis, dated August 17, 2023, is insufficient and based on count dates that were randomly chosen. Responses to Comments O3-10 through O3-15 address their direct comments on the parking data that was collected.
O3-10 The commentor notes that a sampling of evening parking demand on Friday and Saturday may not necessarily represent the peak parking demand of restaurants and that th ere are week -to-week fluctuations in their business. It should be noted that additional parking counts were conducted on a Sunday, which have no w been included in the Old California Restaurant Row Restaurant Parking Analysis, dated October 10, 2023. It should be noted that the Sunday counts were taken during the NFL season, which is one of the busier times for Buffalo Wild Wings. Conducting 3 days of count data is common and widely accepted in the urban planning and transportation industries. An example of this is Quality Restaurant (Land Use: 931) Parking observations included in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual, January 2019 (attached herein). The analyses included within this manual are accepted widely throughout the transportation and planning industries; however, the analysis of the Quality Restaurant uses are only represented by 1 to 3 days of count data, as indicated within the data plot for each sheet.
The data used within the ITE Parking Generation Manual is collected from locations throughout the country and does not always represent the uses within urban and mixed use nature. Thus, to gain a better understanding of the localized restaurant parking demand, sample parking counts was collected for the three restaurants adjacent to the proposed project site (Cocina Del Charro, Buffalo Wild Wings, and Fish House Vera Cruz). As identified within the ITE Parking Manual (Attachment 5) , quality restaurants were observed to experience their peak parking demand on Saturday nights between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., which is how the scope of the localized analysis was determined.
The comment also notes that Cocina Del Charro’s business can fluctuate by 20 -25% based on the season, noting that December and May are their busiest months of the year. To help account for the fluctuations of a single business, Fish House Vera Cruz and Buffalo Wild Wings were also included in the sampling of counts to better account for any fluctuation in individual business. As such, the study utilized three points of reference. It also bears noting that there are more than 1, 129 parking spaces available to patrons of Cocina Del Charro in the larger center of which it is a part pursuant to various parking agreements, as further detailed in Response to Comment O2-9. This additional parking should be more than sufficient to meeting Cocina Del Charro’s busier seasons.
Finally, it should be noted that the Old California Restaurant Row Restaurant Parking Analysis was only used to determine the parking requirements for restaurants greater than 2,000 square feet in size for the Specific Plan area and was not used to determine the parking requirements for Cocina Del Charro or the other adjacent restaurant uses. As such, the specific business operations and peak times of Cocina Del Charro are not necessarily relevant to the study. Since the proposed project includes a Specific Plan, project -specific parking requirements based on the unique mix of uses and site
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-36
circumstances applicable to the project, whic h are specifically tailored to fit the project rather than using the general citywide parking requirements outlined in the SMMC. Thus, the Old California Restaurant Row Restaurant Parking Analysis was intended only to provide guidance and support the parking requirements for the Specific Plan area.
O3-11 This comment requests specificity about how the numbers provided above were determined. Please see Response to Comment O3-10. Additionally, as noted in the second paragraph of the Old California Restaurant Row Restaurant Parking Analysis dated October 10, 2023, the parking demand numbers were determined based on hourly parking occupancy counts that were conducted for all sites during peak times (between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.), on Friday April 28, 2023, and Saturday April 29, 2023., as well as between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Sunday September 24, 2023. The peak parking demand observed from these counts were then divided by the total square footage of each restaurant that was included within the study. This calculation determined the peak parking demand per 1,000 square feet of restaurant use, as outlined in Table 2 of that study.
O3-12 This comment requests the extrapolation and use of the numbers identified in Responses to Comments O3-10 and O3-11 above as a basis for changing the MU-1 required parking in the development itself.
In response, as noted in Response to Comment O3-10, since the proposed project includes a Specific Plan, it has established project-specific parking requirements that are tailored specifically to the proposed project, rather than relying on general, citywide parking standards outlined elsewhere in the SMMC. Specific plans provide for efficient land planning for a proposed project. The information and analysis included in the Old California Restaurant Row Restaurant Parking Analysis, Dated October 10, 2023, is not being used to change the MU-1 parking requirements; rather, it is being used to provide guidance for the parking requirements for restaurants greater than 2,000 square feet in size, within the Specific Plan area. The total commercial area is divided among six commercial spaces, which range between 1,140 square feet and 2,111 square feet in size. The limited size of each space makes the development of a “traditional sit -down restaurant” not feasible which is why a supplemental parking rate was used . As noted in the Old California Restaurant Row Restaurant Parking Analysis, dated October 10, 2023, the peak parking demand for Cocina Del Charro, Buffalo Wild Wings and Fish House Vera Cruz are all consis tent with the proposed 7.5 spaces per 1,000 sq uare feet proposed by the specific plan.
O3-13 The commentor notes that the parking analysis does not account for Sundays , which is Cocina Del Charro’s busiest day . Pursuant to the Letter Report dated September 2023 by Intersecting Metrics, parking counts were taken on Sunday September 24, 2023, which revealed that peak parking demand for Cocina del Charro occurs at noon on Sunday when 93 parking spaces were occupied ( see Attachment 2). Cocina del Charro has 98 parking spaces within its vicinity; thus, it can satisfy this peak demand without relying on off -site parking, such as the 25 parking spaces within the adjacent Wells Fargo site, which is closed on Sundays, and is allowed through Document No. 1996-0564623. Further, as noted in Response to Comment O3-10, Fish House Vera Cruz and Buffalo Wild Wings were also included in the sampling of counts to better account for any fluctuation in individual business.
Additionally, it should be noted that the parking standards developed in the Old California Restaurant Row Restaurant Parking Analysis, dated October 10, 2023, are only being applied to the uses within the Specific Plan area, and would not be applied Cocina Del Charro, which is subject the MU-1 parking requirements. Finally, as further detailed in Response to Comment O2-9, there are more than 1,135
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-37
parking spaces available to patrons of Cocina Del Charro pursuant to various parking agreements. This additional parking should be more than sufficient to meet Cocina Del Charro’s busy Sunday business.
The commentor also notes that the Old California Restaurant Row Restaurant Parking Analysis, dated August 17, 2023, does not account for employee parking. The parking observation counts that were conducted for the Old California Restaurant Row Restaurant Parking Analysis counted all occupied parking spaces within the area ; as such, the occupancy counts would capture any employee parking demand. Therefore, the current employee parking demand was accounted for in the analysis.
Finally, the commentor notes that they observed 70 vehicles parking within the OCRR site at 7:40 p.m. on Sunday September 9, 2023. The restaurant uses within the OCRR site are still operational and still generate parking demand within the site. Therefore, the demand would be associated with the currently operating restaurant uses within the OCRR site. Per the property manager, current operating tenants include Ascend Coffee , IHOP, King and I , Cocina Del Charro , and Buffalo Wild Wings . It is our understanding that Old California Mining Company is closing at the end of September 2023, and will be fully moved out by the end of October 2023. It is also our understanding that 55 Yard Line has closed.
O3-14 The commenter states that the City has developed mixed use zoning requirements and the developer should be required to comply with the City’s existing mixed use parking requirements. In response, the City’s mixed use zoning sets forth parking requirements on a Citywide, generally applicable basis.
Specific Plans provide for the establishment of zoning standards that are tailored specifically to a proposed project’s limited sizes of commercial tenant spaces. In crafting the parking requirements for the Restaurant Row Specific Plan Area , consideration was given to the nature and mix of residential and commercial uses included in the proposed project, existing parking demands for surrounding businesses, and the project’s proximity to transit and other local con siderations. The City is not abandoning or ignoring its general mixed use requirements, but rather, would be adopting the proposed Specific Plan to establish requirements for the site.
O3-15 The commentor states their opinion that the conclusions of the Old California Restaurant Row Parking Analysis, August 17, 20234 are false. Please see Responses to Comments O3-1 through O3-14 above.
The comment does not raise any specific issues related to the adequacy of the MND.
O3-16 This comment states the MND is not sufficient to study parking issues associated with the proposed project and that an environmental impact report should be prepared to better assess the impacts of the project. As noted above in Response to Comment O2 -1, parking impacts are not considered an environmental impact under CEQA. Only inconsistencies with land use regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect are relevant for CEQA purposes. (See CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Section XI(b).) Please see Responses to Comments O2-1 through O3-15 above.
4 Note: This memo has been updated since the time in which this comment was made; the date of the most current version of the memo is October 10, 2023.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-38
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-39
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-40
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-41
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-42
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-43
Response to Comment Letter O4
Organization
Radiant Holdings
September 19, 2023
O4-1 This comment is an introduction by Radiant Holdings. The City acknowledges the comment as an introduction to comments that follow. The comment does not raise any specific issues related to the adequacy of the MND.
O4-2 This comment questions whether the project’s zoning changes from light industrial to residential will result in impacts on surrounding light industrial area . However, the comment does not clarify what specific types of impacts it is concerned with, and thus no further response is possible. As noted throughout the MND, all potentially significant impacts will be adequately mitigated to less -than- significant levels.
Allowable noise generation within residential zone districts is more restrictive than within industrial zones, and therefore the p roposed residential rezone would not be anticipated to increase ambient exterior noise levels within the adjoining commercial or industrial zones. Because industrial activities and processes are required to be conducted inside structures, important industrial noise sources would be limited to exterior components of heating ventilation and air conditioning systems for climate control and vehicular movements within surface parking lots. Thus, noise levels from office buildings, restaurants, and industrial bui ldings adjacent to the project site would be similar and have been measured at the project site boundary to be only slightly greater than the recommended exterior noise exposure for residences of 65 A-weighted decibels (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Leve l (CNEL).
Solid fencing or masonry block walls (landscape walls) 6 feet tall would be sufficient to protect yard areas along the project perimeter from noise exposure levels that exceed the exterior standard.
O4-3 This comment questions whether barriers and mitigation proposed as part of the project will adequately address potential impacts (including noise, aesthetic, and odor impacts) of existing light industrial uses on the future residents of the project. However, CEQA is generally not concerned with th e impacts of the existing environment on a project or its future users. CEQA is generally only concerned with the potential for a proposed project to impact the existing environment.
Nonetheless, as outlined in Section 2.1 of the MND, impacts related to a esthetics/visual character were determined to be less than significant. As outlined in Section 2.3 of the MND, potential odors produced during construction would be attributable to concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons from tailpipes of construction equipment, architectural coatings, and asphalt pavement application, which would disperse rapidly from the project site and generally occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people. In addition, the project would not i nclude land-use types that would generate odors during operation , and impacts related to air quality were determined to be less than significant. Finally, as addressed in Section 2.13 of the MND, the proposed 6-foot-high fencing or walls would protect yard areas from noise exposure levels that exceed the standards. The residential building exterior wall assembly would effectively reduce (attenuate) exterior noise levels to comply with the interior standard, even within the upper floors of the buildings (the ground-level fencing or landscape walls would not be required to reduce noise levels at the second-floor building façades facing adjacent
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-44
roadway, parking lot, or building HVAC systems). Therefore, all potential impacts associated with noise, visual and odor would be less than significant.
O4-4 This comment expresses concerns for the project design features (PDF) for the proposed project that would help address noise attenuation. The proposed perimeter fencing, or landscape walls are intended for noise at tenuation; however, the final design of such features can be refined to achieve access control requirements. Solid wood fencing (with overlapping boards), concrete masonry unit block wall, vinyl, or other solid materials would be appropriate for noise attenuation. As outlined under PDF-9 in the MND, for residences with a yard area that lies adjacent to the southern, eastern, northern, or northwestern project site boundary, a 6 -foot-high concrete block/CMU sound attenuation wall, or equivalent, would be provided along the yard/project site boundary in order to ensure exterior noise levels from roadway traffic and adjacent commercial uses does not exceed 65 A -weighted decibels (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) in these yard areas . However, as noted above, CEQA is generally not concerned with the impacts of the existing environment on a project or its future users, but only the potential for a proposed project to impact the existing environment.
O4-5 This comment provides PDF-9 from the MND. The City acknowledges the comment as an introduction to comments that follow (O4-6 through O4-8). The comment does not raise any specific issues related to the adequacy of the MND.
O4-6 This comment expresses concern that the western portion of the project boundary is not called out explicitly in PDF-9 of the MND. Yards that are along the project site perimeter and adjacent to roadway, commercial uses, or industrial uses should each be protected with the identified 6-foot-tall fencing or landscape wall. For clarity, “northwestern” has been added to the other noted project site boundaries (i.e., “For residences with yard area that lies adjacent to the southern, eastern, northern, or northwestern project site boundary…” as part of the Final MND.
O4-7 This comment expresses concern that the proposed fence or landscape wall would not adequately prevent access to the existing drainage culvert. A landscape wall refers to any feature that is included in a landscaped area, to distinguish it from structural walls of the on -site buildings. Landscape wall does not imply a wall covered with landscape materials, and in practice is typically a concrete masonry unit block or other masonry material. Therefore, a fence or landscape wall should be equally effective in preventing unwanted access to the drainage culvert.
O4-8 This comment expresses concern that the impacts from implementation of PDF -9 have not been addressed in the MND. The commenter is specifically concerned with culvert access, light odors, and views. The proposed 6-foot height concrete block/CMU sound attenuation wall, or equivalent would block the view from project yard areas to minor activities allowed to be conducted outdoors in the industrial zone. Additionally, the landscape wall would prevent culvert access as described in Response to Comment O4-7. Industrial zone district design standards would be relied upon to avoid odor and lighting impacts to adjacent commercial and residential areas.
O4-9 This comment expresses concern over the proximity between the townhomes and the adjacent light industrial uses to the west. Composite ambient noise levels from commercial buildings, industrial buildings, and parking lot activities were measu red at ambient noise measurement locations (specifically ST3, refer to Figure 4 of Appendix H to the MND) and compare favorably to noise levels associated with commercial office centers and industrial parks. The 7 feet of separation distance for
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-45
future homes along the northwestern boundary is from the edge of a yard or patio to a surface parking lot for the industrial use; primary noise from the industrial uses is associated with building HVAC systems; the closest industrial building to the mentioned proper ty line is at a distance of 45 feet. For residences with yard area that lies adjacent to the southern, eastern, northern, or northwestern project site boundary, a 6 -foot-high concrete block/CMU sound attenuation wall, or equivalent would be provided along the yard/project site boundary in order to ensure exterior noise levels from roadway traffic and adjacent commercial uses does not exceed 65 dBA CNEL in these yard areas.
O4-10 This comment raises the concern that the MND does not discuss impacts of the pr oposed barrier to the existing culvert drain. As indicated in earlier responses (O4-7 and O4-8), perimeter fences or walls could be refined to restrict access of residents to the drain channel, as necessary.
O4-11 This comment states that no Section A view is provided in the MND’s Figure 4, Conceptual Landscape Plan. In response, it is unclear what the commenter is requesting as part of the Conceptual Landscape Plan figure. The comment does not raise any specific issues related to the adequacy of the MND.
O4-12 This comment refers to sound location ST3 in Figure 3 of Appendix H of the MND, and asked if ST3 was to be representative of the entire interface between industrial and residential zoning. The sound level measurement at ST3 was intended to capture co ntributions from nearby commercial buildings, industrial buildings, and vehicle maneuvers in the parking area. The sound levels measures here are considered representative for the combined noise sources present in the commercial and industrial areas surrounding the project site.
O4-13 This comment expresses concern over vehicle noise from a nearby church property on Sunday mornings.
Vehicle trips and parking lot maneuvers for peak church attendance on a Sunday morning would not be any greater than those associated with commercial office buildings, industrial buildings, and restaurants at the time of the measurements on a Friday morning. Also, industrial activities are restricted to the interior of structures, and therefore the composite noise levels from commercial and industrial buildings proximate to ST3 are considered representative for the interface between industrial uses to the west and northwest and adjacent areas within the project site proposed for future residences.
O4-14 This comment provides a quo te from Appendix M of the MND, specifically text from the subsection “Exterior Noise Exposure Levels From Adjacent Commercial Land Uses .” The City acknowledges the comment as an introduction to comments that follow (O4-15 and O4-16).
O4-15 This comment states that the exterior noise limit should be held at 65 dBA CNEL. As outlined in PDF-9 and Section 2.13 of the MND, t he proposed solid fencing or landscape walls between yards at the project perimeter and adjacent commercial, industrial, or roadway noise s ources would achieve compliance with the 65 dBA CNEL exterior standard.
O4-16 This comment states that the limit of 65 dBA CNEL should be applied to the western portion of the site, and that specific text should be added to ensure the boundary wall is adequately defined. The addition of “northwest” to the perimeter fencing /landscape wall PDF would be sufficient and has been included as part of the Final MND.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-46
O4-17 This comment provides a quote from Section 6, Mitigation Measures, from the project’s Noise Study (Appendix H to the MND) . The City acknowledges the comment as an introduction to comments that follow (O4-18 and O4-19).
O4-18 This comment expresses concern that the western portion of the project boundary is not called out explicitly. For clarity, “northwestern” has been added to the other noted project site boundaries (i.e., For residences with yard area that lies adjacent to t he southern, eastern, northern, or northwestern project site boundary…) as part of the Final MND.
O4-19 This comment expresses concern that the residential uses are taller than the noise barrier. As stated in earlier responses (O4-3, O4-6, O4-8, and O4-9), the proposed 6 -foot-high fencing or walls would protect yard areas from noise exposure levels that exceed the standards. The residential building exterior wall assembly would effectively reduce (attenuate) exterior noise levels to comply with the interior standard, even within the upper floors of the buildings (the ground -level fencing or landscape walls would not be required to reduce noise levels at the second-floor building façades facing adjacent roadway, parking lot, or building HVAC systems).
O4-20 This comment serves as a conclusion to the comment letter and summarizes concerns over the proposed zone change. Allowable noise generation within residential zone districts is more restrictive than within industrial zones, and therefore the proposed residential rezone would not be anticipated to increase ambient exterior noise levels within the adjoining commercial or industrial zones.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-47
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-48
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-49
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-50
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-51
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-52
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-53
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-54
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-55
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-56
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-57
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-58
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-59
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-60
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-61
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-62
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-63
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-64
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-65
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-66
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-67
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-68
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-69
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-70
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-71
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-72
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-73
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-74
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-75
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-76
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-77
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-78
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-79
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-80
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-81
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-82
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-83
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-84
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-85
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-86
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-87
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-88
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-89
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-90
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-91
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-92
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-93
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-94
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-95
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-96
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-97
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-98
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-99
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-100
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-101
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-102
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-103
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-104
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-105
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-106
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-107
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-108
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-109
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-110
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-111
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-112
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-113
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-114
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-115
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-116
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-117
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-118
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-119
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-120
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-121
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-122
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-123
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-124
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-125
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-126
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-127
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-128
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-129
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-130
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-131
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-132
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-133
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-134
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-135
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-136
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-137
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-138
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-139
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-140
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-141
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-142
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-143
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-144
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-145
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-146
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-147
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-148
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-149
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-150
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-151
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-152
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-153
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-154
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-155
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-156
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-157
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-158
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-159
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-160
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-161
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-162
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-163
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-164
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-165
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-166
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-167
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-168
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-169
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-170
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-171
Response to Comment Letter O5
Organization
Fish House Vera Cruz
(Withers Bergman LLP)
September 20, 2023
O5-1 This comment is an introduction by Fish House Vera Cruz (FHVC). The City acknowledges the introduction to comments that follow.
O5-2 The comment states that the project would violate the terms of the “1990 Easement” between the project Applicant and FHVC . The “1990 Easement” is not described, but the City believes the commenter is referring to an easement agreement between two private property owners that was recorded as Document No. 90-050972 and permits the patrons of FHVC a nonexclusive easement to use 36 parking spaces on the project site. This easement agreement does not raise any environmental issues for purposes of CEQA.
O5-3 The comment states that the project would result in a parking deficit. As noted in Response to Comment O2-1, CEQA generally does not consider the adequacy of a project’s parking or “impacts” to parking to be an enviro nmental impact, unless it will result in significant secondary effects on the physical environment. Reductions in parking is considered a social impact, and not an environmental impact, for purposes of CEQA. The project is consistent with the City’s parking requirements. See Response to Comment O5-8, below.
O5-4 The comment states that the MND miscalculates the amount of parking supply required for the park, pickleball, and restaurant uses. See Response to Comments O2-1, O2-3, and O5-5 through O5-17 for more information responsive to this comment.
O5-5 The comment states the MND’s vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impact analysis is flawed. Please refer to Response to Comments O5-18 through O5-20 in which these concerns are addressed in detail.
O5-6 The comment states that the VMT impact analysis should have analyzed the project under a mixed use impact threshold. Please refer to Response to Comment O5-21 in which this concern is addressed.
O5-7 This comment refers to private parking agreements between the owners of the FHVC property and the proposed project site providing for the nonexclusive right to share parking on one another’s parcels.
The private parking agreements between property owners is not a City concern nor a CEQA concern , and parking generally is not a CEQA issue. The City is aware, however, that the project property has the nonexclusive right to use 54 parking spaces on the FHVC property pursuant to a Covenant for Easement recorded July 18, 1989 , and recorded as Document No. 89 -378260. FHVC also has a nonexclusive right to use 36 parking spaces on the proposed project property pursuant to an Easement Agreement dated January 30, 1990, and recorded as Document No. 90-050972. (Full copies of these easements are included as Attachment 1 to this Responses to Comments document.) Neither of these agreements requires that parking spaces be set aside for the exclusive use of the grantee , nor do they guarantee that a specified number of parking spaces be available to the grantee at all times. The easements do not add to the number of parking spaces that the grantor property is otherwise required to provide under City regulations. Instead, the easement agreements provide that the parking spaces will be
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-172
shared by the grantor and grantee on a nonexclu sive basis. The proposed project is being designed with 100 open parking spaces , and FHVC will have the nonexclusive right to use 36 of these parking spaces pursuant to its easement agreement.
It should also be noted that FHVC has sufficient parking on its property to satisfy City parking requirements without use of parking on the project site. FHVC is subject to MU-1 zoning which requires
8.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. FHVC’s building is 9,100 square feet and requires only 77 parking spaces to comply wi th San Marcos Municipal Code (SMMC) requirements (9,100 ÷ 1,000 x 8.5) (SMMC, Table 20.340 -2). FHVC has 83 parking spaces on its parcel and can satisfy parking requirements without reliance upon the shared parking agreements.
Finally, as described in the MND and in the Old California Restaurant Row Restaurant Parking Analysis dated October 10, 2023, attached to the Specific Plan (Appendix M to the MND), the proposed project will provide sufficient parking on site to satisfy the project’s parking demands. Pa rk visitors would be expected to use the parking that will be located immediately adjacent to the proposed park due to its closer proximity than parking on FHVC property.
O5-8 This comment questions whether the proposed project will provide sufficient parking to serve the project and satisfy its parking obligations with adjacent owners. See Response to Comment O5-7 for a general response to this concern.
The commentor notes that the project will only provide 24 parking spaces to satisfy its obligations with adjacent property owners. It should be noted that a total of 100 parking spaces will be available and open to the public with the implementation of the project. The 31 open bay parking spaces identified to accommodate residential guest parking will not be reserved and will be open to any user within the project site and FHVC patrons. It should be noted these agreements only permit adjacent owners to use the parking spaces on the Old California Restaurant Row ( OCRR) property but does not req uire OCRR to reserve any number of spaces for the use of the other party, nor does it guarantee that the spaces will be unoccupied at any time, nor does it add to the number of parking spaces that OCRR is otherwise required to provide to comply with City regulations.
The commentor also claims that without adequate parking to serve existing adjacent uses it will result in vehicles searching for non-existent parking in the affected area and could result in significant impacts to transportation and air quality, among others, and requires further analysis. As shown in the table below, the adjacent restaurant uses currently provide sufficient parking on site based on the SMMC.
Site
Size ( square
feet ) Parking Ratio a
Required
Parking
Parking
Provided
Surplus /
Def icit
Cocina Del Charro 11,160b 8.5 Parking Spaces /
1,000 square feet
95 98 +3
Buffalo Wild Wings 5,445 8.5 Parking Spaces /
1,000 square feet
46 49c +3
Fish House Vera Cruz 9,100 8.5 Parking Spaces /
1,000 square feet
78 82 +4
Notes:
a These sites are located within an MU-1 Zone, thus the parking requirements from Table 20.340-2 of the SMMC are applied.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-173
b Cocina Del Charro square footage has been updated from the Old California Restaurant Row Restaurant Parking Analysis, dated August 17, 2023, to accurately represent the building size reflected in the building plans from the 1986 expansion of the Cocina Del Charro site (a copy of these plans is attached as Attachment 3 hereto).
Note there are currently 56 parking spaces on the Buffalo Wild Wings site. The number included in the table accounts for the seven parking spaces that will be removed to accommodate the implementation of the Multi-Way as part of the proposed project.
Finally, it should be noted that the owners, tenants, and occupants of the proposed project site, Buffalo Wild Wings, and Cocina Del Charro also have the right to use 1,135 parking spaces in the larger center that the project is a part of pursuant to the terms of a 1996 Declaration of Reciprocal Ease ment Agreements recorded on November 7, 1996, as Document No. 1996-0564623; the modified by First Amendment to Declaration of Reciprocal Easement Agreement recorded on April 19, 1999, as Doc. No. 1999-0258087; and the Easement Agreement recorded on January 30, 1990, as Document Number 90-050972. See Response to Comment O2-6 for a discussion of these parking rights.
Based on the foregoing explaining that (1) the proposed project will provide sufficient parking to serve its parking demands on site, (2) all o f the surrounding restaurants have sufficient parking to satisfy their parking requirements on their own parcels, and ( 3) project patrons will have access to an additional 1,135 parking spaces within the larger shopping center, substantial evidence demonstrates the project will not result in a parking deficiency for the project or FHVC. No further analysis of transportation, air quality , or other impacts associated with the “search of non -existent parking” is warranted as the comment suggests.
O5-9 The comment notes that the project will consist of a 1.1 -acre park then lists the features that will be included within the park. The comment notes that the City selected a parking requirement of 9 spaces per 1 acre of park use. As part of the proposed pro ject’s specific plan, it has developed customized parking requirements tailored to the specific features, surrounding environment, and uses proposed to arrive at its parking standards. Additionally, the SMMC notes that the parking requirements for Public Park/Open Space/Recreation are to be determined during Site Development Plan or Conditional Use Permit review process and do not prescribe a specific rate be used (Table 20.340-1). The parking ratio of 9 spaces per 1 acre was developed based on Household Tr avel Survey Data, which shows 81% of trips to recreational facilities are by personal vehicles and the average occupancy of the vehicles is
2.57 people. Therefore, there will be a parking demand of 1 space per 3.17 people in the park (2.57 people per vehicle / 81% vehicular mode share). If the park has 30 people5 in it at any given time, then a total of 10 parking spaces would be needed (30 people / 3.17 people per space). As such, the parking requirement of 9 spaces was chosen as it would result in 10 total spaces for the 1.1-acre park. It should be noted this rate is far higher than the 5.08 spaces per acre recommended in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual, January 2019 ( excerpt below), or the 5.5 spaces per acre recommended within the Third Edition of the Urban Land Use Institute Shared Parking Manual (excerpt below).
5 The maximum number of people observed at Innovation Park, which is also in the City of San Marcos and similar in size to the proposed park, is 30 people on a Saturday, when the park’s 4 pickleball courts are most active. It should be noted that Innovation park does not have any dedicated parking, and players park along Armorlite Drive.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-174
ITE Parking Manual Excer pt:
Urban Land Use Institute Shared Parking Manual Excer pt
O5-10 The commentor notes the growing popularity of pickleball in the San Diego region and claims that failing to consider specific parking requirements for that component of the park was an oversight by the City and the applicant. As noted in Response to Comment O5-9 (see FN5), the parking standards were developed based on the maximum number of people observed at Innovation Park, which is similar in size to the proposed park and also has four pickleball courts.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-175
O5-11 The comment cites the parking requirements fo r sport courts in the SMMC. As noted above, the project’s Specific Plan will establish customized parking requirements based on the features, including pickleball courts, and the surrounding environment of the project. See Response to Comment O5-9 for discussion of how the parking standard for the park was determined. Note that the SMMC (Table
20.340-1) does not require any parking for sport courts on a residential lot. As such, the SMMC requirement exempting parking for sport courts in residential communit ies is more applicable to the project than the nonresidential parking standard the commenter references for sport courts. A key example of this is the four pickleball courts in Innovation Park. The park is located within a mixed-use area, similar to what t he proposed project will provide, and no specific parking is provided for courts and no congestion or parking shortages were observed on a site visit on conducted Saturday at [date and time] (see Response to Comment O5-9).
O5-12 The comment states that the City should have applied standards to the park and pickleball uses on site. The commenter is concerned about noise, lighting, and popularity as it relates to the proposed pickleball uses. In response, noise associated with the pickleball courts and the proposed public park is analyzed in Section 2.13 of the MND.
O5-13 The commentor states their opinion that the parking requirements for the restaurant uses should be based on the gross square footage as opposed to the leasable square footage. Leasab le square footage was chosen for the standard due to the mixed use nature of the project and the shared unoccupied space (trash enclosures, utilities, access ways, public plazas, etc.). The project includes a Specific Plan; therefore, it has established customized parking standards based on the unique mix of uses and surrounding environment applicable to the project site, rather than be governed by the general citywide standard in the SMMC.
O5-14 The comment notes the commercial spaces will have access to potential outdoor dining areas, and this is not accounted for in the parking calculations. As noted in Response to Comment O5-13, due to the mixed use nature of the proposed project the parking requirements are based on the leasable square footage of the commercial spaces. The proposed project is developing a Specific Plan; therefore, it has established customized parking standards based on the unique mix of uses and surrounding environment applicable to the project site, rather than be governed by the gene ral Citywide standard in the SMMC. Additionally, Section 5.4.1 of the Specific Plan places size limits of the outdoor dining area, as shown in the table below:
Patio Location Patio Range of Area
C1 and C-2 500–650 SF for each area
C3 combined with C4 1,800–2,000 SF
C5 combined with C6 2,200–2,450 SF
O5-15 The comment notes that the proposed project should use the 8.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of restaurant use that is outlined in the SMMC. The proposed project includes a Specific Plan; therefore, it has established custom parking standards based on the unique mix of land uses, the complimentary nature of those land uses, and the surrounding environment, rather than be governed by the City’s generally applicable parking requirements. This provides for a more efficient and productive land use and a more attractive projec t. As outlined in the Old California Restaurant Row Restaurant Parking
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-176
Analysis, dated October 10, 2023, included as an attachment to the Specific Plan (Appendix M to the MND), substantial evidence demonstrates that a parking rate of 7.5 spaces per restaurant use over 2,000 square feet is appropriate for the area. The total commercial area is divided among six commercial spaces, which range between 1,140 square feet and 2,111 square feet in size. The limited size of each space makes the development of a “traditional sit-down restaurant” not feasible, which is why a supplemental parking rate was used. That rate is sufficient to support FHVC, Buffalo Wild Wings, and Cocina Del Charro’s peak parking demand, as documented in parking counts attached to the Old California Restaurant Row Restaurant Parking Analysis, dated October 10, 2023.
O5-16 The commentor notes the restaurant parking requirements do not account for employee parking. The parking observation counts that were conducted for the Old California Restaurant Row Restaurant Parking Analysis, dated October 10, 2023 , counted all occupied parking spaces within the area. As such, the occupancy counts would have captured any employee parking demand. Therefore, the current employee parking demand was accounted for in the restaurant parking requirement under the proposed Specific Plan.
O5-17 The comment states that the removal of the seven parking spaces from the Buffalo Wild Wings site, to accommodate the implementation of the Multi-Way complete streets improvements along San Marcos Boulevard, will cause the site to no longer be able to meet the City’s parking requirements. As shown in the table below, the Buffalo Wild Wings site will still be able to meet its parking requirements, per the SMMC, with the removal of the seven parking spaces.
Site
Size
(square
feet ) Parking Ratio
Required
Parking
Parking
Provided
Surplus /
Deficit
Cocina Del Charro 11,160a 8.5 Parking Spaces / 1,000
square feet
95 98 +3
Buffalo Wild Wings 5,445 8.5 Parking Spaces / 1,000
square feet
46 49b +3
Total 16,605 141 147 +6
Notes:
a Cocina Del Charro square footage has been updated from the Old California Restaurant Row Restaurant Parking Analysis, dated August 17, 2023, to accurately represent the building size reflected in the building plans from the 1986 expansion of the Cocina Del Charro site (a copy of these plans is attached as Attachment 3 hereto). b Note there are currently 56 parking spaces within the Buffalo Wild Wings site. The number included within the table accounts for the seven parking spaces that will be removed to accommodate the implementation of the Multi-Way.
O5-18 The comment reproduces Table 1 of the San Marcos Restaurant Row – VMT Impact Analysis. No response to this comment is required.
O5-19 The commentor claims that a trip generation rate of 8 daily trips per unit, which is used for multifamily units with a density between 6–20 units per acre, should have been used in the transportation analysis instead of 6 daily trips per units, which is used for multifamily units with a density of more than 20 units per acre. The proposed project will construct 202 multifamily units on 9.4 acres of land (10.5 acres total – 1.1 acres of public park use); thus, the residential units on the site will have a density of 21.5 units per acre. Therefore, the application of the 6 daily trips per unit rate was correctly applied.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-177
The comment suggests that the specialty retail/strip commercial trip generation rate of 40 trips per 1,000 square feet of commercial space was incorrectly applied and that a restaurant rate should be used instead. The specific uses that will occupy the commercial spaces within the proposed project are currently unknown at this time and are subject to change through the life of the project. As outlined in Table 20.225-5 of the SMMC, restaurant uses within the MU-1 zoning are defined as a General Retail Use and would be allowed in these spaces. The rates the commentor outlined is more appropriate for standalone restaurant use, whereas specialty retail/strip commercial would be more c onsistent with mixed use retail, as outlined in the SMMC.
The comment suggests that the trip generation rate of 30 daily trips per tennis court identified in the SANDAG (not so) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (April 2002) should be used for the proposed pickleball courts. The trip generation rate from the SANDAG (not so) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (April 2002) that was applied in the project’s analysis is for Parks - City (developed w/meeting rooms and sports facilities), as shown below. As noted in its name, applying this trip generation rate to a park with sports facilities, such as pickleball courts, is appropriate. Additionally, the comment did not note that a second rate of 16 daily trips per acre is also cited in the guidelines. Th e 16 daily trips per acre would seem to be the more appropriate rate to apply to pickleball courts as it would better account for the size discrepancy in the courts and potentially the uses. If this rate were to be applied to the proposed park, it would only result in a daily trip generation rate of 18 daily trips (1.1 acres x 16 daily trips per acre) , which is far lower than 55 daily trips that is currently assumed for the park use.
SANDAG (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region Excerpt:
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-178
O5-20 The comment notes that under the CEQA Guidelines it is required to analyze the proposed project’s impacts against a baseline of existing physical conditions (i.e., real conditions on the ground) in the affected area, rather than the level of development or activity that could or should have been present according to a plan or regulation. However, it is established that where redevelopment of a site is proposed, a baseline that takes account of historical operations that can be resumed without obtaining further discretionary approvals is appropriate (North County Advocates v. City of Carlsbad (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 94, 105). Courts have ruled this is not a hypothetical or illusory baseline and is consistent with SANDAG’s regional traffic modeling methodology , which assumes full occupancy of all entitled square footage ( Id. at pp. 103 -104). The project site currently has a number of vacant commercial buildings but has a long history of being operated as a fully occupied commercial retail center , which could become occupied again if the proposed project is not implemented. Thus, the consideration of that history does not constitute an analysis based on what might be allowed “according to a plan or regulation.” The MND’s use of a baseline based on historical operations is appropriate and permitted under CEQA.
Even if the VMT analysis was performed as the commenter suggests, based on existing driveway counts rather than historical operations, the proposed project would still result in a net reduction in VMT and therefore have a less-than-significant impact. This is documented in th e letter report prepared by the project’s traffic and parking experts at Intersecting Metrics , dated September 2023, attached hereto as Attachment 4 (September IM Letter Report) to this Responses to Comments document. The comment notes that the proposed project would generate a net increase of 18,827 VMT over the 11,745 VMT that is generated today if the analysis were performed based on driveway counts.
However, the comment does not cite how the net increase of 18,827 in VMT was calculated. The table below, copied from the September IM Letter Report, calculates the VMT the proposed project is projected to generate and compares it to the total VMT the currently allowed uses on the site would generate as well as the VMT that is generated by the existing uses on the site based on driveway counts.
Land Use Amount Rate ADT
Trip
Length
(Miles) 1 VMT
Multi-Family Residential 202 DUs 6 Trips/DU 1,212 6.39 7,745 Specialty Retail/Strip
Commercial
10,400 SF 40 Trips/KSF 416 5.39 2,242
Park 1.1 Acres 50 Trips/Acre 55 7.63 420
Total 1,683
10,407
Allowed Uses
Restaurant 63,484 SF 100 Trips/KSF 6,348 5.39 34,216
Net Change -4,665
-23,809
Existing Uses (based on driveway counts)
Existing Restaurants 2,179 5.39 11,745
Net Change -496
-1,338
Note:
1 Source: Section 2.1.3.2 of the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, p. 12.
As shown in the table, the proposed project is anticipated to generate 23,809 less VMT than the existing uses that have historically operated within the site and 1,338 less VMT than what is currently
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-179
generated by the site based on driveway counts. As such, even when compared to a baseline based on existing driveway counts, the implementation of the proposed project would still result in a net reduction in VMT, thus it would not result in a significant VMT related impact.
O5-21 The comment concludes that the City should have evaluated the proposed project as a mixed use project and evaluate the impacts of its separate land uses under separate impact thresholds as defined in the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. As noted in the San Marcos Restaurant Row – VMT Impact Analysis, and further confirmed in Response to Comment O5-20, based on Section 2.1.2 of the City’s TIAG, the proposed project qualifies to be screened out from conducting a VMT analysis as it is a re development project that will generate less VMT than the land uses that it will replace : “Per CEQA, a redevelopment project that replaces existing uses and results in a net decrease in VMT can be presumed to have a less-than-significant transportation impact and would not require a detailed VMT analysis.” (TIAG Section 2.1.3.2)
However, as shown in the attached memo prepared by the project’s traffic and parking experts at Intersecting Metrics dated September 2525, 2023, attached hereto as Attachment 4 (September 25, 2023, IM Letter Report) , even if the proposed project was evaluated using the mixed - use criteria outlined in City’s TIAG, it still would not result in a significant impact.
Section 2.1.3.1 of the TIAG provides the following guideline with respect to mixed use projects:
For land use projects with a mixed-use component, each use in the project (e.g., residential, office, and retail) should be analyzed separately, taking internalization of trips into account. This approach ensures that the vehicle trip-reducing aspects of such projects are not omitted in the VMT analysis. The percentage of internal trips needs to be confirmed with City staff.
Per the table above, and Table 2 of the September 25, 2023, IM Letter Report, a “mixed use” analysis that ag gregates the VMT allocated to each of the separate residential, commercial and park components of the proposed project will collectively generate 10,407 VMT. This is less than the 11,745 VMT that the existing site generates based on driveway counts and the 34,216 VMT that the existing site generates based on historic operations, as described in Response to Comment O5 -20. If the analysis is performed without relying on the redevelopment methodology allowed under the TIAG, there would be a net reduction in VMT and therefore a less-than-significant transportation impact. Note that this mixed use analysis does not take any reduction for internalization of trips, even though the TIAG would permit such a reduction to account for the reduction in trips inherent with a mixed use project where residential, recreation, and commercial uses are all located within a single site. ( For example, one might drive to their residence, and then walk to a restaurant or the park on the project site. This could be consid ered 1 trip for VMT purposes, but to provide a conservative analysis, each of these stops is considered a separate trip and counted as 3 trips in the proposed project’s VMT analysis).
O5-22 The comment serves as a conclusion to the comment letter. The comment does not raise any specific issues concerning the adequacy of the MND.
O5-23 The commenter attaches a news article about the popularity of pickleball and materials relating to pickleball park projects in other cities. The relevance of these attachments is not described. It is noted, however, that none of the materials concern pickleball courts in a relatively small park that is part of a predominantly residential mixed use project. None of the materials appear to be relevant to the proposed project’s environmental analysis and therefore do not require a response under CEQA.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-180
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-181
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-182
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-183
Response to Comment Letter I1
Individual
Tatiana Katanic
August 21, 2023
I1-1 The commenter states that the traffic is already out of control in this area and with the new condos it will be unbearable. The commenter supports the new restaurants, but traffic needs to be addressed. In response, as noted in the project description, the proposed project will replace over 63,000 square feet of existing restaurant uses within the Old California Restaurant Row (OCRR) site. As outlined in Table 1 of the Local Mobility Assessment, Intersecting Metrics, July 7, 2023 (LMA), which is included as Appendix I of the MND, the removal of the existing restaurant uses, and implementation of the proposed project will result in a reduction of 4,665 daily vehicle trips. This reduction in vehicular traffic from the OCRR site will result in less congestion and delays at the Via Vera Cruz and West San Marcos Boulevard intersection, as noted in Table 3 of the LMA. As outlined in Attachment 1 of the San Marcos Restaurant Row – VMT Impact Analysis, July 7, 2023, driveway counts were conducted at the OCRR site in September 2 021. Most restaurant uses within the OCRR site were closed by this point with only Ascend Coffee, IHOP, King and I, and the Old Cal Mining, Buffalo Wild Wings, Cocina Del Charro being operational. Based on the driveway counts it was determined that the res taurant uses that would be removed by the proposed project (Ascend Coffee, IHOP, King and I, and the Old Cal Mining) generated 2,179 daily trips which is still 496 fewer daily trips than what the proposed project is anticipated to generate.
Additionally, the proposed project will construct additional transportation-related improvements along its frontage on San Marcos Boulevard. The additional improvements are part of the City’s “Multi-Way” Mobility Element of the General Plan which provides an additional travel lane on San Marcos Boulevard to limit the number of conflicts between the vehicles accessing private driveways and through traffic.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE RESTARURANT ROW PROJECT 13844 OCTOBER 2023 RTC-184
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Attachment 1
Easement Agreements
15 COVENANT OF EASEMENT
FILE NO. 89-378260 REC. JULY 18, 1989
PARCEL A PER DOC - BURDENED LAND
(ADJOINING PROPERTY)
PARCEL B PER DOC - BENEFITTED LAND
(PROJECT PROPERTY)
NON-EXCLUSIVE PARKING EASEMENT WITH A
MINIMUM OF FIFTY-FOUR (54) VEHICULAR PARKING
SPACES BURDENING AND RUNNING WITH PARCEL A
(ADJOINING PROPERTY) FOR THE BENEFIT OF
PARCEL B (PROJECT PROPERTY)
PARCEL A
PARCEL B
(PROJECT PROPERTY)
17 EASEMENT AGREEMENT
FILE NO. 90-050972 REC. JAN. 30, 1990
PARCEL A PER DOC
(ADJOINING PROPERTY)
PARCEL B PER DOC
(PROJECT PROPERTY)
PARCEL A
PARCEL B
PROJECT PROPERTY
NON-EXCLUSIVE RECIPROCAL PARKING AGREEMENT FOR 36
DESIGNATED PARKING SPACES ON PARCEL B (PROJECT
PROPERTY) IN BENEFIT OF PARCEL A (ADJOINING PROPERTY)
EACH PROPERTY GRANTS TO THE OTHER THE RIGHT TO USE
ALL AREAS USED FOR PARKING FOR:
PARKING, VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN INGRESS, EGRESS
EACH GRANTOR MAY MAKE REASONABLE CHANGES AND
RELOCATE ITS PARKING AREA SO LONG AS CHANGES DO NOT
SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIR THE USE BY THE GRANTEE
IF CITY OF SAN MARCOS NO LONGER REQUIRES PARCEL A TO
PROVIDE 36 OFFSITE PARKING SPACES, THEN BOTH PARTIES
AGREE TO RELINQUISH THEIR RIGHTS AND DUTIES.
(SEE AGREEMENT FOR COMPLETE LANGUAGE)
25 DECLARATION OF RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT
DOC. 1996-0564623, REC. NOV. 7, 1996
PARCELS A, D & E: CCSS SAN MARCOS LP
PARCEL B: PROJECT PROPERTY
NONEXCLUSIVE EASEMENTS FOR INGRESS, EGRESS, AND
ACCESS BY AND FOR VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC. NO
CHANGES SHALL BE MADE WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN
APPROVAL OF EACH PARTY.
THIS COVENANT SHALL NOT REQUIRE OWNERS TO OBTAIN
APPROVAL OF EACH PARTY FOR CHANGES TO ANY BUILDINGS,
IMPROVEMENTS OR PARKING AREA, THAT DO NOT DIMINISH THE
NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AVAILABLE BELOW THE MINIMUM
NUMBER OF SPACES REQUIRED BY CITY OF SAN MARCOS FOR
EACH PARCEL.
(SEE SECTIONS 2-18 OF AGREEMENT FOR COMPLETE LANGUAGE)
PROJECT
PROPERTY
PARCEL A
CCSS
PCL E
CCSS
PARCEL C
BRETZFIELD
FRANK
PCL F
BANK
PARCEL B
EUBANK
PARCEL C: J.FRANK & N.BRETZFIELD
PARCEL F: NORTH COUNTY BANK
PCL D
CCSS
27 PROJECT PROPERTY
NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT GRANTED TO TENANT OVER
PARKING AREAS AND DRIVE LANES OF PROJECT
PROPERTY AND ANY OTHER ACCESS EASEMENT
BENEFITTING PROJECT PROPERTY, FOR INGRESS AND
EGRESS OF VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC.
PARTIES AGREED TO A "NO CHANGE AREA" INCLUDING
WITHOUT LIMITATION THE COVENANT NOT TO CONSTRUCT
ANY STRUCTURE(S) OR TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF
AVAILABLE PARKING STALLS WITHIN "NO CHANGE AREA"
TENANT
MEMORANDUM OF LEASE - DOC. NO. 2014-0498921 REC. NOV. 17, 2014
Attachment 2
Restaurant Parking Analysis 10-10-2023
www.IntersectingMetrics.com
PO Box 1956, La Mesa, CA 91944
MEMORANDUM
To: David Shepherd, Lennar
From: Stephen Cook, TE, Intersecting Metrics
Date: October 10, 2023
Regarding: Old California Restaurant Row Restaurant Parking Analysis
The purpose of this technical memorandum is to document the observed parking demand of the existing restaurants adjacent to the Old California Restaurant Row (OCRR) Site. The observed parking demand of the existing restaurants can then serve as an analog for the parking requirements for sit- down restaurants that may be included within of the OCRR Re-Development Specific Plan.
To determine the parking demand for the sit-down restaurant uses that may be included within the OCRR Re-Development Specific Plan, a parking occupancy study was performed on the three sit-down restaurants adjacent to the OCRR site (Fish House Vera Crus, Cocina Del Charro and Buffalo Wild Wings). Hourly parking occupancy counts were conducted for all sites during peak dinner times (between 4:00 PM and 9:00 PM) on Friday April 28, 2023 and Saturday April 29, 2023, as well as on Sunday September 24, 2023 between 9:00 AM and 7:00 PM to capture both the brunch and NFL watching crowds at the restaurants. The observed parking counts are displayed in Table 1.
Table 1: Observed Parking Counts
Date Use
Observed Parking Demand
Fish House Vera
Cruz
Cocina Del
Charro
Buffalo Wild
Wings Total
4/28/2023
(Friday)
4:00 PM 32 66 25 123
5:00 PM 49 80 39 168
6:00 PM 59 89 51 199
7:00 PM 49 83 36 168
8:00 PM 42 71 29 142
9:00 PM 22 63 36 121
4/29/2023
(Saturday)
4:00 PM 30 50 34 114
5:00 PM 31 64 26 121
6:00 PM 40 78 41 159
7:00 PM 47 82 38 167
8:00 PM 33 73 39 145
9:00 PM 12 58 28 98
9/24/2023
(Sunday)
9:00 AM 2 32 7 41
10:00 AM 7 61 27 95
11:00 AM 22 86 51 159
Noon 31 93 53 177
1:00 PM 35 72 45 152
Table 1: Observed Parking Counts
Date Use
Observed Parking Demand
Fish House Vera
Cruz
Cocina Del
Charro
Buffalo Wild
Wings Total
9/24/2023
(Sunday)
Continued
2:00 PM 29 68 45 142
3:00 PM 23 55 48 126
4:00 PM 34 51 46 131
5:00 PM 29 51 41 121
6:00 PM 27 50 36 113
7:00 PM 42 37 45 124
As shown in the table, the highest observed parking demand, across all three sites, occurred at 6:00 PM on a Friday, April 28th. To determine the parking ratio of the uses, Table 2 compares the maximum observed parking demand at each restaurant to the total square footage of each site.
Table 2: Restaurant Parking Demand
Restaurant Size (SF) Peak Demand
Buffalo Wild Wings 5,445 51
Cocina Del Charro 11,1601 89
Fish House Vera Cruz 9,100 59
Total 25,705 199
Parking Ratio 0.00774
Note:
1The Cocina Del Charro square footage has been updated to reflect their 1986 Building Permit (PC 86-210).
As shown in Table 2, the 25,705 SF of existing restaurant uses generated a maximum observed parking demand of 199 spaces. This results in a parking demand ratio of approximately 7.74 spaces per 1,000 SF (199 Spaces / 25.705 KSF). Based on these observations and in consideration of the reduced size of the project’s commercial tenant spaces, a ratio of 7.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet was determined to be an appropriate requirement for restaurants larger than 2,000 square feet in the Specific Plan area.
The commercial spaces within the Specific Plan Area are between 1,140 SF and 2,111 SF in size, thus, is a sit down restaurant is implemented within one of these spaces it will function differently than one of the much larger restaurants that were observed. The ratio of 7.5 spaces per 1,000 SF is close to the parking rate observed at the larger restaurants and it provides a balance between the City’s mixed use parking ratio for sit down restaurants (8.5 spaces per 1,000 SF) and take out restaurants (6.5 spaces per 1,000 SF) which is consistent with the types of restaurants that could operate in these spaces.
Attachment 3
Cocina Del Charro Plans
Attachment 4
VMT Impact Letter 9-25-2023
www.IntersectingMetrics.com
PO Box 1956, La Mesa, CA 91944
September 25, 2023
David Shepherd
Lennar Homes of California, LLC
16465 Via Esprillo, Suite 150
San Diego, CA 92127
Regarding: San Marcos Restaurant Row – VMT Impact Analysis
Dear Mr. Shepard,
The purpose of this letter is to evaluate and document the potential transportation impacts that may be associated with the proposed San Marcos Restaurant Row Redevelopment Project (Proposed Project), as outlined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Transportation related CEQA impacts were evaluated based on the methodologies and thresholds outlined in the City of San Marcos Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (TIAG), November 16, 2020.
Proposed Project
The Proposed Project will replace 63,484 square feet (SF) of existing restaurant uses with 202 multi- family dwelling units,10,400 SF of commercial retail uses, and a 1.1 acre park. The Proposed Project is located on the northwest corner of the West San Marcos Boulevard / Via Vera Cruz intersection, and will have four access points, two located on West San Marcos Boulevard (the existing western and eastern Restaurant Row driveways) and two others located on Via Vera Cruz (the existing northern and southern Restaurant Row driveways). Figure 1 displays the Proposed Project’s location, while Figure 2 displays the Proposed Project site plan.
Table 1 displays the anticipated trip generation for the Proposed Project, as well as the trip credits that would be associated with the removal of the existing resultant uses. Trip Generation rates were derived from the SANDAG (Not so) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002, as well as existing driveway counts.
Table 1: Proposed Project Trip Generation
Land Use Amount Rate ADT
Multi-Family Residential 202 DUs 6 Trips/DU 1,212
Specialty Retail/Strip Commercial 10,400 SF 40 Trips/KSF 416 Park 1.1 Acres 50 Trips/Acre 55
Total 1,683
Allowed Uses
Restaurant 63,484 SF 100 Trips/KSF 6,348
Net Change -4,665
Existing Uses (Driveway Counts)1
Existing Restaurant Uses 2,179
Net Change -496
Note
1Driveway counts were conducted at the Proposed Project site on September 16, 2021, when some of the restaurant facilities were still operational. Driveway count worksheets and summary tables are provided in Attachment 1. Note:
not all of the restaurant uses were operational at the time the Driveway Counts were taken therefore, the existing OCRR site generates less traffic than it potentially could while it is fully operational.
CARLSBAD
EL CAJON
ENCINITAS
POWAY
SANTEE
CHULA VISTA
ESCONDIDO
S.D. COUNTY
SAN MARCOS
VISTA
OCEANSIDE
SAN DIEGO
Julian
Barona
Central
Mountain
Alpine
Pala-Pauma
Mountain
Empire
North
Mountain
Bonsall
County
Islands
County
Islands
Crest-Dehesa
Fallbrook
Jamul-Dulzura
Lakeside
Otay
Pendleton-De
Luz
Ramona
San Dieguito
Spring
Valley
Sweetwater
Valle De Oro
Valley Center
North
County
Metro
North
County
Metro
8 8
15 15
15 5
5 5
805
56 78
67 94
76 163
94 78
52 75
54 15
125
78 79
76 78
W SAN MARCOS BL
GRAND AV
MCMAHR RD
S LAS POSAS RD
S BENT AV
VIA VERA CRUZ
LINDA VISTA DR
1 5
3 4
2 Specific Project Location
Project Location
Old California Restaurant Row
Figure 1
Project Location
¯
0 4.5 92.25
Miles
Project Location
As shown in Table 1, implementation of the Proposed Project is anticipated to result in a net decrease of 4,655 daily trips when compared to the allowable uses on the project site, and a net decrease of 496 daily trips when compared to the traffic in which the existing uses currently generate.
VMT Impact Screening Analysis
Section 2.1.2 of the City’s TIAG, identifies several screening criteria where different types of land use projects can be screened out from conducting a detailed VMT analysis. If a project is screened out from conducting a detailed VMT analysis, it is considered to have a less than significant VMT related impact.
Based on the Proposed Project’s trip generation (see Table 1) and the project location, it should be screened out from conducting a detailed VMT analysis based on the following screening criteria:
Small Projects (Section 2.1.2.1) - Projects that generate fewer than 110 daily vehicle trips can be presumed to cause a less-than- significant transportation impact and would not require a detailed VMT analysis. Trips should be calculated using SANDAG trip generation rates (or other sources if an applicable SANDAG rate is not available). If a project is replacing existing active uses, a credit should be taken for existing trip generation, with the 110 daily trip small project threshold being applied to net new daily vehicle trips.
Since the implementation of the Proposed Project is anticipated to result in a net decrease in overall trip generation, it should be screened out from conducting a detailed VMT analysis as well as be assumed to have a less than significant VMT impact.
Map-Based Screening (2.1.2.5) - Residential and employment projects that are proposed in areas that generate VMT below adopted City thresholds can be presumed to have a less-than- significant transportation impact and would not require a detailed VMT analysis. This determination must be made using SANDAG’s online residential and employment VMT maps for existing year or model baseline year VMT.
The City’s adopted threshold for VMT per capita (which is used for residential projects) is 15% below the countywide mean. The mean for VMT per capita within the San Diego County is 18.9 miles; therefore, the VMT per capita threshold in which a residential project needs to be at or below is 16.1 miles (18.9 x
0.85). As shown in Figure 3, based on the SANDAG Series 14 ABM+ Base Year Transportation Forecast, residential uses within the Proposed Project site are anticipated to generate a VMT per capita of 1 2.5 miles. This is well below the City’s threshold of 16.1 miles; thus, the Proposed Project would be screened out from conducting a detailed VMT analysis and would be assumed to have a less than significant VMT impact.
Redevelopment Project Analysis
Section 2.1.3 of the City’s TIAG, identifies the impact thresholds that should be applied to the different types of land development projects within the City. Since the Proposed Project will be replacing existing land uses, it is considered a redevelopment project; therefore, the following impact threshold was applied to identify VMT related impacts:
Old California Restaurant Row
Figure 3
Project Site VMT Generation
Redevelopment Projects
Redevelopment Projects (Replaces Existing Uses) – As noted in Section 2.1.3.2 of the TIAG, per CEQA, a redevelopment project that replaces existing uses and results in a net decrease in VMT can be presumed to have a less-than-significant transportation impact and would not require a detailed VMT analysis; a redevelopment project that replaces existing uses and results in a net increase in VMT will require a VMT analysis. This should be calculated by estimating the total VMT for the previous and proposed land uses using SANDAG trip generation rates and citywide average trip lengths from the California Household Travel Survey (CHTS). If a project replaces existing uses and the project leads to a net overall increase in VMT compared to the previous uses, then the appropriate metrics and thresholds should be applied to each proposed use. If the project is a mixed-use project, then internalization should be considered when estimating its total VMT and each component’s trip generation should be multiplied by its respective trip length; if the project results in a net increase in VMT, then each individual use should be analyzed under its respective threshold. In addition, the proposed land uses should be analyzed without incorporating a credit or reduction for the displacement of existing land uses at the project site.
Table 2 calculates the VMT the Proposed Project is anticipated to generate and compares it to the VMT generated by the current uses on the project site, based on both the site capacity and the VMT generation of the existing uses. This comparison reflects the net change in VMT on the project site.
Table 2: Change in VMT with the Proposed Project
Land Use Amount Rate ADT
Trip
Length
(Miles)1 VMT
Multi-Family Residential 202 DUs 6 Trips/DU 1,212 6.39 7,745 Specialty Retail/Strip Commercial 10,400 SF 40 Trips/KSF 416 5.39 2,242 Park 1.1 Acres 50 Trips/Acre 55 7.63 420
Total 1,683 10,407
Allowed Uses
Restaurant 63,484 SF 100 Trips/KSF 6,348 5.39 34,216
Net Change -4,665 -23,809
Existing Uses (based on driveway counts)
Existing Restaurants 2,179 5.39 11,745
Net Change -496 -1,338
As shown in the table, the Proposed Project is anticipated to generate 23,809 less VMT than the existing uses that have historically operated within the site and 1,338 less VMT than what is currently generated by the site based on driveway counts. As such, even when compared to a baseline based on existing driveway counts, the implementation of the Proposed Project would still result in a net reduction in VMT, thus the implementation of the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant VMT related impact.
Mixed Use VMT Analysis
Even though the Proposed Project is screened out from conducting a VMT analysis, to be conservative, a project level VMT analysis was still performed for the Proposed Project to ensure that i t would still not
be associated with a VMT related impact. As outlined in Table 2 of the City’s TIAG, mixed use projects should evaluate each component of a mixed-use project independently and apply the significance threshold for each land use type, incorporating internalization reductions. As such the residential, commercial, and park components of the Proposed Project are analyzed separately below.
Residential Uses
As outlined in Table 2 of the TIAG, a significant impact will occur if the residential component of the project generates VMT per resident exceeding a level of 15 percent below the existing countywide average. As displayed in Figure 3, based on the SANDAG Series 14 Base Year Transportation Forecast, residential uses within the Proposed Project site are anticipated to generate a VMT per capita of 12.5 miles. This is well below the City’s threshold of 16.1 miles; thus, the residential uses included within the Proposed Project would have a less than significant VMT related impact.
Commercial Uses
Section 2.1.2.3 of the TIAG notes that retail projects that have 50,000 square feet gross floor area or less can be presumed to have a less than-significant transportation impact. Since the retail component of the Proposed Project will be less than 50,000 SF, it can be assumed to have a less than significant impact as it will be locally serving and presumed to reduce the overall VMT generated within the City.
Park Uses
As outlined in Section 2.1.23 of the City’s TIAG: Uses that are local-serving public facilities, such as local neighborhood parks, can be presumed to have a less-than-significant transportation impact and would not require a detailed VMT analysis.
Conclusion
As noted in the previous section, the Proposed Project will have a less than significant VMT related impact based on the Small Project and Map Based Screening criteria outlined in Section 2.1.2 of the City’s TIAG, as well as the mixed use VMT analysis outlined in Section 2.1.3 of the City’s TIAG .
Sincerely
Stephen Cook
[email protected]
Attachment 1
Driveway Counts
San Marcos Restaurant Row – Driveway County Summary
Driveway ADT
AM PM
In Out In Out
Western Driveway - West San Marcos Boulevard 802 41 11 50 26 Eastern Driveway - West San Marcos Boulevard 952 24 12 60 25 Northern Driveway - Via Vera Cruz 958 40 15 39 53
Mid Driveway - Via Vera Cruz 412 5 1 44 16
Southern Driveway - Via Vera Cruz 1,803 31 26 85 59
Total 4,927 141 65 278 179
Northern Driveway
Mid Driveway
Southern Driveway
Western Driveway Eastern Driveway
Project Site Boundary
Existing Building to be
Removed
Legend
West San Marcos Blvd
Via Vera Cruz
San Marcos Restaurant Row - Removed Trip Generation
Driveway1 ADT
AM PM
In Out In Out
Western Driveway - West San Marcos Boulevard 802 41 11 50 26 Eastern Driveway - West San Marcos Boulevard2 476 12 6 30 12 Southern Driveway - Via Vera Cruz1 901 15 13 42 29
Total 2,179 68 30 122 67
Notes:
1To be conservative, traffic from the Northern Via Vera Cruz and Mid Via Vera Cruz driveways were not assumed to be associated with the existing resultant uses that will be removed from the Proposed Project.
2To be conservative, it is assumed that only half of these driveway volumes are associated with the resultant uses that will be removed with the Proposed Project. As shown below over 70% of the existing uses within the shopping center will be removed with the proposed project.
Existing Uses on the Project Site:
• 63,484 SF of Restaurant (to be removed)
• 18,246 SF of Restaurant (to be maintained)
• 7,650 SF of Bank (to be maintained)
Attachment 5
ITE Parking Pages
712Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition
Additional DataAny outdoor seating area is not included in the overall gross floor area. Therefore, the number of seats may be a more reliable independent variable on which to establish parking generation rates for facilities having significant outdoor seating.The average parking supply ratios for the study sites with parking supply information are as follows:in a general urban/suburban setting, 23 spaces per 1,000 square feet GFA (nine sites) and 0.7 spaces per seat (seven sites)in a dense multi-use urban setting, 12 spaces per 1,000 square feet GFA (five sites) and 0.3 spaces per seat (five sites)The sites were surveyed in the 1980s, the 1990s, the 2000s, and the 2010s in California, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas.Source Numbers21, 22, 47, 154, 168, 201, 274, 418, 431, 531 713Land Use Descriptions and Data Plots
714Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition
715Land Use Descriptions and Data Plots
716Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition
717Land Use Descriptions and Data Plots
718Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition
719Land Use Descriptions and Data Plots
720Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition
721Land Use Descriptions and Data Plots
722Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition
723Land Use Descriptions and Data Plots
724Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition
725Land Use Descriptions and Data Plots