ATTACHMENT H
PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS
1 del Solar, Sean
From: Frances Donnelly
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:30 AM
To: del Solar, Sean
Subject: Restaurant Row Park and Development
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Sean,
I would first like to let you know that I appreciate your efforts and those of the city engineer in getting the barriers here on San Elijo Rd at the Edenpark site installed and completed. I am sure there will be wear and tear over time but the barrier has been in since late 2022 and seems to funct ion really well. I see that there has been a submission to the County for residential development on the adjacent real estate. The layout with housing at one end of the property and leaving the slopes open seems really nice. I am guessing there will be a traffic light coming to o.
I am planning to participate in the Restaurant Row redevelopment program meetings and hope to be at the park planning meeting. I have looked over the other content on Lennar’s web site etc. and I will admit I really like the overall idea of this redevelopment.
As I reviewed what I could of this planned development, four items came to mind.
1. The first is about parking. Here in San Elijo Hills, those of us who are residents of the multifamily units in the downtown area know that the abundance of street parking is a real benefit. However, many people who have need to use the street parking overnigh
t find themselves walking a block or two to locate an available parking space. We have a community we feel is very safe and that walk, thanks to California weather, is not a big deal. What is a big deal is just how much of this street parking is r equired and how much that need for parking
has grown even though the multi‐family units were completed back in the early 2000’s. As families grow the need to accommodate 3 or even 4 cars to support a family with teenagers or yo ung adults has become increasingly obvious.
2. I am not seeing anything in the drawings that I can interpret as a pool for residents of the new development. I know there are mixed feelings about the cost of HOA’s maintaining pools etc. but frankly it is a necessity for providing recreational activity for families of residents. In the HOA at Morgan’s Corner we deal every summer
with youth jumping our pool fence or otherwise sneaking into our pool area because there is no similar asset available in our immediate community for residents of other neighborhoods to enjoy. This redevelopme nt being mixed use with retail and a park adjacent is very nice, but will never be the same as providing a dedicated ‘third place’ to just the residents of this community.
3. Appropriate housing styles for residents over 60. I live in a 3 story condo in San Elijo. I love my commu nity, particularly the walkability of it with retail and restaurants, around. But I have to acknowledge that there are not any single level residences withing that walking radius and at some point what is a really convenient lifestyle for someone more elderly will no longer be accessible to me and I will have to move. As I look at the Lennar plans I don’t see any
obvious accommodation for this development to support mixed generation housing. There are a lot of folks who were early buyers in San Elijo who will find themselves unable to stay in the San Marcos area if we are not addressing this need more broadly
.
4. Here in San Elijo around our ‘Village Square’ we have residences that were built above retail locations where the ownership of the retail and the resident are different. There are a number of challenges that, in my opinion, were not well solved. First the elevation between the first floor of the residents and the street is higher tha n a
traditional flight of stairs because of the height provided to the retail on the ground floor and because, there was no elevator installed for residents, this meant that if the residents had el derly visitors the effort to get to the residential units was considerable, there is a ramp, but it is very long and arduous. Parking garages for the residents are in a separate secured court area and a ‘dumb waiter’ is installed to enable those residents to haul
2 items from the car to the residence etc. I also understand that the HOA dues for residents are as high as for developments with pools etc. yet those benefits are not available. I understand that the city planners are not responsible for the developer’s decisions on features and amenities and that if the developer makes poor choices the fact that th
e units may remain unsold or underoccupied is on the developer not the city. But given here is a situation where this kind of mixed use has been active for some time. I thought it might be helpful to know how well it has worked out.
I hope th
ese comments are helpful. I know they are just my personal point of view but how can the city do a great job for residents if we won’t take the time to provide feedback.
Frances Donnelly
From: Kathryn Gray
Date: September 16, 2023 at 7:46:23 PM PDT
To: M
ike Sannella <msannella@san-marc os.net>, Rebecca Jones <RJones@san- marcos.net>, Sharon Jenkins <[email protected]>, Ed Musgrove <[email protected]>, Maria Nuñez <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Restaurant Row Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mayor Jones, members of the City Council –
Please accept this letter as my personal individual support for the proposed redevelopment of Old California Restaurant Row.
As you know I am an active volunteer and invested member of the community, including currently serving as the board President of the Friends of San Marcos Parks and Recreation. I heard a presentation given by the project representative at a San Marcos Rotary meeting back in March.
I am looking forward to the next iteration of Restaurant Row and I am especially interested in the new park planned for the northern portion of the site. Our city is known for its parks, and I love that this project brings recreation space to an otherwise urbanized area. Not only will this new park benefit the future residents of the project, but it gives the surrounding businesses and restaurant employees and patrons an updated place to walk, relax and enjoy being outside.
I was happy to hear that pickle ball and skateboard facilities are included as well as space for passive recreation and picnicking. I am delighted the city and the developer are working closely with the community to design and ultimately deliver these new public amenities.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Gray
1 Sean del Solar
From: Angie Hanifin
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2023 12:32 PM
To: Sean del Solar
Subject: Lennar Restaurant Row Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Mr. Solar,
Unfortunately, I am not able to attend the June 29th public workshop. I am strongly in support of the general concept of this project, but would like to learn more. Housing is desperately needed, particularly at a lower price point for young families. I am a senior,but the high prices are so hard for young families starting out. Can you direct me to more information about this project? I am particularly interested in the types of housing in the project. It seems to say condominiums only. Is all housing planned for-sale or rental? Are there any affordable units planned?
I have lived in the area since 1970 and I know some residents complain (NIMBYs), but I am in strong agreement of the need for different types of housing (including multifamily) near transit. I want the Council to know that there is support for this type of project.
Thank you,
Angela Hanifin
San Marcos resident.
1 Sean del Solar
From: Andy Lahm
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2023 10:21 AM
To: Sean del Solar
Subject: project meeting re: Restaurant Row
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Wanted to tell you my opinion of this project as the meeting is tonight
NO NO NO NO NO....most of us do not want this. We want Restaurant Row rehabilitated! Make it the place to hang out again like it used to be. We need more places to eat in San Marcos that aren't chains This project will make too much traffic on an already over travelled street. All of us that work here always have to go around the side streets to get anywhere.
What about the kids? More overpopulation of our schools is going to happen!
We are all quite concerned that this isn't going to be good for San Marcos.
Thank You
Andy
longtime resident of San Marcos!
Radiant Holdings
March 28, 2003
Sean del Solar
San Marcos City Planning Department
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
Dear Sean del Solar
This letter documents our comments regarding the Lennar Restaurant Row Development and the McDonald Group project on the old Sear’s property. These items were discussed in detail during our online meeting on January 19, 2023 and our initial phone call December 7, 2022. I am the managing partner for Radiant Holdings, owner of the 445 Ryan Drive property that abuts both the Lennar Restaurant Row and McDonald Group developments. I’ve summarized our concerns below.
Summary of Concerns:
1) Impact of changing the zoning on the Lennar property from light industrial to residential.
Typically how does the city plan for transitions between different zoning, particularly ensuring adequate barriers/mitigation are in place to ensure minimal complaints from residents near the existing light industrial zone. Current tenants may not be representative of all allowed activity under existing codes.
2) The type of barriers/mitigation planned for mitigating allowable potential sound, sight, odor, etc. from light industrial property.
3) With the Lennar development, they're plans presented at the 12/1/22 Community input meeting for the park area, showed a number of units with front doors facing the 445 Ryan property: we are concerned with the small setbacks, minimal wall, etc., and easy accessibility to the water runoff culvert. We have a similar question with McDonald Development, but the SDP17-0006 plan for the McDonald Development is not available on the website. On the McDonald property some potential concerns are mitigated by the two lane roadway easement between the culvert and the nearest portion of the development. 4) Lennar development is requesting a specific plan (SP22-0004), which allows Lennar to control setbacks and other site specific codes: specifically ensuring adequate setbacks, barriers, and mitigation between the Lennar development and the 445 Ryan Drive property. 5) The plan numbers being generated for the Lennar project are listed on the city hall website, but the approximate timelines for the review/release of the various plans are not provided on the city hall website.
Overall, our partners are in favor of redeveloping the restaurant row property. However, we would like to ensure that any impacts, particularly regarding the zoning changes, are adequately mitigated to ensure no future issues or impacts on the existing property in the light industrial zone. Please keep us apprised to any updates or changes in plan reviews/releases. I appreciated your input at our last meeting and look forward to further discussions.
Sincerely,
Judy Kamholz
General Partner Radiant Holdings
1 del Solar, Sean
From: Tim Regello
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2023 10:26 AM
To: del Solar, Sean
Subject: Fwd: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mr. Del Solar,
I cannot attend the workshop but I have a few questions. I would appreciate it if you would bring these up for discussion at the workshop.
1] What is the difference between a "MOTORCOURT" and "GREENCOURT"
2] Is there dedicated parking for the commercial proposed along San Marcos Blvd. (SMB) that cannot be used by the condo development? The "possible" parking lane lines along SMB look stubby with no thoroughfare between them and the adjacent commercial businesses.
3] Where are delivery trucks that will make drop-offs to these businesses supposed to park during their unloading while not impacting internal traffic?
4] High-density housing, such as apartments and condos, does not have a good track record of providing a sufficient amount of parking - just look at all the on-street parking along Richmar Avenue with all the new apartments and the commercial vehicles that block traffic while dropping off their deliveries...
Therefore, will the dwelling unit : on-site parking ratio for this development be higher in comparison to addressing these types of traffic problems?
5] What will the minimum widths of the private onsite roadways in this development? It does not look like there is any of the condos will have their own individual driveways before entering a garage, therefore will there be extra parking provided near the units for guests other than near the park?
6] A housing development will put a lot more cars on the road during commuter hours and significantly slow down and back up westbound SMB traffic.
6a] Is the image showing a separated 3rd lane on SMB for turning movements into and out of the condo development?
6b] If yes, how does the traffic in this third lane access the existing SMB lanes? 6c] How does this proposed ancillary 3rd lane on the westbound SMB access the existing lanes of SMB? 6d] Will this new traffic movement critically impact SMB's #2 lane and leave SMB with only one true "through" lane (#1 lane)?
7] What are the rectangular symbols along the northerly side of SMB supposed to be?
8] How will these SMB improvements connect to the existing 3rd lane near the movie theater?
9] How will these SMB street improvements impact the dedicated right turn onto northbound Las Posas Road?
2 10] Is the park within the just going to be passive?
11] Will the development pay the water bill for the park? If not, will the City be using well water for irrigation?
Tim Regello
1 Sean del Solar
From: Craig Smith
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2023 3:28 PM
To: Sean del Solar
Subject: Project sp22-0004
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I'm a long-time San Marcos resident, and have a business adjacent to this new property development. I'm actually very concerned about this new proposed development, and in a way heartbroken about the proposal.
1. The zoning regulations for this area may permit this, but it is not the right zoning for homes. This location is directly in the middle of the only very tiny commercial area in this town. As a business owner adjacent, I can tell you that everyone I know around here is shaking their head and wondering what is going on with the zoning commission. Our town barely has enough buildings for businesses, and it is driving businesses to surrounding cities. What we are doing here is taking the heart of our business city, a restaurant anchor, and putting homes in. It will kill the movie theater, it will drive apartment level parking, crime and the wrong kind of foot traffic for the business surrounding this area. I not only want to express my sincere concerned about this decision, but I want to know what resources I can join to protest it. It is wrong for San Marcos, it's history, it's future, and its culture. We need more business here, not less. We need less homes and more entertainment, and commercial space. Having apartments around us is going to absolutely destroy everyone of our businesses in this area.
2. Restaurant row was a stable and one of the big attractions that I had one moving to this town. I bought a building, invested heavily in both real estate and commercial spaces near this area. This development, if allowed to go through, will reduce the value of this property and further drive businesses like mine who bring Millions of dollars to the city with dozens of employees, taxes, and more. I am already feeling somewhat embarrassed for our town that we are considering even more homes, specifically apartments, right in our only entertainment zone. These decisions cannot be undone, and they will have lasting consequences to us all and where people like me, decide call home, and where I decide to hire people. I truly feel like I now need to consider moving my business elsewhere. What we need is improvement to entertainment, not more houses.
3. The traffic, the surrounding area around this proposal it is already atrocious. Apartment traffic is very different from commercial traffic. We have already seen massive projects for housing which they called mixed use behind hobby lobby. I'm not opposed to those developments, even though I don't think they're good for our town, because simply they are on the outside.
4. No restaurant wants to be right next to apartments, no businesses wants to be right next to apartments.
You're going to kill the value of the businesses in this town by letting this thing go from entertainment zone to residential. The city can call it mixed used all they want, but the fact is, that's just a way to get residential in. This is not the to do that. We need to save our town, we need more business, and more entertainment, and more draw. Too many people are going to Escondido in Carlsbad as it is, leaving San Marcos behind. Restaurant row, and the surrounding area was always a Staple for entertainment, and while I believe it needs significant remodel, possibly significant complete turnover with the old dilapidated buildings, it should not be replaced by residential
5. Entertainment zone. I was under the impression that this area was under the entertainment zone for the north city plan years ago. What happened and why are we caving in to an apartment developer? I really don't understand we're going to end up losing our surrounding businesses to this decision.
1 Sean del Solar
From: Dinah Swetman
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 4:21 PM
To: Sean del Solar
Subject: Kenner homes
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
My vote is to update existing restaurants and add new restaurants instead of building condominium units.
Thanks for listening,
Dinah
direct: +1 415 872 3232
fax: +1 415 549 2450
e-mail: [email protected]
admitted in California
12897104/1
October 27, 2023
Via Email ([email protected]) and FedEx
City of San Marcos
Planning Division
Attention: Sean del Solar
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, California 92069
Recipient 3
Recipient 3 Address
Recipient 2
Recipient 2 Address
Recipient 4
Recipient 4 Address
Re: Additional Responses in Advanced of Planning Commission Meeting to Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Restaurant Row Project, Project No. SP22-0004, Environmental Document No. ND23-011, dated August 2023
Dear Mr. Solar:
In anticipation of the upcoming Planning Commission Meeting on November 6, 2023, this letter is a follow-up to our earlier correspondence dated September 20, 2023 regarding the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (the “Initial Study”) for the Restaurant Row Project (the “Proposed Project”) sponsored by Lennar Homes Inc. (the “Applicant”). These comments are being submitted on behalf of my clients JAKK San Marcos, LLC, a California limited liability company, RK San Marcos, LLC, a California limited liability company, and Butler Properties, LLC, a California limited liability company, the owners of Fish House Vera Cruz (collectively referred to herein as “FHVC”).
FHVC owns the real property located at 360 Via Vera Cruz, San Marcos, California, APN 219-200-40-00 (the “FHVC Property”), which is adjacent to the Proposed Project. We had filed our initial comments on September 20, 2023.
This more complete analysis was withheld at the time, but provided to the Applicant, so that it could be apprised of the additional concerns we had assembled and to provide room for hoped-for negotiation and accommodation with the Applicant, which has unfortunately not occurred. Our analysis is therefore well-known to the Applicant. We reserve the right to comment further.
Fish House Vera Cruz is a family-owned and family-run business that was founded in San Marcos in 1979. FHVC opened their original restaurant in the Old California Restaurant Row building before moving to their current FHVC Property in 1989. As a longstanding San Marcos institution, FHVC is in support of the City’s vision to create a vibrant, walkable development that honors the original legacy of Old California Restaurant Row, and a place for the community to come together.
FHVC wishes to be supportive of a project that aligns with these goals; however, in FHVC’s judgment, there is evidence in the record that supports a fair argument that the Proposed Project may have significant impacts on the City of San Marcos
October 27, 2023
12897104/1 2.
environment, principally with respect to parking and transportation. Therefore, FHVC must oppose the Proposed Project if the following issues are not resolved.
Executive Summary
The Proposed Project will in multiple respects violate the terms of the “1990 Easement” between the Applicant and FHVC, which among other things forbids parking by the general public. This matter was brought to the City’s attention in a series of earlier correspondence and is already part of the record. The Proposed Project will in multiple respects result in a substantial deficit in parking. The Proposed Project will have 501 parking spaces. 477 parking spaces minimum are required for the Proposed Project’s uses, leaving 24 undesignated parking spaces for use by FHVC and the adjacent property owners under the 1990 Easement, and other easement agreements. However, FHVC is entitled to 36 parking spaces under the terms of the 1990 Easement. The theater property requires 57 parking spaces to meet their requirement of 782 parking spaces. This results in a deficit of 69 parking spaces to FHVC and the theater property.
Additionally, the theater property, 338 Via Vera Cruz, and the Wells Fargo property have reciprocal easement rights for an unspecified amount of parking on the Proposed Project site. The Proposed Project cannot satisfy these obligations with just 24 parking spaces.
The City miscalculated the amount of parking supply required for the park and restaurant uses. The VMT Impact Analysis is flawed. The Proposed Project will result in a net increase in VMT and a detailed VMT Analysis is required.
The VMT Impact Analysis should have analyzed the Proposed Project under the mixed-use impact threshold.
I.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL VIOLATE THE APPLICANT’S EASEMENT WITH FHVC AND THE
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
The Applicant and FHVC are parties to reciprocal easement agreements dictating that FHVC is entitled to 36 undesignated parking spaces on the Proposed Project site, and the Applicant is entitled to 54 undesignated parking spaces on the FHVC Property. However, as discussed in Section II, below, the Proposed Project requires 469 parking spaces and proposed to create just 501 parking spaces, leaving just 24 remaining parking spaces available to FHVC. This results in a deficit of 12 parking spaces. The deficit is even more pronounced when considering that 501 parking spaces are not sufficient for the Proposed Project. As discussed in Sections III-V, below, the parking supply 10 spaces are not enough for the park and four pickleball courts (as discussed below, at minimum 36 parking spaces should be required), the restaurant uses (as discussed below, an additional 32 parking spaces should be required), and the theater property will require at least 57 parking spaces.
Equally concerning is how the parking deficit will impact FHVC as a business and the FHVC Property. The Proposed Project’s park, pickleball courts, and portions of the commercial uses are unfortunately sited in the northeast corner of the Proposed Project site, abutting the southern and southeastern boundary of the FHVC Property. The Proposed Project site will not have any convenient parking spaces near that commercial use and spaces that border the park and pickleball courts on the northern boundary are likely to be over capacity. Thus, the visitors to the Proposed Project, and the general public who use the public amenities will unavoidably attempt to park on the FHVC Property, which is directly adjacent to the park, pickleball, and commercial uses. The easement agreements dictate that the grant of easements shall not be for “use by the general public or for any public purpose whatsoever.” In addition to impacting FHVC’s parking supply, this will create an insurmountable and unfair parking enforcement problem.
City of San Marcos
October 27, 2023
12897104/1 3.
To the extent that the easement agreements permit the parties to make reasonable changes or to relocate the parking area, such changes cannot substantially impair the right of use by the dominant tenement. Here, the reduction of the parking supply on the Proposed Project site to just 24 parking spaces, combined with the parking demands of the Proposed Project, and the parking supply demands of the adjacent property owners is sufficient to constitute a substantial impairment. In addition, the parking available to FHVC will span the length of the Proposed Project. It is unreasonable to require FHVC’s customers and patrons to walk across the entire Proposed Project site for parking.
As a result of the preceding, the Proposed Project’s elimination of parking supply will result in a breach of the 1990 Easement. This breach has the potential to result in significant transportation impacts, among others, and should have been studied in further detail in the Initial Study because the users of the Proposed Project, and the customers of Fish House Vera Cruz, the theater property, and the adjacent properties will not have adequate parking.
II.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL RESULT IN AN INADEQUATE SUPPLY OF PARKING SPACES The Proposed Project consists of 202 residential dwelling units, 10,400 square feet (“SF”) of commercial uses, and
1.1 acres of park uses, and proposes to provide 501 total parking spaces on site. (This results in a net reduction of 321 parking spaces.) Of these 501 spaces, the City’s parking analysis determined that 409 parking spaces were required for residential uses, and 68 parking spaces were required for the commercial and park uses. Assuming that the City’s determination that 501 parking spaces is correct (which we contend is not as discussed below) the Proposed Project would leave just 24 parking spaces to satisfy the Applicant’s parking obligations with adjacent owners.
The Proposed Project’s parking supply requirements are summarized in Table A: Proposed Project Parking Supply Requirements, below.
Table A: Proposed Project Parking Supply Requirements
Land Use Quantity Parking Supply Rate Required Parking
Supply
Multi-Family (2 BR) 107 units 1.75 per unit 188
Multi-Family (3+ BR) 95 units 2 per unit 190
Guest Parking 202 units 0.15 per unit 31
Park Site 1.1 acres 9 per acre 10
Sit-Down Restaurant >
2,000 SF
3,232 SF 7.5 spaces per 1,000 SF 24
Take-Out Restaurant <
2,000 SF
4,063 SF 6.5 spaces per 1,000 SF 27
Retail 2,280 SF 3 spaces per 1,000 SF 7
Proposed Project Parking Supply Requirements 477
Proposed Project Parking Supply 501
Remaining Parking Supply for Adjacent Owners 24
City of San Marcos
October 27, 2023
12897104/1 4.
As shown in Table A, the Proposed Project leaves just 24 parking spaces for the Applicant to satisfy its parking obligations with FHVC and adjacent owners. As summarized below in Table B: Applicant’s Parking Obligations to Adjacent Owners, the FHVC Property is entitled to 36 parking spaces, the “Edwards Property” is required to have 57 parking spaces on the Proposed Project site, and other adjacent owners are entitled to an additional unspecified amount of parking spaces. These obligations greatly exceed the 24 parking spaces remaining, and are summarized as follows.
Table B: Applicant’s Parking Obligations to Adjacent Owners Description Required Parking
Supply
Property: FHVC Property
Document: Easement Agreement dated July 21, 1989, recorded on January 30, 1990, as Document Number 1990-050972 (the “1990 Easement”).
Description: The Applicant is required to provide 36 parking spaces to FHVC. The 1990 Easement satisfied FHVC’s site development requirements that were imposed by the City in 1989.
36 Property: 1180 W San Marcos Blvd, APN 210-200-52-00 (the “Edwards Property”) Document: CUP-94-255 (“1994 CUP”)
Description: CUP-94-255 (the “1994 CUP”) requires the Edwards Property owner to have 782 parking spaces. The OCRR Parking Analysis claims that “[t]here are more than 782 parking spaces available to the theatre without reliance on the Proposed Project site, so development of the Proposed Project will not cause the theater to have access to fewer than 782 parking spaces.”
This claim does not appear to be accurate. Currently, the Edwards Property has only 725 parking spaces. The 85 parking spaces located on the former Sears property (the “Sears Property”) is no longer available to the Applicant since the Sears leasehold interest has terminated, and a mixed use apartment/retail development will take its place. Thus, the Edwards Property owner will require 57 parking spaces from the Proposed Project site.
57 Property: the Edwards Property; 338 Via Vera Cruz, APN 219-200-42-00 (“338 Via Vera Cruz Property”); 1000 W San Marcos, Blvd, APN 219-200-200-00 (the “Wells Fargo Property”)
Document: Declaration of Reciprocal Easement Agreements dated September 11, 1996, recorded on November 7, 1996, as Document Number 1996-0564623 (“1999 REA”)
Description: The Applicant is required to provide the Edwards Property, the 338 Via Vera Cruz Property, and the Wells Fargo Property shared parking rights on the Proposed Project site.
Unspecified
Minimum Parking Supply for Adjacent Owners 93
City of San Marcos
October 27, 2023
12897104/1 5.
Remaining Parking Supply for Adjacent Owners 24
Parking Supply Deficit (69)
As there are only 24 parking spaces remaining after allocating the requisite number of parking spaces to the Proposed Project, the Proposed Project will result in a substantial shortfall of parking supply. Without adequate parking to serve existing uses of the Proposed Project, FHVC, and the adjacent property owners, vehicles in search of non-existent parking in the affected area could result in significant impacts to transportation and air quality, among others, and requires further analysis.
III.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT’S PARKING SUPPLY IS INADEQUATE TO ACCOMMODATE THE PARK USES.
The Proposed Project will consist of a 1.1 acre public park featuring four pickleball courts, an unspecified amount of bleacher seating, playground, bench seating and tables, pergola, passive lawn with amphitheater seating and hillside seating, restroom facilities, and an HOA-maintained public dog park separated into two areas for large breed dogs and small breed dogs. As disclosed in Table 2 of the OCRR Parking Analysis (reproduced below), the City selected a parking supply rate of just 9 spaces per acre for a total of 10 parking spaces based upon “reasonable park usage”:
Pickleball is the elephant in the room. No separately calculated parking is provided for four pickleball courts, which appears to be unique among all installations for which information is publicly available. From a planning standpoint, the oversight is shocking. Pickleball is widely regarded as America’s fastest growing sport—according to the San Diego Union-Tribune, roughly 8 million people play the sport regularly, and pickleball supporters predict that there will be 30 million people playing regularly by 2030. 1 (“This is not a fad: Pickleball invasion shows no signs of slowing for the San Diego tennis clubs embracing it”, San Diego Union-Tribune, July 2, 2023.) Popularity is due to the social nature of the game (generally doubles), the fact that the court is smaller (thereby increasing social interaction among the four players), the game is easier to learn, easier to play, less physically taxing, allows people with a wide variety of skill levels to enjoy playing with each other, and can be played by families and by older people who can no longer handle the physical demands of sports like tennis.
The Applicant and the City should have thoroughly investigated the present and future parking supply requirements presented by pickleball, and as a separate use apart from the park use. Instead, it consolidated the multiple uses and selected an arbitrary number based upon “reasonable park usage,” which appears to be a conclusory assumption unsupported by evidence in the record. The unique demand of the pickleball courts is ignored. 1 See Attachment 1, available at: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-07-02/pickleball-tennis-expansion-private- racquet-clubs (“This is not a fad: Pickleball invasion shows no signs of slowing for the San Diego tennis clubs embracing it”, San Diego Union- Tribune, July 2, 2023.)
City of San Marcos
October 27, 2023
12897104/1 6.
The City can look to its own Municipal Code (“Code”) for guidance of parking supply requirements that are analogous to pickleball courts. “Sport courts” are required to provide three (3) spaces per court and/or one (1) space per 200 SF. Similarly, for “outdoor commercial recreation,” the requirement is four (4) spaces per court and/or one (1) space per 200 SF. Minimum dimensions for a pickleball court are 1,800 SF (e.g., 30’ x 60’), resulting in 7,200 SF for the Proposed Project’s four pickleball courts. With respect to the bleacher use, the Code provides that where seating is provided by bleachers, such seats shall be calculated at the rate of one seat per eighteen inches. (Code, Section
20.340.040.E.2.) The Initial Study does not disclose the size or number of bleachers so it is unknown how many seats will be available to the pickleball courts, but those players in waiting would likely have the effect of increasing parking supply demands.
Given the documented popularity of the sport, and the availability of the bleachers, the City should have applied the more rigorous standard of one (1) space per 200 SF, which would result in, at minimum, an additional 36 parking spaces for the pickleball land use, in addition to the remaining park uses.
The concerns arising from pickleball use do not end there. The prevailing approach applied by other communities takes into account the decibel level from play, the effect of the noise upon proximate residences and businesses and light pollution from after-dark activities. Setbacks to mitigate light and noise are taken into account. None of this is addressed here and all of these are held to be environmental impacts. 2 3 4 IV.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT’S REQUIRED PARKING SUPPLY IS INADEQUATE TO ACCOMMODATE THE RESTAURANT USES.
The Proposed Project will include 10,400 SF of commercial uses, comprised of restaurant and retail. However, the City’s analysis uses a lower, net rentable square feet amount of just 9,575 square feet. This understates the quantity of commercial square feet by 825 SF, and therefore results in a lower parking supply requirement. (Elsewhere in the Code, the applicable standard is “gross square feet” and not “net rentable square feet.”) Assuming that such 825 square feet is distributed among the commercial uses, the required parking supply should be increased accordingly.
The Proposed Project anticipates that “outdoor dining will be the forefront for activating the streetscape.” (Specific Plan, p. 59.) Thus, the individual restaurant tenants will be permitted to create up to 35% of the net rentable square footage of their spaces of outdoor dining, or over 35% with an additional permit. The restaurant spaces are expected to total 7,295 SF, meaning that an additional 2,553 SF would be permitted by right. Using the standard of
6.5 spaces per 1,000 SF, an additional 17 parking spaces would be required for the outdoor dining uses alone.
The City’s analysis of the “sit-down restaurant” applied a parking supply rate of 7.5 spaces per 1,000 SF based upon an independent study of the adjacent restaurant spaces. This rate is less than the 8.5 spaces per 1,000 SF standard dictated by the Code. The City’s “cherry-picking” lowered the required parking supply by three (3) parking spaces (and more spaces are likely required, given that the 3,232 SF quantity is the “net rentable square feet” and not “gross square feet”).
Finally, the City’s parking supply rates for the restaurant uses fails to account for employee parking. For reference, in non-mixed use zones, the Code specifies that restaurants are required to supply three (3) employee parking spaces (for 1,000 to 4,000 SF) or two (2) employee parking spaces (for 1,000 SF or less). (Table 20.340-1.) It is 2 See Attachment 2, available at: https://santa-rosa.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=705&meta_id=67707 3 See Attachment 3, available at: https://www.washoecounty.gov/csd/planning_and_development/applications/files-planning- development/comm_dist_two/2020/Files/wadmin20-0010w.pdf; 4 See Attachment 4, available at: https://www.parkcity.org/departments/planning/code-amendments/pickleball City of San Marcos
October 27, 2023
12897104/1 7.
anticipated that there will be at least four separate restaurants. (Specific Plan, p. 77.) Thus, the required parking supply should have included an additional 12 parking spaces for their employees.
V.
THE PROJECT WILL ELIMINATE OFF-SITE PARKING
The Proposed Project will remove seven parking spaces from 1020-1050 W San Marcos Blvd, APN 219-200-46-00 (“1020-50 W San Marcos Blvd”), a single parcel that is owned by the Applicant, and which holds the Buffalo Wild Wings and the Cocina del Charro restaurants. 1020-50 W San Marcos Blvd contains two buildings totaling 17,492 SF, resulting in 149 required parking spaces under the City’s current 8.5 spaces per 1,000 SF standard. (Notwithstanding, it is believed that under the conditions of approval for 1020-50 W San Marcos Blvd, the City required the property to have 159 parking spaces.) 1020-50 W San Marcos Blvd contains 154 parking spaces, but the Proposed Project will eliminate 7 parking spaces, leaving it with just 147 parking spaces. Thus, the City’s statement that “the Buffalo Wild Wings site will still meet the City’s parking requirements” is not accurate, the property will be short by two parking spaces (or short by 12 parking spaces, based on the original conditions of approval). To the extent that the shortfall will be satisfied by the Proposed Project site (in which there is already a substantial deficit in parking), this will further exacerbate the limited parking supply in the affected area, and such shortfall could contribute to significant impacts to transportation and air quality, among others, and requires further analysis.
VI.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT’S ADT AND VMT ANALYSIS IS NOT ACCURATE Table 1 of the VMT Impact Analysis discloses trip rates (based on SANDAG estimates) for the Proposed Project and is reproduced below:
With respect to multi-family units, the SANDAG trip rate is 8 ADTs per dwelling unit where there are between 6-20 dwelling units per acre. The SANDAG trip rate drops down to 6 ADTs per dwelling unit where there are more than 20 dwelling units per acre. Here, the Proposed Project will have 202 dwelling units and the Proposed Project site contains 10.5 acres; thus, there are approximately 19.24 dwelling units per acre. As such, the City should have applied a standard of 8 ADTs per dwelling unit standard, which would have resulted in 1,616 ADTs versus 1,212 ADTs.
With respect to “Strip Commercial”, the City used the strip commercial standard, which is 40 ADTs per 1,000 square feet. For restaurant uses, however, SANDAG’s ADTs for a “sit-down, high turnover” restaurant is 160 ADTs per square feet, and for a “fast food (without drive-through)” restaurant is 700 ADTs per square feet. The Proposed Project’s commercial uses proposes 3,232 square feet of “sit down restaurant” uses and 4,063 square feet of “take- out restaurant”, and just 2,280 square feet of retail. Using SANDAG’s trip rates, the sit down restaurant would
City of San Marcos
October 27, 2023
12897104/1 8.
generate 517 ADTs, the take-out restaurant would generate 2,844 ADTs, and the retail would generate 91 ADTs, for a grand total of 3,452 ADTs. Even if the take-out restaurant were to be categorized as a “sit down, high turnover” restaurant, those uses would generate 650 ADTs, for a grand total of 1,258 ADTs for the commercial uses.
With respect to the 1.1 acre park, the SANDAG standard is 50 per acre for a “City Park” (developed with meeting rooms and sports facilities). Notwithstanding, SANDAG provides more specific trip rate for tennis courts at 30 ADTs per court, or racquetball at 40 ADTs per court. Given that the four pickleball courts will feature bleacher seating (which is uncommon in both tennis and racquetball), the City should have analyzed VMT impacts with an additional 160 ADTs, which would have resulted in 215 ADTs for the City Park use. The resulting ADT and VMT calculations are thus described as follows:
Table C: Proposed Project Trip Generation
Land Use Units Trip Rate ADT Trip Length VMT
Multi-Family
Units
202 dwelling
units
8 per dwelling
unit
1,616 6.39 10,326
Sit Down
Restaurant
3,232 square
feet
160 per 1,000
square feet
517 5.39 2,786
Take Out
Restaurant
2,280 square
feet
700 per 1,000
square feet
2,844 5.39 15,329
Retail 2,280 square
feet
40 per 1,000
square feet
91 5.39 490
City Park 1.1 acres 50 per acre 55 7.63 420
Pickleball 4 courts 40 per court 160 7.63 1,221
Project Total 5,123 30,572
In comparing Table 1 to Table C, it is clear that the City vastly underestimated the ADT and VMT that the Proposed Project would generate. These errors should be amended and analyzed in a detailed VMT Analysis, as discussed below.
VII.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT’S VMT WILL EXCEED VMT UNDER EXISTING CONDITIONS AND THEREFORE REQUIRES A DETAILED VMT ANALYSIS.
Under CEQA, the City 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:
An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant.” (Cal.Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15125, subd. (a), italics added.) A long line of Court of Appeal decisions holds, in similar terms, that the impacts of a proposed project are ordinarily to be compared to the actual environmental conditions existing at the time of CEQA analysis, rather than to allowable conditions defined by a plan or regulatory framework. This line of authority includes cases where a plan or regulation City of San Marcos
October 27, 2023
12897104/1 9.
allowed for greater development or more intense activity than had so far actually occurred, as well as cases where actual development or activity had, by the time CEQA analysis was begun, already exceeded that allowed under the existing regulations. In each of these decisions, the appellate court concluded the baseline for CEQA analysis must be the “existing physical conditions in the affected area” (Environmental Planning Information Council v. County of El Dorado, supra, 131 Cal.App.3d at p. 354, 182 Cal.Rptr. 317), that is, the “ ‘real conditions on the ground’ ” (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 121, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 326; see City of Carmel–by–the–Sea v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 183 Cal.App.3d at p. 246, 227 Cal.Rptr. 899), rather than the level of development or activity that could or should have been present according to a plan or regulation. (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2020) 48 Cal.4th 310, at pp. 320-321, footnotes excluded, emphasis added).
The existing conditions standard applies notwithstanding the fact that a permit may allow maximum operating levels, which do not reflect existing conditions, as explained by Communities:
An approach using hypothetical allowable conditions as the baseline results in “illusory” comparisons that “can only mislead the public as to the reality of the impacts and subvert full consideration of the actual environmental impacts,” a result at direct odds with CEQA's intent. (Environmental Planning Information Council v. County of El Dorado, supra, 131 Cal.App.3d at p. 358, 182 Cal.Rptr. 317.) The Districts use of the prior permits maximum operating levels as a baseline appears to have had that effect here, providing an illusory basis for a finding of no significant adverse effect despite an acknowledged increase in NOx emissions exceeding the Districts published significance threshold. (Communities, 48 Cal.4th at p. 322, emphasis added.) The CEQA Guidelines implementing S.B. 743 adheres to the same rule in Communities: “Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have less than significant transportation impact.” (CEQA Guidelines §15064.3(b)(1), emphasis added.) Here, the Applicant’s traffic consultant performed actual driveway counts at the Proposed Project site on September 16, 2021, which totaled 2,179 daily trips and 11,745 VMT. Under Communities, this data reflects existing physical conditions, that is, the real conditions on the ground rather than illusory “allowable conditions.” Because the Proposed Project would result in a net increase in 18,827 VMT, the Proposed Project requires a detailed VMT analysis under Section 2.1.3.2 of the TIAG.
VIII.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT’S VMT IMPACTS SHOULD BE ANALYZED UNDER “MIXED-USE PROJECT” IMPACT THRESHOLDS RATHER THAN “REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT” IMPACT THRESHOLDS.
The CEQA Guidelines implementing S.B. 743 states:
A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including City of San Marcos
October 27, 2023
12897104/1 10.
whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section. (CEQA Guidelines §15064.3(b)(4), emphasis added.)
The TIAG further instructs that the City reserves the right to use its “professional engineering judgment” when reviewing applications, and in general, that the “City will make the final determination on a case-by-case basis on the appropriate metric(s) and threshold(s).” (TIAG.) The City’s discretion, however, is guided by CEQA’s demand that environmental analyses reflect a “good faith effort at full disclosure.” (California Office of Planning and Research.) Here, 86% of the Proposed Project site consists of nothing more than a parking lot and undeveloped land; the remaining 14% consists of “primarily vacant” commercial buildings (6 of the 10 restaurant spaces are unoccupied), which will be demolished. In other words, the Proposed Project site is largely undeveloped or has already been vacated. In light of the above, the City should have selected the applicable impact threshold that is most appropriate to evaluate the Proposed Project’s VMT, consistent with its obligations to conduct an environmental analysis that reflects a good faith effort at full disclosure. Using the redevelopment impact threshold was error because, as instructed in Communities, a net VMT comparison of the three existing Old California Restaurant Row buildings to the Proposed Project is illusory—the restaurant spaces are now majority vacated. Therefore, the City should have analyzed VMT under the mixed-use impact threshold, which would require each use in the project (i.e., residential, employment, or retail) to be analyzed under separate impact thresholds (as defined in the TIAG).
IX.
FINAL COMMENTS
FHVC is pleased to submit the above comments, questions, and concerns for consideration by the City and in anticipation of thorough and complete responses in the responses to comments. However, FHVC does not represent that the City’s responses will result in FHVC support for a finding that the Initial Study is adequate and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Yin T. Ho at (415) 872-3232 or W. Stephen Wilson at (415) 872-3212.
Very truly yours,
Withers Bergman LLP,
Author Name
Yin T. Ho
ATTACHMENT
1 ATTACHMENT
2 ATTACHMENT
3 ATTACHMENT
4 9/20/23, 9:55 AM Pickleball | Park City, UT
https://www.parkcity.org/departments/planning/code-amendments/pickleball 1/1
PICKLEBALL
Pickleball Courts in residential areas are a type of Private Recreation Facility that require a Conditional Use Permit. On April 28, 2022, the City Council adopted amendments to the Land Management Code to address the unique noise produced as part of pickleball play.
The amendments for private outdoor pickleball courts on residential lots to require compliance with the Municipal Code of Park City Noise Ordinance, including requiring a Conditional Use Permit, minimum setbacks from adjacent residential properties, Homeowner Association notification, limiting hours of play, prohibiting outdoor lighting of residential courts, and requiring parking to be provided on-site.
Outdoor Pickleball Courts in residential areas:
Require a Conditional Use Permit
Public notice will be sent to property owners within 300 feet of the proposed site The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing
The Planning Commission may condition the approval to address site-specific impacts Require a minimum 600-foot setback from lot lines of adjacent residential properties for pickleball courts with no noise mitigation May have reduced setbacks that are no less than 150 feet from adjacent residential property lines when a property owner demonstrates the outdoor pickleball court will comply with the noise ordinance Property owners will be required to submit a site-specific noise study completed by a certified acoustical professional Property owners must demonstrate that mitigating features, including noise-mitigating barriers, will be effective Require Homeowner Association notification for properties that are part of a Homeowner Association registered with the City Are limited to hours of play from 8 AM - 8 PM
The Planning Commission may establish more restrictive hours of operations upon findings that corroborate the appropriateness of alternative times of use
Prohibit outdoor lighting of residential courts
Require guest parking to be provided on-site
Require additional landscaping for noise and visual mitigation measures Once the amendments have been incorporated into the Land Management Code, please see Section 15-4-22 for more information. For questions or to provide public input, please email [email protected] or call 435-615-5063.
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
501 West Broadway, 18th Floor
San Diego, California 92101-3598
619.338.6500 main
619.234.3815 fax
www.sheppardmullin.com
619.338.6559 direct
[email protected]
November 6, 2023
File Number: 40RN-338594
VIA E-MAIL
Sean del Solar
Senior Planner
City of San Marcos
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re: Restaurant Row - Planning Commission November 6, 2023 Agenda Item No. 3, TMP- 1992 - Response to Correspondence from Fish House Vera Cruz dated October 27 and November 3, 2023
Dear Mr. del Solar:
This letter is prepared in response to correspondence dated October 27, 2023 from Yin T. Ho of Withers Bergman Re “Additional Responses in Advanced of Planning Commission Meeting to Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Restaurant Row Project, Project No. SP22- 0004, Environmental Document No. ND23-011,” dated August 2023 and a supplemental letter submitted by Mr. Ho on November 3, 2023. The October 27, 2023 letter largely repeats content from the Withers Bergman letter dated September 20, 2023 regarding the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Letter O-5), and a supplemental letter submitted by Mr. Ho on November 3, 2023. Dudek and Intersecting Metrics prepared detailed responses to the November 3, 2023 letter, a copy of which is attached hereto ( “Technical Response Letter”). Please refer to the Response to Comment for Letter O -5 and Technical Response Letter for detailed responses to the issues and concerns raised in the October 27, 2023 and Novem ber 3, 2023 letters from Mr.
Ho.
As further described in the Technical Response letter, the Restaurant Row project will be implemented in a manner that is consistent with its obligations under shared parking agreements with Fish House Vera Cruz (“FHVC”) and other adjacent property owners. Further, the proposed project is willing to provide an additional 15 parking spaces between the public park and the FHVC property, but requi res cooperation from FHVC to make modest modifications to improvements within the FHVC parking lot to do so, w hich we understand FHVC is unwilling to accommodate .
Even without those addi tional 15 parking spaces, t here will be more than sufficient parking to satisfy the parking demands of the project and other existing land uses and nothing in the record supports the unfounded assertion that secondary impacts will result from a shortage of parking.
The environmental analysis demonstrates that the project will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts.
Please include this letter and the attachments herein to the administrati ve record for the Restaurant Row project (MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND) 23-011, SPECIFIC PLAN
Sean del Solar
November 6, 2023
(SP) 22-0004, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 22 -0002, REZONE (R) 22-0002, TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (TSM) 22-0003, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS (SDP) 22-0006 (PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT), AND SDP 23-0004 (PUBLIC PARK).) Very truly yours,
Jennifer L. Chavez
for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
SMRH:4894-4100-6478.1
Encl.
cc: David Shepherd
Stephen Cook
Vanessa Scheidel
Sean del Solar November 6, 2023
City of San Marcos
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
Dear Mr. Sean del Solar,
The following information is provided in response to a comment letter submitted by Withers Bergman dated November 3, 2023 titled “Reply to Responses to Comments to Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Restaurant Row Project, Project No. SP22-0004, Environmental Document No. ND23-011, dated August 2023.
Note that these responses were prepared in consultation with and reflects the expertise of traffic and parking consultant Stephen Cook, TE, from Intersecting Metrics. Mr. Cook is the consultant that prepared the parking and transportation analysis for the IS/MND.
Introductory Comments
Withers Bergman submitted a letter dated November 3, 2023 titled “Reply to Responses to Comments to Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Restaurant Row Project, Project No. SP22-0004, Environmental Document No. ND23-011, dated August 2023. The introductory comments state the City’s responses to FHVC’s September 20, 2023 letter commenting on the IS/MND do not adequately address parking and VMT concerns.
These issues are further described herein.
The introductory comments also state that the private easements affecting the Proposed Project site are a CEQA issue because negative impacts to parking could result in secondary environmental impacts. The commenter does not provide any further description as to the secondary environmental impacts that might result. Finally, the letter states that the City bears potential liability for inverse condemnation for interfering with parking rights. As discussed herein, the Proposed Project is being designed in a manner that complies with private parking agreements and therefore will not result in any interference with parking rights.
Reply to Comments 05-8 and 05-7
The comment reiterates the initial claim that the Proposed Project will not provide sufficient parking to honor its existing agreements with adjacent property owners. Specifically, the commenter states the Proposed Project is required to provide 93 parking spaces to adjacent owners (36 to FHVC and 57 to the theater), but only has 24 parking spaces available for use by adjacent owners and therefore has a deficit of 69 parking spaces. This is an incorrect assessment of the shared parking obligations applicable to the Property.
First, the commentor fails to note that the Easement Agreement recorded on January 30, 1990 as Document Number 90-050972 only provides the non-exclusive right to use 36 parking spaces within the Proposed Project site. The exact language from the easement grants FHVC “the non-exclusive right to use in common with [Grantor]” 36 parking spaces on the Proposed Project property. (See Document Number 90-050972, Section 2.) Thus, the Proposed Project is only required to allow Fish House Vera Cruz (FHVC) access to 36 parking spaces on 2 the OCRR site, it does not require the Proposed Project to provide an “extra” 36 parking spaces for FHVC.1 The Proposed Project will provide 100 non-reserved parking spaces within the Project site, which FHVC will have the non-exclusive right to access. Allowing this access fulfils the Proposed Project’s commitments outlined in Document Number 90-050972.
The comment also claims that the Proposed Project is responsible for providing 57 parking spaces to the Edwards Site (APN: 210-200-52-00) to fulfill the parking conditions, put onto the Edwards site, of providing access to 782 parking spaces, as outlined in CUP-94-255. However, nothing in CUP-94-255 or any other document requires the Project site to bear the sole responsibility for providing 57 parking spaces to the Edwards theater site. Edwards and a number of other owners in the larger shopping center entered into a Declaration of Reciprocal Easement Agreements recorded on November 7, 1996 as Document No. 1996-0564623, as modified by First Amendment to Declaration of Reciprocal Easement Agreement recorded on April 19, 1999 as Doc. No. 1999-0258087, that provides shared parking to, among other things, ensure the theater had access to 782 parking spaces (725 onsite plus 57 shared offsite parking spaces). After implementation of the Proposed Project, the Edwards Site will have access to 1,129 parking spaces, thus meeting the parking requirements of CUP-94-255. This includes over 100 parking spaces at the 338 Via Vera Cruz office building, which can be expected to have a complimentary parking demand as the office parking lot will likely be largely empty on nights and weekends when restaurants and the theater may be busier. The table below shows the parking spaces that will be accessible to Edwards site, via Document No. 1996-0564623, with the implementation of the Proposed project:
Parcel (APN) Use(s) Parking Spaces
2192003000
OCRR Site 100 2192003100
2192004500
2192004600
Cocina Del Charro 98
Buffalo Wild Wings 491
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
1 It should be noted that FHVC has sufficient onsite parking to satisfy its parking requirements and does not rely on the share d parking agreements to maintain compliance with City parking regulations. FHVC’s building is 9,100 square feet and requires only 77 parking spaces to comply with 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 property.
3 Note:
1Note 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’s suggestion that the Project alone is required to set aside dedicated parking spaces for FHVC or Edwards is unsupported and incorrect. The Proposed Project need only provide FHVC with non-exclusive access to 36 parking spaces, and the Proposed Project site in conjunction with several other parcels, needs to provide the theater site with access to 57 parking spaces. Please refer to 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), for further information about how the Proposed Project provides sufficient parking to comply with existing parking agreements. For the foregoing reasons, there is no doubt that the Proposed Project will meet its commitments outlined in Document Number 90-050972 and Document No. 1996-0564623.
Reply to Comments 05-9, 05-10, 05-11, and 05-12
This comment states that the review of parking conditions performed at Innovation Park is not comparable to the Proposed Project because that park does not have dedicated bleachers for players in waiting and has a 2-hour parking limit. The comment also notes that the date of the Innovation Park review is not disclosed. The parking counts at the Innovation Park pickleball courts were performed on Saturday September 16, 2023, and Sunday September 24, 2023. (See Attachment No. 1, Intersecting Metrics Memorandum dated October 3, 2023, re Innovation Park Pickleball Court Player Counts.) The absence of bleachers at Innovation Park is not expected to have a material impact on parking as players waiting for a court would simply wait elsewhere within the park, such as on the grass, at a bench or around the pickleball courts if bleachers are not available. The City does not believe a 2-hour parking limit is necessary for the park at the Proposed Project either. The Proposed Project has a large parking field which it can utilize, including more than 130 parking spaces at the 338 Via Vera Cruz office building located a short walk away.
It also bears noting that the proposed project is willing to provide an additional 15 parking spaces between the public park and the FHVC property but requires cooperation from FHVC to make modest modifications to improvements within the FHVC parking lot to do so. If FHVC provides the necessary approvals, the proposed project will provide 15 additional parking spaces next to the public park.
The commenter also states that Innovation Park has drawn criticism from the public based upon noise, crowding and failure to follow hours of operation. Those living near parks sometimes complain about periodic noise, light and other nuisances. Due to the location, siting and other design considerations for the pickleball courts and other components of the Proposed Project, and as the environmental analysis for the Proposed Project demonstrates, the pickleball courts are not expected to cause noise or other environmental impacts. The City also expects that park users will abide by posted hours of operation and other park rules and can enforce such rules as needed. The environmental analysis demonstrates that the pickleball courts will result in significant environmental impacts.
4 Reply to Comment 05-13
The comment requests that the gross square footage be used to calculate the parking requirements for commercial uses on-site. Using gross square footage is a common standard for single uses within the City, as specifically outlined for some uses in Table 20.340-1 of the SMMC. However, as outlined in Table 20.340-2 of the SMMC, projects within mixed use zones are not prescribed to use gross square footage as mixed use developments share unoccupied space (trash enclosures, utilities, access ways, public plazas, etc.), thus using gross square footage is not appropriate. Gross square footage was utilized in the in the Proposed Project trip generation calculations because it is the metrics in which the SANDAG Trip Generation Rates were developed.2 As such, the Proposed Project correctly applied both the parking rates based on what is prescribed by each data source.
Reply to Comment 05-14
As discussed in the Responses to Comment to FHVC’s letter, the Specific Plan establishes a custom parking standard for the Proposed Project that contemplates all features of the Proposed Project, including that outdoor dining with an area of up to 35% of interior floor area is permitted. The Proposed Project’s parking standard was informed by restaurant parking demands for Cocina del Charro and other restaurants on adjacent parcels which have sizeable outdoor dining areas. With the anticipated mix of land uses for the proposed project, a 35% outdoor dining area is comparable to the City-wide standard that permits outdoor dining of up to 25% for non- mixed use projects without requiring additional parking. (San Marcos Municipal Code, Table 20.340-1.)3 In any event, an abundance of offsite parking through shared parking agreements ensures that project patrons will have sufficient parking available when visiting restaurants on the Proposed Project site. Moreover, parking is a social issue, not an environmental issue under CEQA.
Reply to Comment 05-15
Refer to previous response.
Reply to Comment 05-19
The commentor claims that the public park acreage should be included in the density calculation. This is incorrect, however, because while the applicant will construct the public park, the park and the land it is built on
2 Using gross square footage also provides for a more conservative trip generation analysis for VMT purposes. 3 The generally applicable Municipal Code provision would require 1 space per 150 SF of outdoor dining area that exceeds 25% of the indoor floor area. Using the commenter’s example, no parking would be required for the first 25% of outdoor area (7,295 SF x 0.25 = 1,823.75 SF). The remaining 729.25 SF of outdoor floor area (2,553-1823.75) would require 5 parking spaces (729.25/150 = 4.86), not 17 as the commenter notes. This would only be the case if Municipal Code Table 20.340 -1 applied to the Proposed Project, but it does not because the Proposed Project is subject to the parking requirement for the Specific Plan which does no t require additional parking for outdoor dining areas.
5 will be conveyed to the City in fee upon its completion. Therefore, the 1.1 acres of land in which the park will be constructed should not be included within the residential area of the Proposed Project as the comment suggests.
This methodology of excluding public park areas is consistent with the SANDAG Trip Generation Guidelines which direct trip generations be calculated based on net residential acreage.
The comment suggests that the specialty retail / strip commercial trip generation rate of 40 trips per 1,000 SF was incorrectly applied and that a restaurant rate should be used instead. As noted in the initial response to comments, the restaurant rates included in SANDAG’s (not so) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (April 2002) are intended for standalone restaurants and are not intended for general commercial spaces, as what is being proposed by the project. Therefore, it is not appropriate to apply standalone restaurant rates to the commercial uses proposed within the project. This is further confirmed by the Shopping Center trip generation rate included within the ITE Trip Generation Manual. As shown in the excerpts below, this rate includes a variety of commercial uses including restaurants and has a similar trip generation rate (37 daily trips / 1000 SF) as SANDAG’s strip commercial rate. It should also be noted that the ITE Trip Generation Manual was published in September 2021, and has is based on far more current data than the SANDAG’s (not so) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates. As such, the trip generation rate of 40 trips per 1,000 SF of commercial space was correctly applied.
6 7
Finally, the commentor asserts that SANDAG’s trip generation rate for tennis and racquetball courts should be applied to the pickleball courts on a per court basis because it is more accurate. However, as discussed in the original response to comment, the trip generation rate for a City Park (developed w/meeting rooms and sports facilities) was utilized when calculating the trip generation for the Proposed City Park. As such, this rate is far more representative of a park use with sports facilities (such as pickleball) than applying an arbitrary rate for uses (tennis and racquetball courts) which are not even included within the proposed park.
As such, the Proposed Project’s trip generation was calculated correctly in the San Marcos Restaurant Row – VMT Impact Analysis Memo.
Reply to Comments 05-20 and 05-21
The comment notes that the eastern portion of the project site was demolished 7 years ago and should not be included in the 63,484 SF of existing restaurant uses on the project site. As shown in the figures below, the 63,484 SF of existing restaurant space only includes the three existing buildings within the OCRR site and do not include the former building to the east.
8 For the reasons stated in Response to Comments O5-20 and O5-21, substantial evidence demonstrates the Project will result in a reduction in VMT and therefore will not have a significant impact on transportation.
9 Attachment No. 1
Innovation Park Pickleball Court Parking Counts
10