FULL PACKET_2005-05-02 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Variance No. 2004-18 February 28, 2005 Page 4 In order to analyze whether or not the existing parking count would be adequate to support the proposed expansiont a parking analysis was prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers t a traffic engineering firm, for the proj ect. The Shared Parking Analysis for the Downtown Santa Ana Plaza provides an analysis of the parking demand based on the different acti vi ty patterns and uses wi thin the center. The study reviews the City's parking requirement for mixed-use centers and proposes an alternative parking requirement based on the actual parking usage observed. Two methodologies were used while conducting the parking analysis. The first methodology used was based on the Urban Land Institute's (ULI) shared parking concept. The second method analyzed parking lot usage based on actual counts for the existing land uses, then compared this with what would be required for the building and proposed addition based on the city's code requirement. The study using the Urban Land Institutets (ULI) shared parking methodology concluded that there was insufficient on-site parking available to serve the proposed FAMSA expansion. However, the actual parking lot count for the existing center concluded that sufficient parking was provided to meet the peak parking demands of the shopping center (Exhibit 6). The study found that during times of peak use, the existing parking supply was parked at only 59 percent of the available capacity. Therefore, it concluded that the proposed 505 parking stalls available at the shopping center will be sufficient to accommodate future parking demand, since the peak parking demand of the center with the addition is forecasted at 352 spaces, providing a parking surplus of 153 spaces. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 14t 2005 and received public testimony on the variance request. Concerns about the general lack of maintenance of the centert which included trash accumulation on the site, buildings in need of paint, and substandard and missing landscape materialt were raised. In additiont the Commission noted that the recommended conditions of approval included the correction of several items that were code violations, such as removal of an illegal sign and the repair of paving and re-striping of the parking lot. The Commission expressed serious reservations about the expansion of the center since the applicant was unable to maintain the center in good repair. Finally, the Commission observed that the center had non-integrated parkingt which restricted the customers' access to all parking areas by design. This particular design limitation was not taken into consideration in the shared parking analysis. Therefore, it concluded that while the rear employee parking lot may be underutilized as described in the parking study, the customer 758-6