FULL PACKET_2009-05-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CK D Charles, Kane & Dye T.LP City of Santa Ana May 1, 2009 Page 3 your review as Exhibit "B." This study concludes that the Fehr & Peers study is deficient for at least four reasons: (i) it erroneously assumes that the Doubletree Club's 25 surface parking spaces will be available, (ii) erroneously assumes that 3,000 square feet of meeting rooms in the proposed Marriott Courtyard will not result in any increased parking demand, (iii) its shared parking analysis understates the actual number of required parking spaces, and (iv) the tandem valet parking solution is unworkable. As can be seen from Walker's attached report, weekday peak demand for Marriott parking will be 206 spaces, and weekend peak demand will be 204 spaces, with only a 158 parking space supply on weekdays. The parking in the project is already severely limited, and presents a very substantial problem. As can be seen from the emails attached hereto as Exhibit "C" received from patrons of the Doubletree Club, the existing parking problem is very serious. For example, as recently as April 25, 2009, the Doubletree Club received an email from a guest stating as follows: " The parking is awful. We had to park two blocks away [in the overflow surface lot] and walk (at midnight -returning from a wedding) back to the hotel. We took the last spot in the overflow lot and if' it hadri t been for that, I dori t know how far we would have had to park. This is a major liability/safety concern that should be addressed." The addition of the proposed hotel will only make matters materially worse. The proposed solution is "tandem valet parking" in a portion of the surface lot. This "solution' simply will not work. First, with respect to shared use of the existing 183-stall surface lot, the proposed hotel is immediately adjacent to this surface parking lot where Doubletree Club has been allocated 25 parking spaces. As the attached Walker Report establishes, since there is no requirement that invitees of the proposed hotel use the valet parking, and since it is well known that many people will not use valet parking, it is clear that the most available option for these individuals is to park in the immediately adjacent surface parking lot. This will materially and adversely affect the availability of the 25 parking stalls allocated to Doubletree Club in this lot. In fact, while these 25 Doubletree Club spaces are currently segregated, fenced off, and marked as reserved for Doubletree Club, non-Doubletree patrons park in these spaces on a daily basis. Having the proposed hotel adjacent to this lot (and much closer to it than the Doubletree Club), and eliminating the current segregation and fencing of Doubletree Club's 25 surface parking spaces, will make non-authorized use of Doubletree Club parking spaces an even worse problem. In the event the City Council should nonetheless be inclined to grant the Nexus Application, Doubletree Club respectfully requests that the City Council delay approval until 75B-235