HomeMy WebLinkAbout31C - VARIANCE - 2725 N BRISTOL STREQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
OCTOBER 21, 2013
TITLE:
VARIANCE NO. 2013-11 TO ALLOW A
REDUCTION IN PARKING FOR PLANET
FITNESS AT 2725 NORTH BRISTOL STREET
- ERIC A. NELSON, APPLICANT
CITY MANAGER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
APPROVED
? As Recommended
? As Amended
? Ordinance on 1s` Reading
? Ordinance on 2ntl Reading
? Implementing Resolution
? Set Public Hearing For
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
Receive and file the staff report approving Variance No. 2013-11 as conditioned.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On September 23, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution approving Variance No.
2013-11 as conditioned to allow a reduction in required parking for Planet Fitness by a vote of 6:0
(Alderete absent) at the Floral Park Promenade retail center at 2725 North Bristol Street located
in the Community Commercial (Cl) zoning district. The Planning Commission made no changes
to the recommended conditions of approval outlined in the attached staff report (Exhibit A).
DISCUSSION
The approval of this project will allow for a vacant retail space at the Floral Park Promenade retail
center to be re-tenanted with a new fitness facility, Planet Fitness. The project required a
variance from the City's parking standards due to the fact that the space was originally
constructed to a retail parking standard, which is much lower than the City's standards for fitness
facilities. A parking study was performed to assess whether there would be any impacts resulting
from the reduction in parking and it was determined that there would still be adequate parking to
serve the entire center even at peak use times.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
Jay` re ino
,
Executive Director
Planning & Building Agency
AP: rb apM\Reports\Staff Reports for CCMA13-11 Planet Fitness Parking.cc
Exhibit: A. Planning Commission Staff Report
31 C-1
31 C-2
REQUEST FOR
Planning Commission Action
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE:
SEPTEMBER 23, 2013
TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING - FILED BY ERIC A.
NELSON FOR VARIANCE NO. 2013-11
TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN PARKING
FOR PLANET FITNESS AT 2725 NORTH
BRISTOL STREET
PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY
APPROVED
? As Recommended
? As Amended
U Set Public Hearing For
DENIED
? Applicants Request
? Staff Recommendation
CONTINUED TO
Prepared by Ali Pezeshkpour
Executive Director
Planning Manager
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2013-11 as conditioned.
Request of the Applicant
Eric Nelson, representing Planet Fitness, is requesting approval of a variance from Section 41-1375
of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) in order to allow a reduction in required parking for a health
club at the Floral Park Promenade retail center located at 2725 North Bristol Street.
Project Location and Site Description
The subject property is known as the Floral Park Promenade retail center and is located at the
northeast corner of North Bristol Street and West Memory Lane. The site is approximately 6.01 acres
in size, square in shape and is developed with five primary buildings on three parcels: a 2,900-square
foot office building; a 35,387-square foot multi-tenant commercial building; a 26,313-square foot multi-
tenant commercial building; a 6,600-square foot multi-tenant commercial building; and a 4,800-square
foot multi-tenant commercial building. The total square footage of all buildings on site is 76,000.
Planet Fitness will be locating within the 35,387-square foot commercial building and intends to
occupy a total of 18,600 square feet.
The site is surrounded by multiple-family residential uses to the north, multiple and single-family
residential uses to the east, commercial and single-family residential uses to the south across
Memory Lane, and commercial and multiple-family residential uses to the west across Bristol Street
(Exhibits 1, 2 and 3).
EXHIBIT A
31 C-3
Variance No. 2013-11
September 23, 2013
Page 2
Proiect Description
The proposed project consists of interior tenant improvements and minor exterior changes to an
existing building to allow a Planet Fitness health club. As stated previously, Planet Fitness will be
occupying approximately 18,600 square feet of floor space within an existing multi-tenant commercial
building that shares a site with four other buildings. The project will feature an entry lobby and
reception area, tanning facilities, dressing rooms, a primary area for fitness and exercise, several
smaller rooms with various exercise equipment, and miscellaneous storage and utility rooms. A total
of 11,404 square feet of interior area will be devoted to physical activity. The project also proposes
minor exterior improvements to the building in addition to the interior improvements for the health club
use. The applicant proposes to remove existing cart corrals that were once used for the market/retail
uses at the site, as well as to install signage that will be reviewed through a separate, ministerial
application. Primary access to the project site will be provided from the existing driveways on Bristol
Street and Memory Lane (Exhibits 4 and 5).
Proiect Background
The various buildings comprising the Floral Park Promenade commercial center were constructed
between 1965 and 2004. Original structures included commercial buildings and a service station,
with the former enlarged throughout the years and the latter replaced with a multi-tenant retail center
in 2004. Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-17 and Variance Nos. 2003-2 and 2004-5 were approved
in 2004 in order to allow a drive-through facility as well as a reduction in required parking for the
building closest to the corner of Bristol Street and Memory Lane. Since its construction, the tenant
space that is the subject of this application has housed a variety of uses. These include grocery
markets, a pharmacy, as well as miscellaneous, seasonal retail uses. The site has remained without
a tenant since Rite Aid vacated the space in 2009.
Founded in 1992, Planet Fitness is a nationwide chain of health clubs with over 600 locations. Many
of the company's earliest locations were in the eastern United States, but the company has expanded
to the western US in recent years. Planet Fitness distinguishes itself by offering low-cost plans that
target semi-occasional, first-time health club members. Most locations comparable to the proposed
Santa Ana location range in size from 12,000 to 20,000 square feet with an average size of 15,000
and feature simpler amenities than other, larger national health club chains.
This Planet Fitness would be Santa Ana's first location and Orange County's third. Planet Fitness
currently operates two locations in Anaheim that are similar in size and amenities offered to members
with 24-hour operation, except on weekends. The proposed hours of operation at the Santa Ana
location are 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.
31 C-4
Variance No. 2013-11
September 23, 2013
Page 3
General Plan and Zoning Consistency
The General Plan land use designation for the site is General Commercial (GC), which allows for
commercial and office uses. General Commercial districts are primarily located on commercial
corridors and major arterial roadways in the City. They provide accessible commercial
development along the City's arterials as well as provide support facilities and services, including
offices, restaurants and various other services. The project is consistent with this General Plan
land use designation.
The subject site is located in the Community Commercial (Cl) zoning district. The C1 zone is a
limited commercial zone that allows for certain commercial and office uses that are neighborhood-
serving in nature, including health clubs and/or gymnasiums. The proposed use is consistent with
the uses permitted in the C1 zoning district.
Project Analysis
Variance requests are governed by Section 41-638 of the SAMC. Variance requests may be granted
when it can be shown that the following can be established:
That there exists a special circumstance related to the property, such as size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings.
That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public or surrounding property.
That the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan.
If these findings can be made, then it is appropriate to grant the variance. Conversely, the inability to
make these findings would result in a denial. Using this information, staff has prepared the following
analysis, which forms the basis for the recommendation contained in this report.
The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to allow a reduction in required parking. The entire
shopping center currently contains 371 parking spaces to serve all five of the buildings, although five
spaces will likely be removed to accommodate a fire access lane at the rear of the project site. The
building proposed as the location of Planet Fitness is parked at a rate of five spaces per 1,000 square
feet pursuant to the City's retail parking standard. Section 41-1375 of the SAMC requires one parking
space per 28 square feet of physical activity area. Based on these requirements, 407 stalls are
required for the project (calculated from approximately 11,404 square feet of activity area) and a total
of 719 parking spaces are required on the entire site, while only 371 spaces are provided for the
entire center, requiring a variance of almost 50 percent.
31 C-5
Variance No. 2013-11
September 23, 2013
Page 4
To analyze whether the existing parking on the site could accommodate the use, and therefore
substantiate the variance request, the applicant hired the traffic engineering firm of Linscott, Law &
Greenspan Engineers (LLC) to provide an alternative parking standard for the health club and to
prepare a shared parking analysis for the site. The parking study, using procedures developed by
the Urban Land Institute (ULI) for shared parking, analyzed impacts on large shopping center
parking lots that are shared by multiple land uses such as Floral Park Promenade. The study also
surveyed other municipalities and the actual parking demand for health clubs in an effort to provide
a realistic parking demand for Planet Fitness.
The parking study was intended to provide an analysis of the demand for parking based on the
different activity patterns of the center. In addition, it was intended to review the City's parking
requirement for health clubs and propose an alternative standard based on other generation factors
and actual health club usage. Based on this analysis, a ratio of 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet was
established for health clubs. This standard was derived by analyzing the Institute of Traffic Engineers
(ITE) parking generation factors as well as reviewing the parking demand of similar health clubs,
including those in Santa Ana such as Bally Total Fitness, LA Fitness, and Gold's Gym. These gyms,
although larger, contain similar floor area allocations for physical and non-physical activity areas of 60
and 40 percent, respectively.
Based on this analysis, a peak parking demand of 344 spaces would occur during the weekday peak
at 6:00 p.m. and 256 spaces during the weekend peak hour at 12:00 noon. The parking study took
into account the five spaces that will likely be removed due to fire access lane requirements and
assumed an on-site total of 366 spaces. Both of these peak demands will be less than the 366
spaces available on the site, leaving parking surpluses that will range from 22 to 110 spaces
(Exhibit 6).
Since 2000, the City has considered similar requests for parking variances for health clubs at three
different facilities in Santa Ana: Bally Total Fitness (now LA Fitness) at 3701 South Plaza Drive, LA
Fitness at 1501 North Tustin Avenue, and, most recently, Gold's Gym at 1945 East 17th Street.
Parking variances at these locations were approved with reductions in parking of approximately 30,
31, and 51 percent, respectively. Moreover, the parking analysis prepared for Planet Fitness
indicates that project surplus amounts of parking will be similar in proportion to the aforementioned
health club project sites for which parking analyses were also prepared.
In analyzing the Planet Fitness variance request, staff believes that the following findings of fact
warrant approval of the variance:
The project site has a special circumstance related to its location and surroundings. The
proposed use will be located within a built out development site on North Bristol Street that is
surrounded by commercial and residential uses. Due to its location, there is no feasible option for
providing additional parking for the health club. The number of on-site parking spaces will be
sufficient as identified in the parking analysis for the project, which has determined that a surplus
of parking spaces will be provided for the project, even during times of peak demand. As a result,
the parking variance will allow the applicant the ability to use the property in a manner that is
consistent with similar surrounding congirel yes
Variance No. 2013-11
September 23, 2013
Page 5
The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights. The granting of the parking variance will preserve the property owner's ability to
lease the building to a use that will identify the site as an economically viable development. The
tenant space that is the subject of this application has accommodated a variety of uses, including
grocery markets, a pharmacy, and miscellaneous seasonal establishments, that have been
unsuccessful in remaining viable over a long-term period. The granting of the variance will allow a
new type of commercial use to establish itself in the existing multi-tenant center.
The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public or surrounding properties. As
demonstrated in the parking analysis for the project, the site will have sufficient parking to
accommodate the various uses during the peak parking hours. Therefore, the reduction in parking
will not be detrimental to the surrounding community as it will not result in parking impacts
affecting adjacent commercial or residential neighborhoods. Further, the granting of the variance
will allow the property owner to fill a long-vacant tenant space, contributing to the vitality and
success of the existing commercial center. Finally, conditions have been placed to ensure that the
site be in compliance with all other development standards applicable to the property.
Finally, the project will not adversely affect the General Plan as the proposed health club use is
consistent with Goals 1 and 2 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. These goals
encourage uses such as Planet Fitness that promote a balance of land uses to address basic
community needs and which enhance the City's economic and fiscal viability. In addition, the
project is consistent with Policy 2.2 of the Land Use Element, which supports commercial uses
that accommodate the City's needs for goods and services.
Public Notification
The project site is located within the Bristol Memory Coalition Neighborhood Association. The
president of this association and the president of the adjacent Morrison/Eldridge Park
Neighborhood Association were notified by mail 10 days prior to this public hearing. Staff has
been in regular contact with representatives of the Morrison/Eldridge Park Neighborhood
Association, who have periodically requested updates on and have voiced support for the project.
Moreover, the project site itself was posted with a notice advertising this public hearing, a notice
was published in the Orange County Reporter and mailed notices were sent to property owners
and occupants within 500 feet of the project site, as well as concerned citizens listed on the
Permanent Notification List. At the time of this printing, no correspondence, either written or
electronic, had been received from any members of the public.
CEQA Analysis
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project is exempt from
further review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), which is a general rule exemption applying to projects
that have no possibility of having a significant effect on the environment. Categorical Exemption
Environmental Review No. 2013-12 will be filed for this project.
31 C-7
Variance No. 2013-11
September 23, 2013
Page 6
Conclusion
Based on the analysis provided within this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission
adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2013-11 as conditioned.
Ali Pezeshkpour
Assistant Planner I
Vince Fregoso, CP
Principal Plann r-
AP:jm
apW ReporlslStaff Reports for PC1VA1341 Planet Fitness Parking.pc
Attachments:
Exhibit 1 -Vicinity Map
Exhibit 2 - Land Use Map
Exhibit 3 - Site Photo
Exhibit 4 - Site Plan
Exhibit 5 - Floor Plan
Exhibit 6 - Parking Analysis
31 C-8
(ItV (
e
0 9
J
s9 \
9 %?
V / 9
2q
2V
X
r O
2
e
O
Al
O
O
22 GARDEN GROVE i ;• FREEWAY ..
Al O RI
/ RI RI O
p,
fll a
a
RI
Q O RI AI C2-HDII
d \ ? o Tq 0 k
/
/ 7
I R1 RI Ri RI 50-77 q
~
p
too- "o 9
RI - 4
t fll
R?
a? RI R1 3
r - n - 7 p1
RI RI R7 R1 RI fl1 RI RI 01
L
R7 ;
RI
RI
RI R1
a R1
/ R1 R1
Al GRSOUAGKMTk t to OYAMl O !Ull9 w 31,1(0 AMRYIFS H
E PoA9WNWFICAl10N OC 00.9lLI91pcB m TROFAMLYFEEIDRIM
09A ODWAM4801(MMNN MI Uall"I"MR41 m MIAMEDllalYMLLlI
G 2^MI.ILFIRYCCYYMal= M2 WAVVINDLb w FMMLYR'JODVIE
G-MD QYAlA.Q1AMROPlIM11?1M g51NLT plo MIIINRYOR9Ral1(]S Fit 91BIR84NAFAMMB
C2 G3r13H1.QXM9i]M O OF som w lllml MLBTi IE
G lBAfRLLH19N? v PRXU9 92 3 )FICOMO MW
6A B11ftlLH.6a8SARfISiNl1ME PCD R mooMMlRJ ()Ba0 [M w 9'®RCRAN
G M msiR{ No@ fW RPlM®fa90B111Rl ORRLCR.1Bif
G PItIH1ALQXMA90AL
VA 2013-11
PLANET FITNESS -
2725 NORTH BRISTOL STREET -=500 FEET
V=1000 FEET
P L A N N I N G A N D B U I L D I N G A G E N C Y
EXHIBIT 1
VICINITY MAP
31 C-9
MULTI - FAMILY
R ESIDE CE
SIN GL E - A I L Y
R E S D N E
F-
w
w
F- MULTI - FAMILY
RESIDENCE
MULTI-FA ILY
RESIDE CE
? LL LL
VACANT
MEMORY LANE
SI LE FAM LY } >
ESI ENC Comm.
J V V - w
V
O Q z Q
LL W Q z
F- ? O LL w
vl w _ p
K l0 W W '' ?
E S I D N E Qo z '++
N ?
N
VA 2013-11
PLANET FITNESS
2725 NORTH BRISTOL STREET ?gy
P L A N N I N G A N D B U I L D I N G A G E N C Y
LAND USE MAP
EXHIBIT 2
31 C-10
VA 2013-11
PLANET FITNESS SITE PHOTO
2725 NORTH BRISTOL STREET
EXHIBIT 3
PAGE 1 OF 2
31C-11
VA 2013-11
PLANET FITNESS SITE PHOTO
2725 NORTH BRISTOL STREET
EXHIBIT 3
PAGE 2OF2
31 C-12
1
l
? I
4
€? uY5
?? 40
tl? e
Y-=
Y
I
/. ;;55 r
? 1 I
1 I
1 1 .Y ((
I?
17 '
IS
r
1M
1 J.
l;
e,na
.7X3
U?tl Vrell
WWA
_ em,l
icuy
.43 r'r15
w03
nom.
?rU
n?
x
V, " ?? ? I? u Y `?'J
r3
?" ga
wN ?rc?! u
r ? vg
?
IXi '
T.
1..
J
_
I
1 1
j 1
(
p ? 1
?
•i
u I .? S I
jI Y
Lll
Z
Q
J
O'.
CLLI
i r A ',"A M+m.M?wl ., 4
1 l .' .
_ 3f4h ?iV+
r r?
t S
._,
rn
N l
]S If:
_
? ? M1
aueeDY O. > ? { ? ? ?
? ?
I 4wJ t t .4 ?i tr
J
i
?
oun i
I lk'Y4u11 _ '
i L ?- -
rx-;
? V / r? 1% ? i°FS6
I A
F 1332119 101SIN8 'N
Iff;
S
N
n
a
i
i-
j 3
o. A
- - - - - - - - - - - -
L
J
E a` ;
a .. ? r u e
o ' p @ - n x o E o 'R b
a° E o f E f - " o
ti 1 06
' Rpp pg t
L ?
Q
l Q
A
4
•
i
a
A
+A
ti to yQ? ?q
?4 ?` IW Ir1 I-ni , A
}?
.
?
th ? !'u t?!
II I I I dl -
a affffifw
^? (q{??}a?i? r0({? TSpry?' ry{p?5 la?'1 }pn?1 /(%(??ny{T ?ryp{?
? 5" S?'arC (?
rw
Vl
v
SZ ?h rl
?
u N
® r
r
T .?
?
IY
4
9L
V14
V V14
m
M
i0
a
O
11
W
II
w
J
a
L)
N
Z
g
a
W
oam5 i
R
?L ?K
?m
6 2
Y ?
N
a
0
J
LL
? A
of
3{9e
I5E
UPDATED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS
FLORAL PARK PROMENADE
Santa Ana, California
September 16, 2013
(original dated December 12, 2012)
Engineers & Planners
Traffic
Transportation
Parking
IM I'll 5
September 16, 2013 nl9ineers&Flannels
rra0ia
lmnsparlalion
Parking
Vice President
Nelson
Eric A
Mr Hoscml.uaw&
,
.
.
Red Mountain Retail Group, Inc, Greenspml, EnUlnams
Development I Government Affairs 2Executive Circle
1234 E. 17th Street Suite 250
Irvino, CA 92614
Santa Ana, CA 92701 949.82SA1151
5006113 r
LLG Reference No. 2.12.3337.1 swrv.Ilecneinems.cmn
Pasadena
Subject: Updated Parking Demand Analysis for Floral Park Promenade [vino
Santa Ana, California See Diego
Woodland Ilills
Dear Mr. Nelson:
As requested, Linscott, Law, & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this
updated Parking Demand Analysis for Floral Park Promenade, an existing 76,000
square-foot (SF) neighborhood shopping center that is generally located north of
Memory Lane and east of Bristol Street in the City of Santa Ana, California.
Based on our understanding, a parking study is required by the City of Santa Ana to
determine the parking demand for the existing shopping center with the occupation of
18,600 square-feet (SF) of vacant retaikdesignated floor area by Planet Fitness
health/fitness club, as well as other vacant retail/office suites, to ensure that adequate
parking is provided upon fill occupancy of the site.
At the time of our parking demand field study, the retail center had a current
occupancy of 50,305 SF and a vacancy of 25,695 SF. These figures were re-
confirmed by Red Mountain Retail Group, Inc. in September 2013. The occupied
buildings consist of child care, eating establishments, martial arts, medical office,
office and retail use, while the vacancies primarily consist of office, retail use, and
the proposed fitness club. Phiepl.l.[n,cott, PE IN; roe
Jack C1. GwompP e'PE v
A parking study has been required by the City of Santa Ana to evaluate the parking Y1.e,1oA Ia':I, PPm n
requirements and operational needs of the center at future full occupancy. This report Pent IV lVJlinson, PE
evaluates those needs based on actual field study of existing peak parking demands at J,n Pxoehna. PE
the site, application of City code, and Further application of the Urban Land UandS shouda, PE
Jo1mA Uoanran, Pk
Instiuue's (ULI) Shored Pnr kilrg methodology. Ulm 61, tQoC hem. PF
Unchoud E U' u'tW, PE
Ked 0. F."key, PE
mren',a
31 C-16
Mr. Eric A. Nelson
September 16, 2013
Page 2
Our method of analysis, findings, and recommendations are detailed in the following
sections of this report. Briefly, we find the following:
• Inventoried existing parking supply on the site totals 366 spaces.
• Existing (November 2012) peak parking demands at the site totals 176 spaces.
• A "code" calculation for existing (November 2012) occupancy levels and
tenancy types requires 282 spaces, and a similar "shared parking" calculation
(code parking ratios and ULI time-of-day profiles) indicates a "design level"
requirement of 232 spaces for that same occupancy condition, thus illustrating
the conservative nature of the shared parking approach.
• A "code" calculation for full occupancy levels requires 719 spaces, resulting
in a theoretical deficiency of 353 spaces.
• A "blended" calculation using actual demands for existing uses and shared
parking for fill[ occupancy of any otherwise vacant space, inclusive of the
proposed Planet Fitness, puts the expected peak utilization at 278 spaces,
resulting in a minimum functional surplus of 88 spaces.
• The mix of site uses (existing or future full occupancy) clearly support the
basis for application of the shared parking methodology, and actual field study
confirms that technique to be very conservative in determining the site's
parking needs.
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
Floral Park Promenade is located north of Memory Lane and east of Bristol Street in
the City of Santa Ana, California. Tigure 1, located at the rear of this letter report,
presents a Vicinity Map, which illustrates the general location of the Project site in
the context of the surrounding street system. figure 2 presents the existing site plan
for Floral Park Promenade, and illustrates the existing buildings and parking areas.
Floral Park Promenade is an existing 76,000 SF mixed-use center with 366 parking
spaces and a current occupancy of 50,305 SF (25,695 SF of vacancy). Table 1,
located at the end of this letter report, following the figures, summarizes the existing
land uses/tenants and associated floor areas for Floral Park Promenade. A review of
Table I indicates that the occupied floor area consists of a 10,420 SF child care
facility, 9,450 SF of eating establishment uses, 1,100 SF of martial arts uses, 5,613 SF
of medical/dental office uses, 1,800 SF of office uses and 21,922 SF of retail uses.
The vacant floor area consists of 2,900 SF of office space, 4,195 SF of retail space
and 18,600 SF of retail-designated floor area that is proposed to be occupied by a
Planet Fitness, n proposed health club/fitness club.
L .
31 C-17
Mr. Eric A. Nelson
September 16, 2013
Page 3
PARKING SUPPLY-DEMAND ANALYSIS
This parking analysis for the Floral Park Promenade involves determining the
expected parking needs, based on the size and type of proposed development
components, versus the parking supply. In general, there are three methods that can
be used to estimate the site's peak parking needs. These methods have been used in
this analysis and include:
¦ Application of City code requirements (which typically treats each tenancy
type as a "stand alone" use at maximum demand).
• Application of shared parking usage patterns by time-of-day (which
recognizes that the parking demand for each tenancy type varies by time of
day and day of week). The shared parking analysis starts with a code
calculation for each tenancy type.
¦ Existing parking demand surveys to determine the aggregate parking demand
of current tenants, combined with application of shared parking evaluation
methodologies for all proposed or existing vacant floor areas in the center.
The shared parking methodology is concluded to be applicable to a development such
as the Floral Park Promenade because the individual land use types (i.e., day care,
eating establishments, martial ails, medical/dental, office, retail, fitness center, etc.)
experience peak demands at different times of the day.
CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
The code parking calculation for Floral Park Promenade is based on the City's
requirements as outlined in Chal)ter 41 - Zoning, Arlic/e AV, Off-Sheet Parking of
the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code. The City's Municipal Code specifies the
following parking requirements:
• Child Care: one (I) space per eight (8) students and one (1) space per teacher.
Restaurant, catd, etc: ten (10) spaces per 1,000 SF of Gross Floor Area (GF'A).
• Martial Arts, gymnastics, and dance studios: five (5) spaces per 1,000 SF of
GFA.
• Medical, dental, psychiatric and chiropractic offices and clinics: six (6) spaces
per 1,000 SF of GFA.
31 C-18
Mr. Eric A. Nelson
September 16, 2013
Page 4
Office, business and professional: three (3) spaces per 1,000 SF of Gross
Floor Area GFA.
• Retail stores and service uses: five (5) spaces per 1,000 SF of GFA.
• Exercise gyms, spas, health clubs, etc: I space for each 28 SF of GFA devoted
to physical activity other than racquetball or handball (exclusive of locker
rooms, shower facilities, utility rooms, and ancillary public area) plus 2%z
spaces for each racquetball and handball court.
Table 1 presents the existing code parking requirements for only occupied floor areas
at the center, then for the total of existing vacancies, and then combined for the total
center. Existing occupied buildings/suites require 282 spaces, a number that is
directly comparable to the field studied peak parking demands established in this
study. Accounting for current vacancies adds a requirement of 437 spaces.
Combining the two, results in a calculated code requirement of 719 spaces. The
existing site has a supply of 366 spaces, which translates to a theoretical deficiency of
353 spaces when compared to city code requirements.
However, the specific tenancy mix of Floral Park Promenade provides an opportunity to
share parking spaces based on the utilization profile of each included land use
component. Tile following section calculates the parking requirements for Floral Park
Promenade based on the shared parking methodology approach.
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
Shared Parking Methodology
Accumulated experience in parking demand characteristics indicates that a mixing of
land uses results in an overall parking need that is less than the stun of the individual
peak requirements for each land use. Due to the existing and proposed mixed-use
characteristics of Floral Park Promenade, opportunities to share parking now occur
and can be expected to continue with full occupancy. The objective of this shared
parking analysis is to forecast the peak parking requirements for the project based on
the combined demand patterns of different tenancy types at the site.
Shared parking calculations recognize that different uses often experience individual
peak parking demands at different times of day, or days of the week. When uses
share common parking footprints, the total number of spaces needed to support the
collective whole is determined by adding parking profiles (by lint of day for
weekdays versus weekend days), rather than individual peak ratios as represented in
the City of Santa Ana Zoning Code. In that way, the shared parking approach starts
31 C-19
Mr. Eric A. Nelson
September 16, 2013
Page 5
from the City's own code ratios and results in the "design level" parking supply needs
of a site.
It should be noted that the "demand" results of the shared parking calculation are
intended to be used directly for comparison to site supply. No further adjustments or
contingency additions are needed because such contingencies are already built into
the peak parking ratios and time of day profiles used in the calculation.
There is an important common element between the traditional "code" and the shared
parking calculation methodologies; the peak parking ratios or highpoint for each
land use's parking profile typically equals the "code" parking ratio for that use. The
analytical procedures for shared parking analyses are well documented in the Shared
Parking, 2" Edition publication by the Urban Land Institute (ULI).
Shared parking calculations for Floral Park Promenade utilize hourly parking
accumulations developed from field studies of single developments in Free-standing
settings, where travel by private auto is maximized. These characteristics permit the
means for calculating peak parking needs when land use types are combined.
Further, the shared parking approach illustrates how, at other than peak parking
demand times, an increasing surplus of spaces will service the overall needs of the
center.
Shared Parking Ratios and Profiles
The hourly parking demand profiles (expressed in percent of peak demand) utilized in
this analysis and applied to the Floral Park Promenade are based on profiles
developed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and published in Shared Parking, 2"e
Edition. The ULI publication presents hourly parking demand profiles for six (6)
general land use categories: fast-food restaurant, family restaurant, medical/dental,
office, retail, and fitness center. For the child care facility and martial arts center
profiles are based on hours of operation and feedback from staff. The ULI profiles of
parking demand have been used directly, by land use type, in the analysis of this site
and are applied to the City's applicable parking ratio, with the exception of the fitness
club/health club.
For this study, an empirical ratio of 5.5 spaces per 1,000 SF was applied to proposed
health chub in order to account for the unique iripmaking and parking characteristics
of the health club that are not reflected in the City Code ratio. Actual field studies
that were previously conducted for 24 Hour Fitness, LA Fitness, and Spectrum Club
have resulted in empirical parking rates that are much lower than city code ratios for
health clubs.
31 C-20
Mr. Eric A. Nelson
September 16, 2013
Page 6
LLG's prior field studies for LA Fitness and Spectrum Club concluded that larger
(greater than 30,000 SF), more "amenitized" health clubs have much lower parking
ratios compared to typical city code ratios. A review of floor plans of a currently
proposed 38,000 SF 24-Hour Fitness indicates that the ratio of "physical activity"
space to "ancillary floor area / space designated for amenities" is very similar to that
of the proposed Planet Fitness health/fitness club, as approximately 60 percent of the
floor area is allocated for "physical activity" while the remaining 40 percent of the
floor area is occupied by locker rooms, retail/reception area, storage, kids room,
office., circulation, etc.). Based on review of the Planet Fitness floor plan,
approximately 61 percent of the floor area (11,404 SF) is designated for "physical
activity", while the remaining 39 percent (7,196 SF) is allocated for ancillary uses
(i.e. locker rooms, storage/hallway, lobby, etc.). Hence, the use of an empirical ratio
of 5.5 spaces per 1,000 SF for health/fitness clubs is applicable to the proposed Planet
Fitness project.
As can be seen from the following summary of peak parking rates (reflecting peak
parking conditions on a weekday), the empirical ratio of 5.5 spaces per 1,000 SF
applied to Planet Fitness in the shared parking calculations is appropriate, yet
conservative design-level ratio based on the likelihood that actual parking needs may
be lower than anticipated:
City Code: 35.7 spaces per 1000 (or I space per 28 SF)
LA Fitness Studies: 5.5 spaces per 1,000 SF E- used in this slimly
ITE Parking Generation. 5.27 spaces per 1,000 Sr
2009 24 hour Fitness Study: 5 spaces per 1,000 SF
(plus 17% contingency)
Spectrum Club Study: 4.50 spaces per 1,000 SF
2009 24 Hour Fitness Study: 4.28 spaces per 1,000 SF
(for UFC Gym)
Application of Shared Parking Methodology
Tables 3 and 4 presents the weekday and weekend parking demand profiles for Floral
Park Promenade based on the shared parking methodology, assuming full occupancy
of the center including ui 18,600 SF fitness club to be occupied by Planet Fitness,
Review of Tables 3 and 4 indicates that the future fill occupancy weekday peak
parking demands will occur at 6:00 PM with peak "design level" demands of 344
spaces. Based on the existing parking supply of 366 spaces, the peak demand hours
on a weekday will yield a surplus of 22 spaces. On a weekend the peak parking
31 C-21
Mr. Eric A. Nelson
September 16, 2013
Page 7
demand will occur at 12:00 PM with a peak demand of 256 spaces resulting in a
surplus of 110 spaces.
SURVEY/SHARED PARKING METHODOLOGY
Key Parking Demand Field Study Findings
The code calculations of Table 2 for existing (November 2012) tenancies at the site
(282 spaces), contrasted with the peak shared parking requirement for only those
existing occupancies of Table 3 (232 spaces at 1.00 PM on a weekday), can be further
compared to actual field-studies of existing peak parking demands at Floral Park
Promenade.
Observed parking demand surveys were conducted hourly at the site (from 6:00 AM
through 8:00 PM) by Transportation Studies Inc. on Thursday, Friday and Saturday
(November 15, 16 and 17, 2012). Appendix A contains the weekday and weekend
survey data.
The left column of Tables 5, 6 and 7 present the actual site-wide parking demands
observed throughout the center on the three field-study days. As shown, the actual
peak parking demand on Thursday was 176 spaces at 1:00 PM. The Friday peak
demand occurred at 11:00 AM and 5:00 PM with 154 spaces. The Saturday peak
demand occurred at 3:00 PM with 150 spaces. The City code requirement of 282
spaces for existing tenancies at the site is roughly 100 spaces greater than the actual
field-studied peak demand for those same tenancies. Consequently, while the shared
parking results represent a reduction from "pure code", the conservancy and accuracy
of the shared parking approach is validated for predicting actual site parking needs.
Actual Demands "Blended" with Shared Parking Application to Vacant Floor
Area
In order to illustrate the most appropriate actual future peak parking demands at
Floral Park Promenade with an 18,600 SF fitness center, utilization of the actual
survey data for the existing tenancies has been combined with the parking demand
within the ULI shared parking model for the proposed vacant floor areas.
Tables 5, 6 and 7 also present this approach, which consist of adding actual field-
studied demands to the City code parking ratios applied to ULI time-of-day parking
profiles for the expanded and vacant floor areas, for a typical Thursday, Friday and
Saturday respectively. As presented in Tables 5, 6 and 7, the peak parking demand is
278 parking spaces at 11:00 AM on a Thursday, which results in a mininmm
31 C-22
Mr. Eric A. Nelson
September 16, 2013
Page 8
functional surplus of 88 spaces. Consequently, we conclude that there is adequate
parking on site to accommodate the proposed occupancy of 18,600 SF of vacant floor
area with a Planet Fitness health/fitness club. Appendlr U contains the weekday and
weekend day shared parking analysis calculation worksheets.
Based on LLG's experience, the results presented in Tables 5, 6 and 7 represent the
most pragmatic approach to future parking conditions.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Floral Park Promenade is an existing 76,000 square-foot (SF) mixed-use center
located in Santa Ana, California and is supported by an inventoried parking
supply of 366 spaces. At the time of our parking demand field study, the business
park had a current occupancy of 50,305 SF and a vacancy of 25,695 SF. The
current mix of uses/tenants has been re-confirmed by Red Mountain Retail
Group, Inc.
2. This parking demand analysis evaluates the existing tenancy condition as well as
with full occupancy of the center and a proposed Planet Fitness health/fitness
club within 18,600 SF of vacant retail-designated floor area
3. Direct application of City parking codes to the existing and proposed mix of uses of
Floral Park Promenade results in a total parking requirement of 719 parking spaces.
With an existing parking supply of 366 spaces, a code deficiency of 353 spaces is
calculated.
4. Given the mix of center tenancies, a shared parking analysis has been prepared and
indicates that the proposed parking supply for Floral Park Promenade will be
sufficient to meet the projected peak parking demands of existing and proposed
uses, including the proposed fitness club. The weekday scenario results in a
minimum surplus of 22 spaces. The shared parking template developed in this study
is the recommended methodology for evaluating any further tenancy or floor area
adjustments to the on-going operations of Floral Park Promenade.
5. A "blended" analysis or actual parking demand for existing occupancies and a
shared parking approach for proposed uses indicates that the future minimmn
fimctional surplus at Floral Park Promenade will be much greater. For the proposed
tenancy mix, the weekday and weekend day (Thursday, Friday and Saturday)
condition is forecast to have a surplus of at least 88 spaces. Hence, it is concluded
31 C-23
Mr. Eric A. Nelson
September 16, 2013
Page 9
that adequate parking is provided on site to accommodate the proposed occupancy
of 18,600 SF of vacant floor area with a Planet Fitness health/fitness club.
We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this analysis for Floral Park Promenade.
Should you have any questions or need additional assistance, please do not hesitate to
call Shane Green or inc at (949) 825-6175.
Very truly yours,
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
Richard E. Barretto, P.E.
Principal
Q?OFESSIpyq
cc: Shane S. Green, P.E., Transportation Engineer III` O E e 4yc
'A y
No. 2006 0
Attachments *_ Fy 6/30/15
31 C-24
W Orange Rd
q
a Corrigan Ave
0
Q p
z
J
L
C S
N
v . L'.::.::•::: ::. :. .:.ry N O
(,) L ........::.... ..... 'a ?.
W Memory Ln
.-.
Marcella !n _? W.
N
Z4
Q
y
ro tA
W Nark Ln fYl ? N
Q
Y
Z
44
Park Ln
w
3
0
LL
z
O`
W
.W
SOURCE: BING FIGURE 1
KEY
NHO SCALE E. PROJECT SITE
VICINITY MAP
FLORAL PARK PROMENADE, SANTA ANA
31C-25
SOURCE: COOCLE EARTH FIGURE 2
KEY
:E.:E.::1 - PROJECT SRE
N O SCALE
EXISTING AERIAL
FLORAL PARK PROMENADE, SANTA ANA
31 C-26
- `' Y
- '-- J PARKING SUPPLY
[ZONE fl 219 SPACES
F _ ( ZONE B J 76 SPACES
' r
I
N B
l
I
4i J f ZONE C] a 24 SPACES s
•,
1
* a
i
i . i ?
1 LZONE D 1 36 SPACES€
l ZONE E m 11 SPACES a
L 386 SPACES
TOTA
`
I
_
K
A
•` a
PROPOSED ;8
K
FITNESS CENTER
I .,.. .. J 0! I I I _.->. F
II . i ? I e ? [I
SOURCE: DSW INTERN ATIONAL/flE0 MOUNTAIN REALTY FIGURE 3
(C NO SCALE
EXISTING SITE PLAN
FLORAL PARK PROMENADE, SANTA ANA
31C-27
TABLE 1
EXISTING AND PROPOSED TENANTILAND USE SUMMARVI
Address Tenant Land Use Building Size (SF)
BuildingA Vacmd(NeivTotvn) Office 2,900 SF
Building B-I Hawaiian BBQ Eating Establishment 2,200 SF
Building B-3 Cash Advance Retail 1,100 SF
Building B-4 Luv N Donuts Retail 1,100 SF
Building B-5 ''ackwondo Martial Arts 1,100 SF'
Building C Proposed Project - Vacant Proposed Fitness Club 18,600 Sr
Building D-i Stale Farm Retail 1,480 S17
Building D-2 Dental Clinic Medical/Dental 1,483 SF
Building D-3 Pizza Ealing Establishment 1,070 SF
Building D-4 Vacant Relall 1,358 SF
Building D-5 Nails and Bair Expo Retail 2,866 SF
Building D-6 Beauty Salon Retail 1,600 SF
Building D-7 Dentist Medical/Dental 1,430 SF
BuildingE Tutor Time Child Care 10,420 SF'
Building 17 Soccer Store Retail 5,600 SF
Building G-I Outlets R Us Retail 3,120 SF
Building 6-2 Bristol Barber Retail 630 SF
Building G-3 Cleaners Retail 1,806 SI7
Building H-1 Vacant Retail 2,017 SF
Building H-2 Medical Group Medical/Dental 2,700 SF
Building I Juan Poilo Eating Establishment 1,680 SF
Building 1-1233 Rain Maker Staffing Office 1,800 SF
Building 1-1135 Vacant Retail 800 SF
Building 1-1237 Smoke Shop Retail 720 SF
Building 1-1241 Zamora's Mexican Grill Ealing Establishment 1,600 SI7
Building J-A Starbucks Retail 1,600 SF
Building J-B Subway Eating Establishment 1,300 SF
Building J-C QNails Retail 1,000 SI7
Building J-D Metro PCS Retail 900 SF
Summer : 'Total Occupied Child Care Square Footage 10,420 SF
Total Occupied Eating Establishment Square Footage 9,450 SF
Total Occupied Martial Arts Square Footage 1,100 SF
Total Occupied Medical/Dental Square Footage 5,613 SF
Total Occupied Office Square Footage 1,800 SF
Total Occupied Retail Square Footage 21,922 SF
Total Vacant Office Square Footage 2,900 SF
Total Vacant Retail Square Footage 4,195 SF
'Total Vacant Proposed Fitness Club Square Footage 18,600 SF
'TOTAL SITE SQUARE FOOTAGE 76,000 SF
Source: Red Mountain Group, Inc. as of Novcnibcr 2012 mxi re-confined in September 2013.
The Martial Ans Center currently has 2 instructorsand 9 students perclass.
The Child Care Center currently has 20 instructors mid 95 students.
31 C-28
TABLE 2
CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENT
City oT Sanla Ana Spaces
Land Use Size Code Parkin Ratio4 Required
&risline Tenant,11ix
I space per 8 students and I space per 31 5
? Child Care 10,420 SF instructor
? Eating Establishment 9,450 SF 10 spaces per 1,000 SF of GFA. 95
? Martial Arts 1,100 SF 5 spaces per 1,000 SF of GFA. 6
? Medical/Dental Office Building 5,613 SF 6 spaces per 1,000 SF of GFA. 34
? Office 1,800 sF 3 spaces per 1,000 SF of GFA. 6
? Retail 21,922 SF 5 spaces per 1,000 SF or (;FA. 110
Facaid Salles/PtRposed Prod
? Office - Vacant 2,900 SF 3 spaces per 1,000 SF of GFA. 9
? Retail - Vacant 4,195 SF 5 spaces per 1,000 SF of GFA. 21
? Proposed Planet Fitness 11
404 SF 6 1 space per 28 SF of GFA plus 2.5 spaces 407
health/fitness club , for each racquetbollAiandball court
TOTAL: 719
A. TOTAL OCCUPIED PARKING CODE REQUIREMENT 282
B. TOTAL VACANT PARKING CODE REQUIREMENT 437
C. TOTAL PARKING CODE REQUIREMENT BASED ON FULL OCCUPANCY 719
D. 'TOTAL EXISTING PARKING SUPPLY 366
E. PARKING SURPLUS/DEFICIENCY (+/-) BASED ON FULL OCCUPANCY (D - C) -353
' Source: CilV OfSnula Ana Alnuicipnl Code, Chapter 41- Zoning, Arlicle XF Off-.Sireel Parking.
' The child care facility his 95 students and 20 instructors resulting in a 31 space requirement.
6 Floor area represents (he amount of square-footage provided in the health club that is devoted to physical activity. Based on
inlbnnation provided by Iced Mountain Retail Group, Inc., approximately 61%of the total building squxe-footage (i.e. free
weights, aerobic, spin, etc...) is devoted (o physical activity. Square-rootage excludes locker rooms and other ancillary public
areas.
31 C-29
TABLE 7
lan0l4e
EIdIJCrr' Fn1-FaJ
Ikfu0raxl Frolly
Wluaruf
3Yra.l Arh 34Ji. d-DIa1J
012u
Ofp<r
R11d1
S'uu.10f6'r
S'rlual R.ull Prc•{.+N Nne1f
f.o1<r
blrr
Rw
l 10.110 Mr 1370 M1F
io IMF 3260 MSF
to IMF 1.100 Mr
5IMF 5613 MSF
61MYF JAM Mr
313SF 1) 312 K3 IF
51 M,F 1600 Mir
)fSSF 1.135 M[F
31mF 11.680 mr
55 IMFI4 760,70
c'nap.r111,N
%
r
l
Gnrs 31 Sry-1)1 46 Sr.. 33 Sry. 6 51'.131 34 S1r. 6 Sry. 112s". t Sir. 11 Sr.. 161 SCI.
S5)rt0 P.11164 S9f111
366 S s•1
S '
H.. nf0 Kra3rr91
$W.. Krm2rr rl
sw" N..Ab",f
S- 2f.-W.1
S,
r K9..ler of
Sp..' Kurlrr of
S
fr K..Wa
S n1 0".11.4
4.4 N-N'd
sc' V-N' r
5 UI K.mlrrcf
snl P.r11nt
D-4 S.111.1
1hpdx.))
6WA51 10 3 7 0 o O 1 23 0 11 7) IA 2,11
71UA51 31 S I3 0 0 7 t S7 1 2 44 1?0 25,
f1q A?.1 11 to IS U 26 5 21 110 6 3 it 10 20
710ANI N IS It D 1I 6 46 117 71 117 I)2
t-IAF1 0,l 14 21 0 31 6 74 161 7 IS 71 Vf.. 'I)
1I()A1,1 0,l it 22 0 31 6 13 711 1 14 11 111 4
)POW D) 35 24 0 IA 5 1111 214 1 19 61 Y4 61
b7 46 22 0 ?I 5 2.2 7 19 71 ))1 IS
b) ?1 11 U 4 6 219 •) 19 7) 1bl 46
II 12 1 4 6 b•) to 7) 2w
Zl 21 12 4 12 5 g M 7 IA 2I VI
K
l 31 21 11 2) ) 117 J 91 112 4
l 11 la t. 2.1 2 2 5,1 14 22
" 10 17
1 10
1
It
42
) 0 21 17 6 S 0 al 111 I IS 21 IW 1>A
f:,tea
11l Pte/ r,:u, fcr a94:J 4!<I DaIN o0 ETl11tr IJ.IS r.:rm1,J la a ?{ 1r.. fmcau6e o 1errr afrls,i:e 1u1 Jrrr.J p1112
i l1 5551 fr.•ePr•1111 asnti-.u:ND,lolon rlelul„afc.-sra.?,, a-.J k'JI::1 So.^..wl
pI 5W ul,\A1 I:of<1 «x c.tm•ol la,d e? Dr lam ofot,rati„f zJ k+ND):f Ls? rtu[
1cI S9: ne 1'u6 ft 61?7•r rf Ik1161115 frfJr11n1'i-? t•) LIACJ hh f'J1:; Pu13fe1 frn'runr, i)2??EN Ey ke IoHr"tral Ir_,aPe1L•we liti'exn
4._?e tlJ.)1F.nl.:lf•.+•r.rt'v:I.Jf.+2-,:/.'41.Jf1 ?•.,.:i33
31 C-3o
TABLE
1?0JlYe CNWC.u h.uruJ
Rn6v ucl 1'.a.;y
Rn4vuel 141U.1 Anr J4J..1-Mn1J
0011r ??r R.rJI Yu.aI OIBU 7'u ul Rt Wl Pnyrnedilrnu
Cuvr
Slle
R
u 11
PI lom mr 7310 MF
Ill IASF 1769 IJF
I0 Mir 1.100 Air
S IMF 5615 Air
6 IMF 1800 ASr
J IMF 71522 KIF
S IMF 7400 ASY
3IMF 4.19526F
3WIF 186001Sr
SS iMF 11 76.009
C-E.Hrcn wr
v
N
Q.. 11 Spt.121 26 Sft. 11 SfS. 6 Spr.131 11 Sf•I. 6 sr. 116 $rc 9 Sf.. 71 sr.. 101 SM.
sh'.4 PvIWestIf5lr
I
366 S +l
6 1tt N0mhr9f
S
v N-N, •f
S t
v1 V.el...I
Itu
, N. 1.,.1
no... N..1.Yf
r
S rr N.ft",d
s l... N-N-F
SU<u m.j4lJ
T"A N' .1
S (, S-be..I
s p.4% Numhr0l
S M... Pu\Ini
lk-J Sarllur
N0,1,1,))
0 3 6 U O 4 7 12 U 0 6/ Tl 2.17
0 25 0
IAN 0 9 16 2f 0 7J
P 0 11 75 12 JS 117 1 41 W) I47
U 2f 67 157 1 2 11 2"1 65
0 51 SI 161 1 If 1J 2J;
JI J 9J 1.1 I8 J1
U J1 21 U 0 U 111) 161 I 19 77 722 115
2rq F^1 0 ]7 T] U n 118 IMI U 11 2) 2,14 111
pgi56 n 17 IJ 2 0 4 114 ICJ 0 21 77 710 LV.
401161 0 24 17 6 n 11 I11 Ihl n .1 47 727 149
fr+IIM V 27 ll 6 i) U RU I6J U lei N 2(r. bU
6f11fA1 0 17 15 6 9 U 9S 166 0 17 F) Ira 1?/.
7(015-t 0 55 25 6 U 0 ?1 1!6 tl 16 JI 1IJ ICI
41111 !.1 0 21 23 6 0 W IL) U N 21 171 11if
f:?tc1:
171 1'.Ard nx 1 fon9lr.,J an bu.rJ 0U C! I Oa W:re ulml:xl m srssa F.a.0u6t u'I Ir¢¢ ofdbl9L'6 tat\ 4aa:J Deb?
Itl CT 31 Ca-e frriJa v:e rlem,!Ol ba!aJrn Ur l0ulofcprnl?or uJ kclb..\6n11aD
1711.1rnu1ArlrfMCI, n:aMi.Bea1burJe0447an0F9Pr-6rmr•.If dVIIIG??s VT
111 Saur P.L=,1 Je7 Qk-• t%(1,b C,eI-pupal b) II II S:J iS Fd'fu9. P.+.J+af (i--, f,bl-'W b) Itr E'IC.tr of I-'r" iu"li70-
' s:..:,t rrL rtr.>.F.:.Jtw r-Y'.w.•.7n,rt.'::A•.ax•rJrs;:. m;J
31C-31
TABLE 5
"BLENDED" WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS9 • THURSDAY
(EXISTING COUNTED DEMAND PLUS SHARED PARKING FOR VACANT USES
Lnntl Be Existing norm
Park Promenade
Vacant Office
Vacant Retail Proposed Fitness
Center
Size
Pkg Rateill 50.305 KSF 2.900 KSF
3 /KSF 4.195 KSF
5 /KSF 18.600 KSI'
5.5 /KSF131 76.000
Comparison is/
Gross
spaces Obser%vd
Hourly 9 Six. 21 Spc. 103 Six.
Shared Parking Supply
366 Spaces
Time of Day Parking
Demand 121 Number of
Spaces Number of
Spaces Number of
Spaces Parking
Demand Surplus
(Deficiency)
6:00 ANI 42 0 0 73 115 251
7:00 A M 67 2 2 44 115 251
8:00A1N 77 6 3 44 130 236
9:00 A 1vI 104 9 8 73 194 172
10:00 A Ni 143 9 13 73 238 128
11:00 AM 171 8 16 83 278 88
12:00 PM 162 7 19 63 251 115
1:00 PM 176 7 19 73 275 91
2:00 PM 150 9 19 73 251 115
3:001',4( 148 8 18 73 247 119
4:00 PM 165 7 18 83 273 93
5:00 PM 144 4 18 93 259 107
6:00 PM 136 2 18 103 259 107
7:00 PNI 130 1 18 92 2,11 125
8:00 PIN 98 1 15 81 195 171
Notes:
f i] Parki ig rates for all land uses based on ULl procedure nom><dized to cress percentage oa teats of absolute peak demand ratios.
121 Existing Counts were conducted on Thursday, November 15, 2012-
[31 Source: Parking Studies of Health Club facilities prepared by I,LG and 41h Wition, Parking Genernlion published by the
Institute of"Ihansportation Frigineers.
9 Source: Ul.l - tb•ban Lat,d b?stil?rte "Shored Pm•ki?rg, "Secotid Edition, 2005.
31 C-3Z
TABLE 6
"BLENDED" WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS10 - FRIDAY
(EXISTING COUNTED DEMAND PLUS SHARED PARKING FOR VACANT USES)
Land Be Existing floral
Park Promenade
Vacant Office
Vacant Retail Proposed Fitness
Center
Size
Pkg Ratel11 50.305 [4Sf 2.900 KSF
3 /ICSF 4.195 KSF
5 IICSF 18.600 1CSF
5.5 116 F131 76.000
Conyxrrison NN/
Gross
Spces Observed
Hourly 9 Six. 21 Spc. 103 Six.
Shared Parking Supply
366 Spaces
Time of Day Parking
Demand 2 Number of
Spaces Number of
Spnces Number of
Spaces Parking
Demand Surplus
(Deficiency)
6:00 AM 50 0 0 73 123 243
7kOAM 98 2 2 44 146 220
8:00 A NI 82 6 3 44 135 231
9:00 AM 119 9 8 73 209 157
10:00 A M 149 9 13 73 244 122
11:00 A M 154 8 16 83 261 105
12:00 PNI 143 7 19 63 232 134
1:00 PM 150 7 19 73 249 117
2:00 PM 143 9 19 73 244 122
3:00 PM 133 8 I8 73 232 134
4:00 PM 149 7 I8 83 257 109
5:00 PM 154 4 I8 93 269 97
6:001'M 152 2 I8 103 275 91
7:00 PM 142 1 18 92 253 113
19 (v) P 12,7 !._ 1 15 81 217 149
Notes:
(1) Parking rates for all land uses based on IJLI procedure nomulized to express percentage in terms of absolute pcnk demand nit ios,
12J VAsting Counts were conducted on Friday, November 16, 2012,
(3j Source: Parking Studies ofHealth Club facilities prepared by LLGand 4th Edition, Parking Generation published by the
Institute ofTranspollation Engineers.
10 Source: UL/ - Urban Lard brslitute "Shared Parking. " Second rdition, 2005.
31C-33
TABLE 7
"BLENDED" WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS" - SATURDAY
(FXISTINC COUNTED DEMAND PLUS SHARED PARKING FOR VACANT USES)
Land Be Existing Floral
Park Promenade Vacant Office Vacant Retail Proposed Fitness
Center
Size
Pkg Rate[ 11 50.305 l(SF 2.900 l(SF
3 /16F 4.195 KSF
5 116E 18.600 16F
5.5 ll(SF131 76.000
Comlparison ii/
Cross
aces
S Observed
Hourly 9 Spc. 21 Six. 103 Spe.
Shared Parking Supply
366 Spaces
p
Time of Da Parking
Demand 121 Number of
Spaces Number of
S ces Number of
Spaces Parking
Demand Surplus
(Deficiency)
6:00 AM 37 0 0 67 104 262
7:00 AM 50 0 2 39 91 275
8:00 AM 65 0 4 31 100 266
9:00 A NI 73 l 8 43 125 241
10:00 A M 112 1 12 31 156 210
11:00 AM 126 1 15 43 185 181
12:00 PM 127 1 18 43 189 177
1:00 PM 128 1 19 27 175 191
2:00 PM 133 0 21 23 177 189
3:00 I'M 150 0 21 27 198 168
4:00 PM 136 0 20 47 203 163
5:001'M 125 0 19 84 228 138
6:00 PM 118 0 17 80 215 151
7:00 PM 114 0 16 51 181 185
8:00 p%,l 88 0 14 27 129 237
t s•
11] Parking rates forall land uses based on U1.I procedure noinmlized to eNpress percentage in temas ofabsolta peak demand ratios.
[21 Existing Counts were conducted on Saturday, November 17, 2012.
[3) Source: Parking Studies ofHcalth Club facilities prepared by LLGand 41h Edition, Parking Generation published by the
Institute of Tmnspoiiation I-?iginccts.
Sources Ul.l - Urban Land hulilule "Shared Parking, "Second Edition, 2005
31 C-34
APPENDIX A
LINSCDI I, WY & GREENSPAN, ongloe915
EXISTING PARKING COUNT WORKSHEETS
LLG Ref. 2-12-33371
Floral Park Promenade, Senor Ana
N J I V ,.11L: a.l hoed YvM1 P:,..u.. uln, S..,u.\n?a.pop !! i b:.A'.n.In:
31 C-35
TAULE A-1
PARKING COUNTS
rtdvv. November 15. 2012
2e?M A q C D E
Puling Type
R
tic
GrtenC
I.I.W.
Puling
Gntn Cw
IOMInme
PMlln1 Yel1a
Cnb10
Minwe
Vm ffk
Hek u
TMA
R
Drten Cw
60 Miwle
PWfog
NO
R
{k
TOM
R
R
GD<0
pllp3
IWd1t4p
THtl ME
TOTAL
C".Iy 201 I3 1 1 2 219 66 10 76 23 1 24 36 ) ) I 11 266
600AM 4 1 5 14 0 14 6 6 12 0 N
7.OOAM 19 2 21 Ig 1 19 12 It is 0 67
Loom 23 1 24 23 3 l6 I8 18 9 0 17
900Ab1 42 1 1 47 26 3 29 IB O 9 1 1 Id
,am AM 66 1 1 88 )) J J6 II 11 7 1 1 I43
ILOOAH 111 1 1 1? 29 1 33 I/ It 9 2 t Ill
ROOPM 100 1 101 12 5 42 14 14 1 2 1 162
200PM 19 2 1 92 46 8 m 17 1 18 t0 2 2 176
100PM 82 1 1 1 13 34 2 26 12 17 10 2 I 120
76 1 1 78 35 5 40 19 19 9 2 2 148
97 1 1 1 90 39 6 45 18 18 10' 2 l 166
swim
F 72 2 1 1 76 )7 6 43 13 13 10 2 2 144
66 1 1 70 37 6 U 10 10 31 2 2 Id
wrm 29 2 61 32 4 J6 2 10 2 2 130
41 1 42 23 1 26 16 16 12 2 2 98
NM,:
R-RepdvP U,
IM-HWiHp
31 C-36
TADLEA-2
PARIGNG COUNTS
"J... Nn?rmRer 16.2012
2 A O, C 0 C
Pedi,br
R
IR'
Ortt.C
20 Mm le
IWL.6
G.C
IO Minp
P".9 Yd w
Cm610
Ma+m
O1op0R& toNku
TOO
R
11C
iolAl
R
R
Gm3
T9u1 SITE
TOTAL
CJytpi)9 201 I3 1 2 2 219 W 23 1 24 J6 3 1 1 11 J66
6:00 AM 2 0 1 J 9 9 l7 0
7:00AM 17 2 19 19 34 12 11 14 0 96
6:00AM 27 1 26 24 4 21 16 I6 10 0 62
9:00 AM 63 1 1 I 66 31 3 14 10 11 6 1 I 119
1090 AM 51 1 9i 36 2 JA I3 P 9 1 1 119
11.WAM 92 1 1 34 40 4 44 I6 I6 7 1 1 15J
1290 PM 66 1 I 61 U 4 42 IB I6 9 1 1 IQ
IN PM 72 1 1 1 75 46 3 41 15 O 7 1 1
2 WPM
63
2
1
1
69
41
1
46
20
10
7
1
1 143
1 1 66 1 J6 20 r
1 2 61 26 6 J4 15 IS 11 1
1 61 36 1 44 15 19 60 1
1 11 39 45 2 1
i00 PM 60 1 61 JI I 25 k 9 A 0 1 1 111
500 PM 62 1 61 J6 1 20 1 I 1 120
X01111
R-Rt4u14r Pe W9 A
IIC.Hu kep
31 C-37
TABLE AJ
PARKING COUNTS'
.. v_......1... w roll
2uc
A v.
R
?
°
R
PSMngt)p
R
lie
GreSnc,
]O Minnie
U..CW
IOFSMW
Pv21ng YPN9w
Nk10
1,11W.
mwl" PiPk-
TOM
R
Grten C91
0?m:te
Toll
A
HC
TSI.1
G6156
l3l.d
HOndi<9p
TOM MA
Tf/TAL
hpuq xal II 1 ] 2 ]19 10 ]6 2l I J 3
boo AFI 1
1
2
12
It
3
5
0
1)
]00 AM 1
20
2
21
a
a
i.00 AM 5
6
24
4
10
I2
It
Ig .
1
65
9.00 MS 11
1
If
&
J
27
]
1
6
]i
1
1
]!
10.00 AM 19
I
40
JO
S
15
19
19
I]
1
1
Iu
II OOAM f0
1
51
A
3
39
18
10
16
I
1
126
1100 PFI 5]
I
2
0
32
6
10
14
14
14
1
1
113
100 PM 50
1
2
V
41
4
45
19
1
0
9
I
5
125
x:00 PM 0
1
1
66
34
J
19
19
19
6
I
1
131
I'M PM 61
3
0
42
7
49
20
26
16
2
]
10
100 PM SI
I
59
42
It
b
14
14
Il
1
-
1
-
116
-
5.00 PM 0
2
62
13
6
39
11
11
11
1
I
lit
6:00 PM SI
1
6J
36
4
19
10
t
11
14
1
1
110
7:00 PM 42 1 2 45 39 8 47 9 9 12 1
1
114
1:00 Phi ]i
I
1
2
31
29
4
32
10
10
Il
1
1 0
Neltl,
R=Aeryly PULing
fIC =HWlcnp
31 C-38
APPENDIX B
11IbC01I, IAVI &GREENSPAN. CngWelS
ULI PARKING CALCULATION WORKSHEETS
UA Ref. 2.12-7337-I
Floral Pak Wonicnadc, Sonia Ana
we",".,n,,+`a•r,"`-?n, Lln1--',
31 C-39
Appendix Table B-1
FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT
WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1]
Floral Park Promenade, Santa Ana
Land Use Fast-Food Restaurant
Size
Pkg Rate[21 4.570 KSF
10 /KSF
Gross 46 Spaces
Spaces 39 Guest S pc. 7 Em .5 e. Shared
Time
of Da % Of
Peak [3] N Of
Spaces % Of
Peak [31 N Of
Spaces Parking
Demand
6:00 AM 5% 2 15% 1 3
7:60 AM 10% 4 20% 1 5
8:00 AM 20% 8 30% 2 10
9:00 AM 30% 12 40% 3 15
10:00 AM 55% 21 75% 5 26
11:00 AM 85% 33 100% 7 40
12:00 PM 100% 39 100% 7 46
1.00 PM 100% 39 100% 7 46
2:00 PM 90% 35 95% 7 42
3:00 PM 60% 23 70% 5 28
4:00 PM 55% 21 60% 4 25
5:00 PM 60% 23 70% 5 28
6:00 PM 85% 33 90% 6 39
7:00 PM 80% 31 90% 6 37
8:00 PM 50% 20 60% 4 24
Notes:
[1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005.
[2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express
percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs, employee
[3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday
parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the
"Shared Parking" manual.
31 C-40
Appendix Table B-2
FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT
WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [11
Floral Park Promenade, Santa Ana
Land Use Fast-Food Restaurant,
Size
Pkg Rate[21 4.570 KSF
10 /KSF
Gross 46 Spaces
Spaces 39 Guest Spe. 7 Emp. S e. Shared
Time
of Da % Of
Peak [31 # Of
Spaces % Of
Peak 31 # Of
Spaces Parking
Demand
6:00 AM 5% 2 14% 1 3
7:00 AM 9% 4 19% 1 5
8:00 AM 19% 7 28% 2 9
9:00 AM 28% 11 37% 3 14
10:00AM 51% 20 70% 5 25
11:00 AM 79% 31 93% 7 38
12:00 PM 93% 36 93% 7 43
1.00 PM 93% 36 93% 7 43
2:00 PM 84% 33 89% 6 39
3:00 PM 56% 22 65% 5 27
4:00 PM 51% 20 56% 4 24
5:00 PM 56% 22 65% 5 27
6:00 PM 79% 31 84% 6 37
7:00 PM 75% 29 84% 6 35
8:00 PM 47% 18 56% 4 22
Notes:
[11 Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005.
[21 Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express
percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee
[3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday
parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the
"Shared Parking" manual.
31 C-41
Appendix Table B•7
FAMILY RESTAURANT
WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS 11]
Floral Park Promenade, Santa Ana
Land Use Occupied Family Restaurant
Size
Pkg Rate[21 3.280 KSF
10 /KSF
Gross 33 Spaces
Spaces 28 Guest S pc. 5 Em p. Spe. Shared
Time
of Da % Of
Peak 131 N of
Spam % Of
Peak [31 # Of
Spaces Parking
Demand
6:00 AM 18% 5 35% 2 7
7:00 AM 35% 10 53% 3 13
8:00 AM 42% 12 63% 3 [5
9:00 AM 53% 15 63% 3 18
10:00 AM 60% 17 70% 4 21
11:00 AM 63% 18 70% 4 22
12:00 PM 70% 20 70% 4 24
1:00 PM 63% 18 70% 4 22
2:00 PM 35% 10 70% 4 14
3:00 PM 32% 9 53% 3 12
4:00 PM 32% 9 53% 3 12
5:00 PM 53% 15 67% 3 18
6:00 PM 56% 16 67% 3 19
11-
7:00 PM 56% 16 67% 3 19
8:00 PM 56% 16 67% 3 19
Notes:
[11 Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005.
[21 Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express
percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee
[31 Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday
parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the
"Shared Parking" manual.
31 C-42
Appendix Table B•4
FAMILY RESTAURANT
WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS 111
Floral Park Promenade, Santa Ana
Occupied Family Restaurant
3.280 KSF
10 /KSF
33 Spaces
Spaces
F 28 Guest Spe. 5 Em p. Spe. Shared
% Of
Pcak [31 Hof
Spaces % of
Peak 31 # of
Spaces Parking
Demand
E 10% 3 50% 3 6
OOA 25% 7 75% 4 11
45% 13 90% 5 18
9:00 AM 70% 20 90% 5 25
10:00 AM 90% 25 100% 5 30
11:00 AM 90% 25 100% 5 30
12:00 PM 100% 28 100% 5 33
1:00 PM 85% 24 100% 5 29
2;00 PM 65% 18 100% 5 23
3:00 PM 40% 11 75% 4 15
4:00 PM 45% 13 75% 4 17
5:00 PM 600/6 17 95% 5 22
6:00 PM 70% 20 95% 5 25
7;00 PM 70% 20 95% 5 25
8:00 PM 65% 18 95% 5 23
Notes:
[11 Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005.
[2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express
percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee
[3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday
parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the
"Shared Parking" manual.
31 C-43
Appendix Table B-5
MEDICALIDENTAL OFFICE
WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1l
Floral Park Promenade, Santa Ana
Land Use Occupied Medical/Dental Office
Size
Pkg Rate[2l 5.613 KSF
6 /KSF
Gross 34 Spaces
Spaces 23 Visitor Spe. 11 Enrp. S e. Shared
Time
of Day % Of
Peak [3[ H Of
Spaces % Of
Peak [3[ # Of
Spaces Parking
Demand
6:00 AM 0% 0 07 0 0
7:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0
8:00 AM 90% 21 60% 7 28
9:00 AM 90% 21 100% 11 32
10:00 AM 100% 23 100% 11 34
11:00AM 100% 23 100% 11 34
12:00 PM 30% 7 1009/0 11 18
1:00 PM 90% 21 1000/0 11 32
2:00 PM 100% 23 100% Il 34
3:00 PM 100% 23 100% 11 34
4:00 PM 90% 21 100% 11 32
5:00 PM 80% 18 100% 11 29
6:00 PM 67% 15 67% 7
7:00 PM
30%
7
30%
3 LH
8:00 PM 15% 3 15% 2 Notes:
[ll Source: ULI -Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005.
[21 Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express
percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee
[31 Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday
parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the
"Shared Parking" manual.
31 C-44
Appendix Table B•6
MEDICAUDENTAL OFFICE
WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1]
Floral Park Promenade, Santa Ana
Land Use Occupied Medical/Dental Office
Size
Pkg Rate[21 5.613 KSF
6 (KSF
Gross 34 Spaces
Spaces 23 Visitor S c. 11 Em p. S e. Shared
Time
of Day % Of
Peak 3 # Of
Spaces % Of
Peak 31 # Of
S aces Parking
Demand
6:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0
7:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0
8:00 AM 90% 21 60% 7 28
9:00 AM 90% 21 100% 11 32
10:00 AM 100% 23 100% 11 34
11:00 AM 100% 23 100% 11 34
12:00 PM 30% 7 100% 11 18
1:00 PM 0% 0 0°/U 0 0
2:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0
3:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0
4:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0
5:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0
6:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0
7:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0
8:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0
Notes:
[1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005.
[2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express
percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee
[3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday
parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the
"Shared Parking" manual.
31 C-45
Appendix Table B-7
OFFICE
WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [11
Floral Park Promenade, Santa Ana
Land Use Office
Size
Pkg Rate[21 1.800 KSF
3 /KSF
Gross 6 Spaces
S aces 0 Visitor S e. 6 Emp. S e. Shared
Time
of Day % Of
Peak [3 H Of
Spaces % Of
Peak[3] # Of
Spaces Parking
Demand
6:00 AM 0% 0 3% 0 0
7:00 AM 1% 0 30% 2 2
8:00 AM 20% 0 75% 5 5
9:00 AM 60% 0 95% 6 6
10:00 AM 100% 0 100% 6 6
11.00 AM 45% 0 100% 6 6
12:00 PM 15% 0 90% 5 5
1:00 PM 45% 0 90% 5 5
2:00 PM 100% 0 100% 6 6
3:00 PM 45% 0 100% 6 6
4:00 PM 15% 0 90% 5 5
5:00 PM t0% 0 50% 3 3
6:00 PM 5% 0 25% 2 2
7:00 PM 2% 0 10% 1 1
8:00 PM 1% 0 7% 0 0
Notes:
[11 Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005.
[21 Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express
percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee
[31 Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday
parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the
"Shared Parking" manual.
31 C-46
Appendix Table B-8
OFFICE
WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [11
Floral Park Promenade, Santa Ana
Land Use Office
Size
PkgRate[21 1.800 KSF
3 /KSF
Gross 6 Spaces
spaces 1 1 0 Visitor S e. 6 Em p. S pc. Shared
Time
of Day % Of
Peak [3] # Of
Spaces % Of
Peak 3 # Of
5 aces Parking
Demand
6:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0
700 AM 2% 0 2% 0 0
8:00 AM 6% 0 6% 0 0
9:00 AM 8% 0 8% 0 0
10:00 AM 9% 0 9% 1 1
11:00 AM 10% 0 10% 1 1
12:00 PM 9% 0 9% 1 I
1:00 PM 8% 0 8% 0 0
2:00 PM 6% 0 6% 0 0
3:00 PM 4% 0 4% 0 0
4:00 PM 2% 0 2% 0 0
5:00 PM 1% 0 1% 0 0
6:00 PM 1% 0 1% 0 0
7:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0
8:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0
Notes:
[t] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005.
[21 Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express
percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee
[3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday
parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the
"Shared Parking" manual.
31 C-47
Appendix Table B-9
SHOPPING CENTER (TYPICAL DAYS[
WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [11
Floral Park Promenade, Santa Ana
Land Use Shopping Center (Typical Days)
Size
Pkg Rate[21 23.522 KSF
5 /KSF
Gross 118 Spaces
Spaces 95 Guest S e. 23 Emp. Spe. Shared
Time
of Da % Of
Peak [31 # Of
Spaces % Of
Peak [31 # Of
Spaces Parking
Demand
6:00 AM 1% 1 90/. 2 3
7:00 AM 5% 5 14% 3 8
8:00 AM 14% 13 36% 8 21
9:00 AM 32% 30 68% 16 46
10:00 AM 59% 56 77% 18 74
11:00 AM 77% 73 86% 20 93
12:00 PM 86% 82 9010 21 103
1:00 PM 90% 86 90% 21 107
2:00 PM 86% 82 90% 21 103
3:00 PM 81% 77 90% 21 98
4:00 PM 81% 77 90% 21 98
5:00 PM 86% 82 86% 20 102
6:00 PM 86% 82 86% 20 102
7:00 PM 86% 82 86% 20 102
8:00 PM 72% 68 81% 19 87
Notes:
[1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005.
12] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express
percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs, employee
[3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday
parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the
"Shared Parking" manual.
31 C-48
Appendix Table B•10
SHOPPING CENTER (TYPICAL DAYS)
WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1]
Floral Park Promenade, Santa Ana
Land Use Shopping Center (Typical Days)
Size
Pkg Rate[21 23.522 KSF
5 /KSF
Gross 118 Spaces
Spaces 94 Guest S e. 24 Em r. S e. Shared
Time
of Da % of
Peak [31 # Of
Spaces % Of
Peak [31 It Of
Spaces Parking
Demand
6:00 AM 1% 1 10% 2 3
7:00 AM 5% 5 15% 4 9
8:00 AM 10% 9 40% 10 19
9:00 AM 30% 28 75% 18 46
10:00 AM 50% 47 85% 20 67
11:00 AM 65% 61 95% 23 84
12:00 PM 80% 75 100% 24 99
1:00 PM 90% 85 100% 24 109
2:00 PM 100% 94 100% 24 118
3:00 PM 100% 94 100% 24 118
4:00 PM 95% 89 100% 24 113
5:00 PM 90% 85 95% 23 108
6:00 PM 80% 75 85% 20 95
7:00 PM 75% 71 80% 19 90
8:00 PM 65% 61 75% 18 79
Notes:
[l] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005.
[21 Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express
percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee
[3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday
parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the
"Shared Parking" manual.
31 C-49
Appendix Table 8.17
OFFICE
WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [11
Floral Park Promenade, Santa Ana
Land Use Vacant Office
Size
Pkg Rate[2] 2.900 KSF
3 /KSF
Gross 9 Spaces
Spaces I Visitor Spc. 8 Em p. S e. Shared
Time
of Da % Of
Peak [3] # Of
Spaces % Of
Peak 31 # Of
Spaces Parking
Demand
6:00 AM 0% 0 3% 0 0
7:00 AM 1% 0 30% 2 2
8:00 AM 20% 0 75% 6 6
9:00 AM 60% 1 95% 8 9
10:00 AM 100% 1 100% 8 9
11:00 AM 45%' 0 100% 8 8
12:00 PM 15% 0 90% 7 7
1:00 PM 45% 0 90% 7 7
2:00 PM 100% 1 1000/0 8 9
3:00 PM 45% 0 1000/0 8 8
4:00 PM 15% 0 90% 7 7
5:00 PM 10% 0 50% 4 4
6:00 PM 5% 0 25% 2 2
7:00 PM 2% 0 10% I 1
8:00 PM I% 0 7% 1 ]
Notes:
[11 Source: UL1 -Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005.
121 Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express
percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios: Breakdown of guest vs. employee
[3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday
parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the
"Shared Parking" manual.
31 C-50
Appendix Table 0.12
OFFICE
WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1]
Floral Park Promenade, Santa Ana
Land Use Vacant Office
Size
Pkg Ratc[21 2.900 KSF
3 /KSF
Gross 9 Spaces
Spaces 1 Visitor S e. 8 Em p. Spe. Shared
Time
of Da % Of
Peak [3] # Of
Spam % Of
Peak [3] # Of
Spaces Parking
Demand
6:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0
7:00 AM 2% 0 2% 0 0
8:00 AM 6% 0 6% 0 0
9:00 AM 8% 0 8% 1 1
10:00 AM 9% 0 9% 1 1
11:00 AM 10% 0 10% 1 1
12:00 PM 9% 0 9% 1 1
1:00 PM 8% 0 8% 1 1
2:00 PM 6% 0 6% 0 0
3:00 PM 4% 0 4% 0 0
4:00 PM 2% 0 2% 0 0
5:00 PM 1% 0 1% 0 0
6:00 PM 16/0 0 1% 0 0
7:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0
8:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0
Notes:
[t] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005.
[2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express
percentage in terns of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee
[3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday
parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the
"Shared Parking" manual.
31C-51
Appendix Table B-13
SHOPPING CENTER (TYPICAL DAYS)
WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS 11]
Floral Park Promenade, Santa Ana
Land Use Shopping Center (Typical Days)
Size
Pkg Rate[21 4.195 KSF
5 /KSF
Gross 21 Spaces
8 aces 17 Guest S e. 4 Em p. S e. Shared
Time
of Day # Of
Spaces % Of
Peak 3 # Of
S aces Parking
Demand
6:00 AM t 0 9% 0 0
7:00 AM 5% 1 14% 2
8:00 AM 2 36% 1 3
9:00 AM 32% 5 68% 3 8
10:00 AM 59% 10 77% 3 13
11:00 AM 77% 13 86% 3 16
12:00 PM 86% 15 90% 4 19
1:00 PM 90% IS 90% 4 19
2:00 PM 86% 15 90% 4 19
3:00 PM 81% 14 90% 4 18
4:00 PM 81% 14 90% 4 18
5:00 PM 86% 15 86% 3 18
6:00 PM 86% 15 86% 3 18
7:00 PM 86% 15 86% 3 18
8:00 PM 72% 12 81% 3 15
Notes:
[l] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005.
[2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express
percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee
[3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday
parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the
"Shared Parking" manaal.
31 C-52
Appendix Table B•14
SHOPPING CENTER (TYPICAL DAYS)
WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS I11
Floral Park Promenade, Santa Ana
Land Use Shopping Center (Typical Days)
Size
Pkg Rate[21 4.195 KSF
5 /KSF
Gross 21 Spaces
Spaces 17 Guest S e. 4 Em . S e. Shared
Time
of Day % Of
Peak [3) n of
Spaces % Of
Peak [3] # Of
Spaces Parking
Demand
6:00 AM 1% 0 JO% 0 0
7:00 AM 5% 1 15% 1 2
8:00 AM 10% 2 40% 2 4
9:00 AM 30% 5 75% 3 8
10:00 AM 50% 9 85% 3 12
11:00 AM 65% 11 95% 4 15
12:00 PM 80% 14 100% 4 18
1:00 PM 90% 15 100% 4 19
2:00 PM 100% 17 100% 4 21
3:00 PM 100% 17 100% 4 21
4:00 PM 95% 16 100% 4 20
5:00 PM 90% 15 95% 4 19
6:00 PM 80% 14 85% 3 17
7:00 PM 75% 13 80% 3 16
8:00 PM 65% 11 75% 3 14
Notes:
[ I ] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005.
[2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express
percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee
[31 Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday
parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the
"Shared Parking" manual.
31 C-53
Appendix Table B•15
HEALTH CLUB
WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [11
Floral Park Promenade, Santa Ana
Land Use Health Club
Size
Pkg Rate[2] 12.090 KSF
5.5 /KSF 141
Gross 67 Spaces
Spaces 63 Guest S e. 4 Emp. Spe. Shared
Time
of Da % Of
Peak 3 # Of
Spaces % Of
Peak [3] # Of
Spaces Parking
Demand
6:00 AM 70% 44 75% 3 47
7:00 AM 40% 25 75% 3 28
8:00 AM 40% 25 75% 3 28
9:00 AM 70% 44 75% 3 47
10:00 AM 70% 44 75% 3 47
11:00 AM 80% 50 75% 3 53
12:00 PM 60% 38 75% 3 41
1:00 PM 70% 44 75% 3 47
2:00 PM 70% 44 75% 3 47
3:00 PM 70% 44 75% 3 47
4:00 PM 80% 50 75% 3 53
5:00 PM 90% 57 100% 4 61
6:00 PM 1000/0 63 100% 4 67
7:00 PM 90% 57 75% 3 60
8:00 PM 80% 50 50% 2 52
Notes:
[1] Source: UL[ - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005.
[2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express
percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs, employee
[3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday
parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the
"Shared Parking" manual.
31 C-54
Appendix Table B•16
HEALTH CLUB
WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1)
Floral Park Promenade, Santa Ana
Land Use Health Club
Size
Pkg Rate[21 12.090 KSF
5.5 /KSF [41
Gross 67 Spaces
Spaces 64 Guest S e. 3 Em p. S c. Shared
Time
of Da % Of
Peak [31 # Of
Spaces % Of
Peak [31 # Of
Spaces Parking
Demand
6:00 AM 66% 42 41% 1 43
7:00 AM 37% 24 41% 1 25
8:00 AM 29% 19 41% 1 20
9:00 AM 41% 26 41% 1 27
10:00 AM 29% 19 41% 1 20
11:00 AM 41% 26 41% 1 27 .
12:00 PM 41% 26 41% 1 27
1:00 PM 25% 16 41% 1 17
2:00 PM 21% 13 41% 1 14
3:00 PM 25% 16 41% 1 17
4:00 PM 45% 29 62% 2 31
5:00 PM 82% 52 82% 2 54
6:00 PM 78% 50 82% 2 52
7:00 PM 49% 31 62% 2 33
8:00 PM 25% 16 41% l 17
Notes:
[11 Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005.
[21 Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express
percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee
[31 Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday
parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the
"Shared Parking" manual
31 C-55
Newport Beach Bicycle Counts
Name:
Date: Salurda Manlh Da , 2013 TBD
Time: 10:30 a.m. -1:30 .m. TBD
Location: TBD
City: Newport Beach
Time Period
Startin : Male Female Child (under 13) No Helmet Sidewalk Wrong Way (on
street
10:30 - 10:45
10:45 -11:00
11:00- 11:15
11:15 - 11:30
11:30 - 11:45
11:45. 12:00
12:00 - 12:15
12:15. 12:30
12:30 - 12:45
12:45 - 1:00
1:00 - 1:15
1:15 -1:30
Totals
Notes:
31 C-56
ROH - 09/23/13
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-19
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING VARIANCE NO.
2013-11 AS CONDITIONED TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED
PARKING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2725
NORTH BRISTOL STREET
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds,
determines and declares as follows:
A. Applicant is requesting approval of Variance No. 2013-11 to reduce the
required parking standards for a health club within the Floral Park
Promenade retail center located at 2725 North Bristol Street.
B. Variance No. 2013-11 came before the Planning Commission of the City
of Santa Ana for a duly noticed public hearing on September 23, 2013, to
consider all testimony, written and oral.
C. Variance No. 2013-11 has been filed with the City of Santa Ana seeking to
reduce the required parking standards set by Santa Ana Municipal Code
section 41-1375.
D. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the Planning
Commission to grant a variance upon making certain findings.
That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject
property, including size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found
to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at
variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this
chapter.
The project site has a special circumstance related to its
location and surroundings. The proposed use will be located
within a built out development site on North Bristol Street
that is surrounded by commercial and residential uses. Due
to its location, there is no feasible option for providing
additional parking for the health club. The number of on-site
parking spaces will be sufficient as identified in the parking
analysis for the project, which has determined that a surplus
of parking spaces will be provided for the project, even
Resolution No. 2013-19
Page 1 of 5
31 C-57
during times of peak demand. As a result, the parking
variance will allow the applicant the ability to use the
property in a manner that is consistent with similar
surrounding commercial uses.
2. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights.
The granting of the variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights.
The granting of the parking variance will preserve the
property owner's ability to lease the building to a use that will
identify the site as an economically viable development. The
tenant space that is the subject of this application has
accommodated a variety of uses, including grocery markets,
a pharmacy, and miscellaneous seasonal establishments,
that have been unsuccessful in remaining viable over a long-
term period. The granting of the variance will allow a new
type of commercial use to establish itself in the existing
multi-tenant center.
3. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property.
The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public or surrounding properties. As demonstrated in the
parking analysis for the project, the site will have sufficient
parking to accommodate the various uses during the peak
parking hours. Therefore, the reduction in parking will not be
detrimental to the surrounding community as it will not result
in parking impacts affecting adjacent commercial or
residential neighborhoods. Further, the granting of the
variance will allow the property owner to fill a long-vacant
tenant space, contributing to the vitality and success of the
existing commercial center. Finally, conditions have been
placed to ensure that the site be in compliance with all other
development standards applicable to the property.
4. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General
Plan of the City.
The project will not adversely affect the General Plan as the
proposed health club use is consistent with Goals 1 and 2 of
the Land Use Element of the General Plan. These goals
encourage uses such as Planet Fitness that promote a
balance of land uses to address basic community needs and
which enhance the City's economic and fiscal viability. In
Resolution No. 2013-19
Page 2 of 5
31 C-58
addition, the project is consistent with Policy 2.2 of the Land
Use Element, which supports commercial uses that
accommodate the City's needs for goods and services.
E. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed
project is exempt from further review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3),
which is a general rule exemption applying to projects that have no
possibility of having a significant effect on the environment. Categorical
Exemption Environmental Review No. 2013-12 will be filed for this project.
Section 2. The Planning Commission, after conducting the public hearing, hereby
approves Variance No. 2013-11 as conditioned in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and
incorporated herein, to reduce the required parking standards for a health club within the
Floral Park Promenade retail center located at 2725 North Bristol Street. This decision is
based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes, but is not
limited to: the Request for Planning Commission Action dated September 23, 2013, and
exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, all of which are incorporated herein
by this reference.
ADOPTED this 23rd day of September , 2013.
AYES: Commissioners: Bacerra, Crespo, Gartner, Mill, Nalle, Yrarrazaval
(6)
NOES: Commissioners: None (0)
ABSENT: Commissioners: Alderete(1)
ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: None (0)
Sean H. Mill
Vice Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
By:
Ryan O. Hodge
Assistant City Attorney
Resolution No. 2013-19
Page 3 of 5
31 C-59
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, MARTHA RAMIREZ, Secretary of the Planning Commission, do hereby attest to and
certify the attached Resolution No. 2013-XX to be the original resolution
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on September 23,
2013 .
Date:
Secretary of the Planning Commission
City of Santa Ana
Resolution No. 2013-19
Page 4 of 5
31 C-60
Conditions for Approval for Variance No. 2013-11
Should the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 2013-11, the approval is subject
to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable
sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the
California Building Standards Code and all other applicable regulations.
The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below prior to
exercising the rights conferred by this variance.
The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life
of the variance. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the
revocation of the variance.
A. Planning Division
1. All proposed improvements must conform to the Site Plan Review approval
of DP No. 2013-7 and the staff report exhibits.
2. Any amendment to this variance must be submitted to the Planning Division
for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available
or the variance must be amended.
3. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the two existing,
nonconforming freestanding signs on site must be removed or reconstructed
in a manner that conforms to Sections 41-860 through 41-862 of the Santa
Ana Municipal Code.
4. Any damaged, faded, or dilapidated wood siding, wood trellises, or paint
must be restored prior to building permit issuance.
B. Police Department
1. The existing tenant space and required parking must conform to the
provisions of Chapter 8, Article II, Division 3 of the Santa Ana Municipal
Code (Building Security Ordinance). These code conditions will require
that the existing project's lighting, door/window locking devices and
addressing be upgraded to current code standards. Lighting standards
cannot be located in required landscape planters.
2. Provide a Closed Circuit Television System approved by the Police
Department and capable of viewing and recording events at both the front
and rear parking areas with monitoring capability from management
offices at the facility. Provide a tape or disc storage library of recorded
cameras kept for a minimum of 60 days.
Resolution No. 2013-19
Page 5 of 5
31 C-61
31 C-62