HomeMy WebLinkAbout75A - PH - ZONING ORD AMENDMENTREQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
APRIL 18, 2011
TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT NO. 2011-02 TO ALLOW HEALTH
CLUBS IN THE ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL
ZONING DISTRICT AND VARIANCE NO. 2011-
03 TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN PARKING FOR
GOLD'S GYM AT 1945 EAST SEVENTEENTH
STREET, UNIT 103 - BANNICK ARCHITECTS,
APPLICANT
CITY MANAGER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
APPROVED
? As Recommended
? As Amended
? Ordinance on 1" Reading
? Ordinance on 2" d Reading
? Implementing Resolution
? Set Public Hearing For
?+?-//J '7,5A
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
1. Adopt an ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2011-02.
2. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2011-03 as conditioned.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On March 29, 2011, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt an
ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2011-02 and adopt a resolution
approving Variance No. 2011-03 as conditioned by a vote of 6:0 (Gartner absent) to modify the
permitted uses in the Arterial Commercial (C5) zoning district to allow health clubs and
gymnasiums and to allow a reduction in parking for a Gold's Gym at 1945 East Seventeenth
Street, Unit 103 (Exhibit A). The Planning Commission added a Police Department condition
requiring the submittal of a security plan for the project.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
a .Trevino
Executive Director
Planning & Building Agency
VF:rb
vf\reports\zoa 11-02&va 11-03 1945E 17th.cc
Exhibit: A. Planning Commission Staff Report
75A-1
75A-2
REQUEST FOR
Planning Commission Action
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE:
MARCH 28, 2011
TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT NO. 2011-02 TO ALLOW HEALTH
CLUBS IN THE ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING
DISTRICT AND VARIANCE NO. 2011-03 TO ALLOW
A REDUCTION IN PARKING FOR GOLD'S GYM AT
1945 EAST SEVENTEENTH STREET, UNIT 103
Prepared by Vince Fregoso
Executive Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommend that the City Council:
PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY
APPROVED
? As Recommended
? As Amended
? Set Public Hearing For
DENIED
? Applicant's Request
? Staff Recommendation
CONTINUED TO
Planning Man er
1. Adopt an ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2011-02.
2. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2011-03 as conditioned.
DISCUSSION
Request of the Applicant
Bannick Architects, representing Gold's Gym, is requesting approval of a zoning ordinance
amendment and variance in order to allow a Gold's Gym facility at the Metroplace retail center located
at 1945 East Seventeenth Street, Unit 103. Specifically, the applicant is requesting approval to
modify the provisions of the Arterial Commercial (C-5) zoning district to add health clubs as a
permitted use and a variance from Section 41-1375 of the Santa Ana Municipal code (SAMC) to allow
a reduction in parking.
Project Location and Site Description
The subject property is located at 1945 East Seventeenth Street, Unit 103, between Sherry Lane and
Old Tustin Avenue. The site is approximately 9.5 acres in size, rectangular in shape and is
developed with four buildings: an 8,000 square foot multi-tenant commercial building; a 3,000 square
foot Carl's Jr. fast-food restaurant; a 54,000 square foot Orchard Supply Hardware store; and a
57,000 square foot, two-story building that currently contains several fast-casual restaurants on the
first floor with the second floor being vacant. Gold's Gym will be locating within the two-story building
and intends to occupy a total of 42,770 square feet, primarily on the second floor.
The site is surrounded by single-family residential uses to the north, commercial and office uses to the
south and west, and commercial uses to the east (Exhibits 1 and 2).
4
75A-3
Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2011-02
Variance No. 2011-03
March 28, 2011
Page 2
Protect Description
The proposed project consists of interior tenant improvements to an existing building to allow a Gold's
Gym facility. As stated previously, Gold's Gym will be occupying approximately 42,770 square feet of
floor space within the two-story building, comprised of 4,800 square feet on the ground floor and the
entire 37,970 square foot second floor. Within the first floor, an entry lobby, retail space, a reception
area, a childcare center and office space will be provided. The second floor will consist of the health
club functions and will include areas for free weights, circuit training, cardio fitness equipment,
aerobics rooms and men's and women's showers and lockers. An outdoor pool, surrounded by a six
foot high block wall, will be provided at the rear of the building. No other exterior improvements are
proposed. Primary access to the project will be provided from the existing driveways on Seventeenth
Street (Exhibits 3, 4 and 5).
Proiect Background
In 1997, a general plan amendment, zone change, conditional use permit and variance were
approved to allow the construction of The Home Place Shopping Center, a five building retail and
restaurant center. The approvals allowed the development of an Orchard Supply Hardware (OSH)
building, a Carl's Jr. Restaurant and a multi-tenant retail building containing a bank, yogurt shop and
preschool uses. In 2008, the building that would house the proposed Gold's Gym building was
constructed as the final phase of the retail center. Since its opening in 2009, the building has been
partially occupied by various restaurant uses. In 2009, a Buffalo Wild Wings facility was approved
and intended to occupy approximately 6,000 square feet of the first floor of the building; however, due
to a change in the economy, the restaurant was never built.
General Plan and Zoning Analysis
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 Arterial Commercial (C5) zoning district. The C5 zone is a limited
commercial zone that allows for certain commercial and office uses, but does not allow health
clubs and/or gymnasiums. If the zoning ordinance amendment is approved, the proposed use will
become consistent with the zoning.
75A-4
Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2011-02
Variance No. 2011-03
March 28, 2011
Page 3
Proiect Analvsis
Zoninq Ordinance Amendment
The proposed zoning ordinance amendment is to amend the permitted uses section of the Arterial
Commercial (C5) zoning district (SAMC Section 41-424) and allow health clubs as a permitted use. If
approved, gymnasium and health club facilities would become a permitted use in all of the City's C5
commercial zoning districts. In order to allow the proposed Gold's Gym health club, the proposed
zoning ordinance amendment would be required.
The Arterial Commercial zoning district was established in 1952 as part of the original zoning
ordinance for the City. Over the years, minor adjustments have been made to the permitted uses
section and the development standards of the C5 zone. The last comprehensive review of the C5
zoning district was in 1982, which introduced development standards intended to promote quality
development and to upgrade commercial uses along major arterials. Also included in the
comprehensive review was the deletion of several uses from the district, such as care homes, public
utility facilities and equipment storage, rental and sales yards, with no mention of gymnasiums and
health clubs. During this comprehensive update, health clubs were not a common land use found in
the city.
The opening of larger health clubs such as Bally's, 24 Hour Fitness, LA Fitness, and Gold's Gym
were part of the growth in the health club industry that began in the mid to late 1980's. Research by
staff indicates that on average, health clubs have increased by as much as 10 percent in the last
three decades. These uses have typically been located on arterial streets and near major
intersections to facilitate access and to increase visibility. In addition, health clubs have increased in
size and can now only be accommodated in large retail centers commonly found in the C5 zones.
Further, modern health clubs have changed the nature of their operations. Today, many offer a
variety of retail services within their floor plans, such as cafes, equipment and clothing shops and
nutritional consulting services that would benefit from locating within a C5 zone, along arterial
highways and at locations with enhanced visibility. Since the site is a large 9.5 acre site, is adjacent
to two major arterial highways, will be oriented toward Seventeenth Street and has a large parking lot,
the subject site is an appropriate location for the use.
If approved, the proposed zoning ordinance amendment will be applicable to all other C5 zoned
properties in the City. These other similarly zoned properties may be suitable sites for a health club
but are currently restricted by not being an allowable uses in the zoning. The code amendment will
also allow the larger C5 zoned properties found throughout the City the ability to contain a health club
(Exhibit 6).
The proposed amendment supports the General Plan policies of encouraging viable commercial
development along arterial streets, promoting rehabilitation of commercial properties, and supporting
developments that are harmonious with existing development in the area. Uses such as a health club
at this location will further strengthen the City's commercial base and will provide support services to
the surrounding neighborhoods.
75A-5
Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2011-02
Variance No. 2011-03
March 28, 2011
Page 4
Variance
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 655 parking spaces to serve all five of the buildings. The building
proposed as the location of Gold's Gym is parked at a rate of 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet on the
first floor pursuant to the City's restaurant parking standard, with the second floor having been parked
at the rate of six spaces per 1,000 square feet pursuant to the City's medical office parking standards.
Section 41-1375 of the SAMC requires one parking space per 28 square feet of physical activity area
(773 stalls for 21,644 square feet of activity area) for the health club. Based on code requirements, a
total of 1,340 parking spaces are needed for this site with the Gold's Gym use, while 655 spaces are
provided for the entire center. To analyze whether the existing parking on the site could
accommodate the gymnasium use, and therefore substantiate the variance request, the applicant
hired the traffic engineering firm of Linscott, Law and Greenspan 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 for shared parking (ULI), analyzed
impacts on large shopping center parking lots that are shared by multiple land uses such as
Metroplace. The study also surveyed other municipalities and the actual parking demand for
health clubs in an effort to provide a realistic parking demand for Gold's.
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
75A-6
Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2011-02
Variance No. 2011-03
March 28, 2011
Page 5
(ITE) parking generation factors as well reviewing the parking demand of similar health clubs. Based
on this analysis, a peak parking demand of 608 spaces during the weekday peak hour of 6:00 p.m. to
7:00 p.m. and 579 spaces during the weekend peak hour from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. is anticipated.
Both of these peak demands will be less than the 655 spaces available on the site (Exhibit 7).
In analyzing the 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 East Seventeenth 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 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.
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. Policy
2.2 of the Land Use element supports commercial uses that accommodate the City's needs for
goods and services.
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 site is 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 Gold's Gym that promote a balance of land uses to address basic
community needs and which enhance the City's economic and fiscal viability.
Public Notification
The project site is located within the Meredith Parkwood Neighborhood Association. Staff and the
project applicant have attended two Meredith Parkwood/Portola Park Neighborhood Association
meetings to discuss the project. In December 2010, representatives from Gold's Gym and the
property owner made a formal presentation to the association. Further, on March 17, 2011 staff
provided the neighborhood association with an update on the project.
75A-7
Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2011-02
Variance No. 2011-03
March 28, 2011
Page 6
In addition, the neighborhood contact of this organization was notified by mail 10 days prior to this
public hearing. 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 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.
To address noise, loitering and privacy issues raised at prior public hearings for Buffalo Wild Wings
and Chipotle restaurants and at the December 2010 neighborhood association meeting, conditions
of approval have been added to the project. For example, restrictions on the hours of availability
have been placed on the rear parking lot to ensure the residences to the north are not impacted
during the evening hours. Also, a security guard will be located in the rear parking area to monitor
use of the parking lot. Finally, an access gate will be installed to limit parking in the rear lot.
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. 2010-122 will be filed for this project.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis provided within this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission
recommend that the City Council approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2011-02 and
Variance No. 2011-03 as conditioned.
? r f.
J Vince Fregoso, AI P
Principal Planner
VF:jm
vflreportMzoa 11-02&va 11-03 1945E1 7th-03281 1.pc
Attachments:
Exhibit 1 - Vicinity Map
Exhibit 2 - Land Use Map
Exhibit 3 - Site Plan
Exhibit 4 - First Floor Plan
Exhibit 5 - Second Floor Plan
Exhibit 6 - C5 Zoning Map
Exhibit 7 - Parking Study
75A-8
RJ
\ s sq
y
Al GENERAL AGRICULTURAL GSM SOUTH MAIN STREET COMMERCIAL DISTRICT PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
-B PARKING MODIFICATION -F FLOOR AREA RATIO PRD PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Cl COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL GC GOVERNMENT CENTER R1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
CI-MD COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL-MUSEUM DISTRICT Ml LIGHT INDUSTRIAL R2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE
C2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL M2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL R3 MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
C3 CENTRAL BUSINESS MO MILITARY OPERATIONS R4 SUBURBAN APARTMENT
C3-A CENTRAL BUSINESS-ARTISTS'VILLAGE 0 OPEN SPACE RE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE
C4 PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER -OZ OVERLAY ZONE SD SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT
C5 ARTERIALCOMMERCIAL P PROFESSIONAL SP SPECIFICPLAN
CR COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL PCD PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ZOA 11-2NA 11-3
GOLD'S GYM
1945 EAST SEVENTEENTH STREET, UNIT 103
- - = S00 FEET
1" =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
VICINITY MAP
EXHIBIT 1
75A-9
75A-10
CONDOMINIUMS
TWENTIETH
G
o
CONDOS Q CONDOMINIUMS S I N L E F A M I L Y
9TH ST. SINGLE FAM. n - ,,t>
RES.
OFFICE lNGL F ILY 1 n >-'? "5 :?f ^`
REST ENTI L ^- p R..:
ALLEY
s +
OFFICE CONDOMINIUMS _ ?'...
COMMERCIAL
E S II 0 El N T II A
v
f
E
O
U
J
U
f
f
O
v
SEVENTEENTH STREET
O F F 1 C E Ln C O M M E R C A L
Q
J
J_
ZOA 11-2NA 11-3
GOLD'S GYM
1945 EAST SEVENTEENTH STREET, UNIT 103
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
a F SINGE FAMILY
C F a to
G ? W LL W J
Q cQ N O RE IDENTI L
J N z 3 z Q
01-
-lo
3
STREET
75A-11
75A-12
G4-irve (Y10 :•^1 ciao-WC .r:0? Ya 90Ra Y!'Mn Y1R Is Wmu
s17 C
'
, Pq Ua e
MI
s l 4
30VIdOdAN M
1 N
O S,O
00
- j i a
• • =.W.?, VId Ais
M3M8 1 9 g
r ?
e
P
t
ge?aiE@!p
a rpt ?g?g? ?' I
ln5iliE!
ao oooaaol]
i?
r ? I
I I I
J alai
,
II Qb
,I
+\ ? Ii ?' Q
I
?i
LLJ
_._ .._._.._-.` __... I J
NZ!
Q
- - it
I
I I r r I '? 1, !
,.i
i
I
- - ` - ALL 1 I - d _
r
i II J i ? I ® ' F?
i Lill
EXHIBIT 3
0
N
M
O
Q
t?
w
U.
75A-13
75A-14
.16L-flp6 wo i..! Abe- m=1 Sri sous q VMr 'I-$ 'Ls HiKE
9:1'.9 1NeOllr', 'tiMW ?In '?Il uN?S "w• a?pn, It./
30` I e N
dOdl3W W,10 5,0100
"
"
? t .wy NVId 3115 M3N32 C S 9
c?
I
®I
L --- -------
1
t
I
I ? . T
_- m3F _-_
o I
I
r m?
I MON.
I I
1
II 1
A t 16E
I
--
I I I
7
? I II
_-_--lam
r
O
N
CO)
O
J >r
d ? m
of LL
0u
O
J
LL
H
V)
ly-
LL
75A-16
:,a-:+u lrtr; :•.1 t:.eyyt ;la) ni M96 n'M VLMY •15 ILLMflUWS 3513 GSI
arn,a rnwrn:<?rw ern. 'm; rs ...•. -.:m. ,r.r
30dldOdl3 WJlO S
(1100
,
' j cli
a
a
r .w.. M3IA38
Wld 3LIS e 5
----
u
I
I I
I
'
I1
., - - -
- -- -
J
z
I
? I I
I 1
I
,
I
I I
I
I
I I
?
I
I
I I
I I
>
??
I
I
I i
I
I i
I - ?I I
y ? i II
J
I I '1
li l
? a I I
,I I
U- I
V I I
II II
? I I
' Z? I I
J < "' I ! I I
i 'I I
I II
I ?----- ter:
Z q
d
ck:I I
O
O
J
LL-
C1
Z
O
U
LLJ
Ln
r
r
O
N
M
O
a
f3C
m
w
LL
7 DA-
75A-18
fII
.U
CQ S-
Q E
E
W
U
y-- N
a ?
U Q
U
0
'e
_o v
U °C
C C * _
(D AA
LL
`?I s
a
4
0
qk
.
r
FFr '? ) 3
Tl(
y ?
EL;
I Li t
1 ? C
75A-1 9 page 1 of 2
f6
?U
Q E
m E
O
Ln
76
O
>- .)
U Q
L?i
U
o`>
i O
W ?
w
0
7 5A P2d of 2
M
REVISED PARKING ANALYSIS
FOR GOLD'S GYM AT METROPLACE
Santa Ana, CA
January 27, 2011
(original dated September 15, 2010)
Prepared for.
LEVY AFFILIATED HOLDINGS
201 Wilshire Boulevard, 2nd Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401
LLG Ref. 2.08.3054.2
ae
r a No. 2006 O
s. up 3o 11
OF,
EXHIBIT 7
Linsco% Lew It
Greenspan, Engineers
1580 Corporate Drive
Suite 122
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
714.641.1587 r
714.641.0139 r
wwAdigengineers.com
75A-21
J
January 27, 2011
Ergiassrs 8 Planners
Traffic
Transportation
Mr. Jonathan Kohn Parking
Levy Affiliated Holdings
201 Wilshire Boulevard, 2nd Floor Unscott,Lawa
Santa Monica, CA 90401 Greenspan, Engineers
LLG Reference No. 2.08.3054.2 1580 Corporate Drive
Suite 122
Subject: Revised Parking Analysis for Gold's Gym at Metroplace Costa Costa Mesa, , CA 92626
714.6411587 T
Santa Ana, California 714.641.0139
www.ligengineers.com
Dear Mr. Kohn:
Pasadena
As requested, Linscott, Law, & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this Costa Mesa
San Diego
revised Parking Analysis for Metroplace, an existing neighborhood shopping center Las Vegas
generally located north of 17rh Street and west of Old Tustin Avenue in the City of
Santa Ana, California. This Parking Analysis has been updated to address the
comments of City staff as provided on January 10, 2010 and follow-up discussions of
January 25, 2011.
The subject property currently consists of four (4) buildings with approximately
127,777 square-feet (SF) of floor area, of which 58,922 SF is a recently constructed,
two-story mixed-use commercial building. The two-story building (herein after
referred to as Project) was originally built as a typical mixed-use commercial building
with ground floor retail and/or restaurant uses and medical office uses on the second
floor- Due to changes in the retail and medical office market, Levy Affiliated
Holdings, proposes to occupy the Project with a 42,770 SF health club and a mixture
of retail and/or restaurant uses within the remaining 16,152 SF of floor area.
Based on our understanding, a parking study is required as part of obtaining a
modified development agreement for the proposed development to allow a health
club use in place of medical office space, since the proposed parking supply will
theoretically be insufficient to meet the City of Santa Ana's parking code
requirements for each individual use.
On that basis, this parking analysis focuses on determining the peak parking demand
of a health club, and the shared parking requirements of the existing and future uses Philip M. Linscott PE olca-aooc>
Jack M. Greenspan,PEIaeu
WilliamA Law. PE-W,
within the Metroplace shopping center. The parking requirements for Metroplace are Paul W Wilkinson, PE
based on the City of Santa Ana zoning code, as well as the methodolo
Y 8 methodology outlined in
Urban Land Institute's (ULI) Shared Parking, 2"`? Edition. Our method of analysis, John P. Keating, PE
0awdS Shender,PE
John A. Boarman, PE
Clare M. Look-Jaeger, PE
Pochard E Barreeo, PE
75A-22 Ked 0. Maberry. PE
Mr. Jonathan Kohn
January 27, 2011
Page 2
findings, and conclusions are described in detail in the following sections of this
report.
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
Metroplace is an existing neighborhood retail center that is generally located north of
17[11 Street and west of Old Tustin Avenue in the City of Santa Ana, California.
Access to the subject property is provided via two driveways, the Homeplace
Center/17th Street intersection and on 17`h Street west of Homeplace Center. The
intersection of Homeplace Center/17th Street is a full access driveway and the other
project driveway on 17th Street is a right-in/right-on due to the raised concrete median
on 17th Street. Figure 1, located at the rear of this letter report, presents a Vicinity
Map, which illustrates the general location of the project and depicts the surrounding
street system.
Table 1, located at the rear of this letter report following the figures, presents a
summary of the existing development tabulation and proposed mix of uses for
Metroplace. As shown, the existing retail center has a total floor area of
approximately of 127,777 square-feet (SF) of floor area within four (4) buildings. The
existing mix of uses consists of a 53,480 SF Orchard Supply Hardware (OSH) Store
with 4,200 SF of outdoor sales/storage area, 2,833 SF of retail shop space, a 3,072 SF
bank, 3,050 SF of fast-food restaurant space and 2,220 SF of childcare services.
Within the recently constructed two-story, 58,922 SF commercial building,
approximately 9,552 SF is currently occupied by a mixture of restaurant/food uses.
The remaining vacant floor area of 49,370 SF is proposed to be occupied by a 42,700
SF health club (Gold's Gym) and 6,600 SF of retail shop space and/or restaurant/food
uses. Given the 1St floor of the Project was previously entitled as restaurant space, the
6,600 SF of vacant floor area was assessed as such to provide the project applicant
and the City with the flexibility when tenanting and approving uses for the vacant
space.
The proposed Project also includes modifications to the existing surface lot, which
will result in a reduction of 12 spaces from the existing parking supply of 667 to a
proposed parking supply of 655 spaces. Figure 1 presents the site plan for
Metroplace as provided by Bannick Architects.
75A-23
i
Mr. Jonathan Kohn
January 27, 2011
Page 3
PARKING SUPPLY-DEMAND ANALYSIS
This parking analysis for the Metroplace involves determining the expected parking
needs, based on the size and type of proposed development components, versus the
parking supply. In general, there are two methods that can be used to estimate the
site's peak parking demands. These methods include:
¦ Application of City code requirements (which typically treat each use in the retail
center as a "stand alone" use at maximum demand); and
¦ Application of shared parking usage patterns by time-of-day (which recognizes
that the parking demand for each land use component varies by time of day, day
of week, and/or month of year).
The shared parking methodology is certainly applicable to a development such as the
Metroplace, as the individual land uses (i.e., retail and restaurant/food uses, health
club) experience peak demands at different times of the day.
PARKING CODE REQUIREMENTS
The parking requirements for Metroplace, with the proposed occupation of 42,770 SF
of floor area with a health club, are based on the City's requirements as outlined in
Chapter 41 - Zoning, Article XV. Off-Street Parking of the City of Santa Ana
Municipal Code. The City's Municipal Code specifies the following parking
requirements for retail stores and service uses, restaurant, cafes, etc., banks and
financial institutions, exercise gyms, spas and health clubs and child care facilities:
¦ Retail stores and service uses: five (5) spaces per 1,000 SF of Gross Floor
Area (GFA).
• Outdoor sales or storage area: two (2) spaces per 1,000 SF of GFA
• Restaurants, cafes, etc.: ten (10) spaces per 1,000 SF of GFA.
¦ Banks and financial institutions uses: four (4) spaces per 1,000 SF of GFA
plus two (2) spaces per each walk-up automatic teller machine.
¦ Exercise gyms, spas, health clubs, etc: 1 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.
75A-24
Mr. Jonathan Kohn
January 27, 2011
Page 4
¦ Childcare facilities: one (1) space for each eight (8) individuals plus one (1)
space for each supervisor or teacher.
Table 2 summarizes the parking requirements for the existing and proposed mix of
tenants, including the proposed health club and assuming 6,600 SF of restaurant/food
uses will occupy the vacant space on the I" floor of the Project, at Metroplace using the
above-referenced City code parking ratios. As shown, direct application of City code
parking ratios to the retail center project results in a total parking requirement of 1,340
parking spaces. With a proposed on-site parking supply of 655 spaces, a theoretical
parking deficiency of 685 spaces is forecast. This Code-based deficiency is not
realistic because the City Code parking calculation is conservative, and overstates
actual parking needs for the proposed health club (Gold's Gym), as will be discussed
in the next section of this report.
However, as previously mentioned, there is an opportunity to share parking spaces based
on the utilization profile of each land use component. The following section calculates
the parking requirements for the existing retail center 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 sum of the individual
peak requirements for each land use. Due to the existing and proposed mixed-use
characteristics of Metroplace, opportunities to share parking can be expected. The
objective of this shared parking analysis is to project the peak (existing) parking
requirements for the project based on the combined demand patterns of different land
uses 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, or even months
of the year. When uses share a common parking footprint, the total number of spaces
needed to support the collective whole is determined by adding parking profiles (by
time of day, week, and year), rather than individual peak ratios as represented in City
of Santa Ana Zoning Code.
75A-25
Mr. Jonathan Kohn
January 27, 2011
Page 5
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"d Edition publication by the Urban Land Institute (ULI).
Shared parking calculations for Metroplace 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 will result, at other than peak parking demand times, in an
excess amount of spaces that will service the overall needs of the retail 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 Metroplace are based on profiles developed by the
Urban Land Institute (ULI) and published in Shared Parking, 2"d Edition. The ULI
publication presents hourly parking demand profiles for seven general land uses:
office, retail, restaurant, cinema, residential (Central Business District: CBD and non-
CBD), hotel (consisting of separate factors for guest rooms, restaurant/lounge,
conference room, and convention area). These factors present a profile of parking
demand over time and have been used directly, by land use type, in the analysis of
this project.
Retail Uses
One of the primary project components for the Metroplace is retail space, the ULI
retail use profiles are applied directly. In doing so, there is an intermediate step in
expressing ULI profiles as a percentage of the week-long peak, thus arriving at a
weekday profile and weekend profile each expressed as a percentage of the baseline
parking ratio (ULI actually starts with separate ratios for weekday and weekend day,
and develops profiles for each accordingly; we've found it more convenient to
translate both profiles to a percent of expected maximum demand, which, for retail,
turns out to be on a Saturday). The resulting profiles represent the most likely hourly
parking demand profile, and are applied to the City's retail parking ratio of 5 spaces
per 1,000 SF-GFA. Peak demand for retail uses occurs between 1:00 PM - 2:00 PM
on weekdays, and 2:00 PM - 4:00 PM on weekends.
75A-26
Mr. Jonathan Kohn
January 27, 2011
Page 6
Restaurant Uses
For this analysis, three categories of restaurant uses/profiles, family (high-tumover),
casual/fine dining and fast-food, were considered in projecting the parking
requirements of the existing and future mix of restaurant tenants. According to the
ULI Shared Parking, 2"d Edition publication, "family" restaurants are typically lower
priced restaurants that do not accept reservations, and lack bars and lounges, although
some offer bottled beer or wine. Many serve breakfast, lunch and dinner. Examples
include a pancake house, cafeteria-style restaurants, diners and coffee shops and
moderately priced ethnic restaurants.
Fine/casual dining restaurants typically includes a more leisurely dining experience,
are lower turnover and higher priced; bars and lounges are secondary to the restaurant
and reservations are accepted. Few serve breakfast and some do not serve lunch.
Casual dining restaurants are popular, moderately priced restaurants that have active
bar and lounge areas where people gather to socialize and wait for tables. They
commonly serve lunch and dinner, but some also serve breakfast.
Fast-food restaurants do not offer or serve alcoholic beverages and food is typically
ordered at a counter and then either carried out of the store or to a table. Some uses in
this category include sandwich shops, ice cream shops, and so on.
Give the above categories and in reviewing the existing tenant mix, the majority of
the uses would generally fall in the category of "family (high-turnover) restaurants"
and were evaluated as such. Therefore, the restaurant use profile utilized in this
parking analysis for the majority of the existing food uses and potential future tenants
is based on a family (high-turnover) restaurant (typically non fast-food). Please note
that in our experience, the utilization of this category is a good indicator/
representation (can be considered a "hybrid") of the hourly parking demand of both
fine/casual dining and fast-food restaurants, as the peak daytime and evening parking
demand for family (high-turnover) restaurants generally occur during the lunch time
period (similar to fast-food uses) and dinner period (similar to fine/casual dining
establishments).
Like the retail profiles, the restaurant profiles are derived exactly from the ULI
baseline. The restaurant-parking ratio utilized in this analysis exactly matches the
City code rate of 10 spaces per 1,000 SF of floor area. According to the Shared
Parking publication, family restaurant uses peak demand occurs between 12:00 PM
and 1:00 PM on weekdays and weekends.
75A-27
Mr. Jonathan Kohn
January 27, 2011
Page 7
Fasl-Food Restauranl Uses
The fast-food restaurant profile, as contained in the ULI Shared Parking publication,
was utilized in this analysis to estimate the hourly parking demand of the existing
Carl's Jr. and Which Wich? Restaurant. To estimate the parking demand for these
uses, a parking ratio of 10 spaces per 1,000 SF (which matches City code) is utilized.
For fast-food uses peak demand occurs between 12:00 PM and 2:00 PM on weekdays
and weekends.
Health Club Uses
The health club profiles were also directly derived from ULI. For health clubs, the
peak demand occurs between 6:00 PM - 7:00 PM on weekdays and 5:00 PM - 6:00
PM on weekends. For this study, an empirical ratio of 5.5 spaces per 1,000 SF was
applied to proposed health club (Gold's Gym) in order to account for the unique
tripmaking 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.
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.
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 Gold's Gum 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:
LA Fitness Studies:
ITE Parking Generation:
2009 24 Hour Fitness Study:
(plus 17% contingency)
Spectrum Club Study:
2009 24 Hour Fitness Study:
(for UFC Gym)
35.7 spaces per 1000 (or 1 space per 28 SF)
5.5 spaces per 1,000 SF F used in this study
5.27 spaces per 1,000 SF
5 spaces per 1,000 SF
4.50 spaces per 1,000 SF
4.28 spaces per 1,000 SF
Financial Ins fil utionslBunky
The bank profiles were also directly derived from ULI. For bank uses peak demand
occurs between 10:00 AM - 11:00 AM and 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM on weekdays, while
75A-28
Mr. Jonathan Kohn
January 27, 2011
Page 8
the Saturday peak demand for bank uses occurs between 11:00 AM and 12:00 PM.
The peak-parking ratio for bank uses exactly equals the City's Parking Code
requirement of 4 space per 1,000 SF plus 2 spaces per automatic teller machine.
Application of Shared Parking Methodology
Tables 3 and 4 present the weekday and weekend parking demand for the Metroplace
based on the shared parking methodology assuming full occupancy of center
including a 42,770 SF health club and 6,600 SF of additional restaurant/food uses
within the vacant floor area of the 1" floor of the Project. Columns 1 through 6 of
these tables present the parking accumulation characteristics and parking demand of
the Metroplace for the hours of 6:00 AM to midnight. Column 7 presents the
expected joint-use parking demand for the entire site on an hourly basis, while
Column 8 summarizes the hourly parking surplus/deficiency for the existing retail
center compared to a proposed parking supply of 655 spaces.
Based on our experience, the shared parking approach summarized in Tables 3 and 4
are believed to be the most appropriate in evaluating the parking supply-demand
relationships for the Metroplace. The results in these tables are the focus of this
parking investigation and recommendations.
Shared Parking Analysis Results
Review of Table 3 shows that the peak-parking requirement for the Metroplace
during a weekday occurs between at 6:00 PM and totals 608 spaces. On a weekend
day, the peak parking requirements for the project occurs at 5:00 PM, when a parking
demand of 579 spaces is forecast (see Table 4).
Based on a proposed parking supply of 655 spaces, a surplus of 47 spaces and 76
spaces would result during the weekday and weekend peak hours, respectively.
Consequently, we conclude that there is adequate parking on site to accommodate the
proposed occupancy of 42,770 SF of vacant floor area with a health club.
Figures 3 and 4 graphically illustrate the Shared Parking demand profile under
weekday and weekend conditions, respectively. Each land use component and its
corresponding hourly Shared Parking demand, which were summarized in Tables 3
and 4, are depicted in these two figures relative to a shared parking supply of 655
spaces.
Append& A contains the shared parking analysis calculation worksheets for this
weekday and weekend day parking scenarios.
75A-29
Mr. Jonathan Kohn
January 27, 2011
Page 9
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Metroplace is an existing mixed-use retail development that consists of four (4)
buildings with approximately 127,777 square-feet (SF) of floor area, of which
58,922 SF is a recently constructed, two-story mixed-use commercial building.
The two-story building, currently occupied with 9,552 SF of restaurant/food
uses, was originally built as a typical mixed-use commercial building with
ground floor retail and/or restaurant uses and medical office space on the second
floor. Due to changes in the retail and medical office market, Levy Affiliated
Holdings proposes to occupy this building with a 42,770 SF health club (instead
of medical and retail uses), with the remaining 16,152 SF floor area to be
occupied by a mix of retail and restaurant uses. Given the I" floor of the Project
was previously entitled as restaurant space, the 6,600 SF of vacant floor area was
assessed as such to provide the project applicant with maximum flexibility when
tenanting the vacant space.
2. Direct application of City parking codes to the existing and proposed mix of uses of
Metroplace results in a total parking requirement of 1,340 parking spaces. With a
proposed parking supply of 655 spaces, City parking requirements will not be
satisfied.
3. The Shared Parking Analysis indicates that the proposed parking supply for
Metroplace will be sufficient to meet the projected peak parking demands of
existing and proposed mix of uses, including a 42,770 SF health club.
4. For a retail center project with 56,313 SF of retail (service) space with 4,200 SF of
outdoor sales/storage area, 14,326 SF of restaurant uses, 4,876 SF fast-food
restaurant space, 3,072 SF bank, a 2,220 SF childcare facility and a 42,770 SF
health club, a peak parking demand of 608 spaces is forecast. Based on a
proposed parking supply of 655 spaces, a surplus of 47 spaces is projected.
75A-30
Mr. Jonathan Kohn
January 27, 2011
Page 10
We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this analysis for Levy Affiliated Holdings.
Should you have any questions or need additional assistance, please do not hesitate to
call me at (714) 641-1587.
Very truly yours,
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
Richard E. Barretto, P.E.
Principal
Attachments
cc: Bannick Architects
file
75A-31
iZ3 V)
Q CATAL I NA P-
C5 Q
A I o
ICAMINO AU t Q Q
-j rn (m
z N Z z AV z E PEARWOOD n° w N
2 z LN V) o
a z E PEA HW D LN l l- c ._____
I- LENIT
N
PLUMWOOD LN Q W MEDFO D
20TH ST V' < AV
} 19TH
cn J „ A a c~
-4
ST W 5T r Q ° W a °0 12
? o co w
V) p
z $ o? 2 C)
)o 12A
17-7: ° 16TH ST
1.800
H ST 'CSR
ST I J BACLAY 14 T?/ z
??... _ H -- ??
3 CT S T D
JGTON WELLINGTON
---- p
.
N J
AV - /./CCT
N CDIU
SOURCE: THOMAS BROS.
KEY
(tNO SCALE = PROJECT SITE
75A-32
SOURCE: ARTHUR J. BANNICK ARCHITECTS
KEY
PROPOSED PROJECT SITE
(tNO SCALE
® REMOVED PARKING STALLS (12 TOTAL)
75A-33
e
i
700
600
500
W 400
U
Q
a
N
U
Z 300
Y
Q
a
PROPOSED PARKING SUPPLY - 665 SPACES
/-608 PEAK PARKING CIEMANC
SON
?,...
200
100 - _?
6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:0011:0012:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:001:
AM AM AM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM I
TIME
KEY
LIN'iCOTT ¦ CHILD CARE
BANK
• HEALTH CLUB
PAN FAST-FOOD
p - FAMILY RESTAURANT WEEKDAY SHARED PARKIN(
¦ - RETAIL
N
75A-34
oil
41
700
PROPOSED PARKING SUPPLY = 665 SPACES _
x-579 PEAK PARKING DEMAND
600
500
N 400
w
U
Q
a
N
z 300
Y
Q
a
200
100
0
6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:0011:0012:001:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 1(
AM AM AM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM F
TIME
KEY
LIN;COTT CHILD CARE
LAW & BANK
HEALTH CLUB
FAST-FOOD
El FAMILY RESTAURANT WEEKEND SHARED PARKIN(
0- RETAIL N
75A-35
TABLE 1
LAND USE SUMMARYI
METROPLACE, SANTA ANA
Address Business Name Land Use Building Size (SF)
1935-1975 E. 17th Street, Santa Ana, CA 92705
1935, Suite A Union Bank of California Bank 3,072 SF
1935, Suite B Ritz Nails Retail 1,494 SF
1935, Suite C Cantaloop Natural Frozen Yogurt Retail 1,339 SF
1935, Suite D Dorazio Learning Center Child Care 2,220 SF
1943 Carl's Jr. Restaurant 3,050 SF
1945 VACANT Retail or Restaurant 6,600 SF
1945, #104 Camelle's Restaurant 1,700 SF
1945, #105 Fuji Grill Restaurant 1,397 SF
1945, #106 Which Wich7 Restaurant 1,826 SF
1945, #108 Shabu Shabu Restaurant 2,329 SF
1945, #109 Cbipotle Restaurant 2,300 SF
1945 Proposed Gold's Gym - Vacant Health Club 42,770 SF
1975 OSH Hone Improvement Retail 57,680 SFZ
Development Totals 127,777 SF
Source: Levy Affiliated HoldingsBannick Architects
Includes 4,200 SF of outdoor sales / storage area (Source: Bannick Architects)
75A-36
TABLE 2
CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENT
METROPLACE, SANTA ANA
City of Santa Ana Spaces
Land Use Size Code Parking Ratio' Required
Retail stores and service 56,913 SF 5 spaces per 1,000 SF of GFA. 282
OSH Outdoor Sales/Storage Area 4,200 SF 2 spaces per 1000 SF of GFA 8
Restaurant, cafes, etc. 19,202 SF 10 spaces per 1,000 SF of GFA. 192
Bank and
financial institutions
3,072 SF 4 spaces per 1,000 SF of GFA plus 2 spaces for 16
each walk-up automatic teller machine.
Exercise gyms, spas, health clubs, 461 SF'
23 I space per 28 SF of GFA plus 2.5 spaces for each
etc. ,
racquetball/handball court. 838
Child care facilities
2,220 SF 1 space for each 8 individuals plus 1 space for each
4
supervisor or teacher
TOTAL PARKING CODE REQUIREMENT 1340
TOTAL PROPOSED PARKING SUPPLY 655
PARKING SURPLUS/DEFICIENCY (+/-) -685
Source: C in, of Santa Ana Mroricipal Code, Chapter 41 - Zoning, Article XY Of Street Parking.
Floor area represents the amount of square-footage provided in the health club that is devoted to physical activity (i.e. free
weights, aerobic, spin, etc...). Square-footage excludes locker rooms and other ancillary public areas.
75A-37
TABLE 3
WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSISS
METROPLACE, SANTA ANA
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Land Use Retail Family Fast-Food Health Club Bank Child Care6 (7)
Restaurant Restaurant
Size 60.513 KSF 14.326 KSF 4.876 KSF 42.770 KSF 3.072 KSF 2.220 KSF Total (8)
Pk Rate? 5/KSV 10/KSF 10/KSF ,5.5/KSF9 5.21 /KSF` 2/KSF Spaces = Comparison w/
Gross 290 Spc. 143 Spc. 49 Spc. 235 Spc. 16 Spc. 5 Spc. 738 Parking Supply
Spaces Shared 655 Spaces
Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Parking Surplus
Time of Da Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Demand (Deficiency)
6:00 AM 7 29 3 165 0 0 204 451
7:00 AM 20 54 5 99 0 5 183 472
8:00 AM 53 65 10 99 9 5 241 414
9:00 AM 113 78 16 165 15 5 392 263
10:00 AM 181 88 28 165 16 5 483 172
11:00 AM 228 91 43 188 11 5 566 89
12:00 PM 251 100 49 143 11 5 559 96
1:00 PM 261 91 49 165 11 5 582 73
2:00 PM 251 57 45 165 13 5 536 119
3:00 PM 240 50 30 165 11 5 501 154
4:00 PM 240 50 27 188 14 5 524 131
5:00 PM 249 78 30 213 16 5 591 64
6:00 PM 249 82 42 235 0 0 608 47
7:00 PM 249 82 40 210 0 0 581 74
8:00 PM 213 82 25 185 0 0 505 150
9:00 PM 143 63 16 158 0 0 380 275
10:00 PM 83 57 10 81 0 0 231 424
11:00 PM 29 52 5 25 0 0 111 544
12:00 AM 0 27 3 0 0 0 30 625
z Source: UL[ - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005-
6 The current ULI shared parking edition does not have a profile for childcare facilities. To be conservative, the peak demand is
assumed to be 100% throughout the day.
' Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios.
Parking calculated at 5 spaces per 1,000 SF of GFA for retail space plus 2 spaces for 1000 SF of GFA for 4,200 SF of outdoor
sales I storage area.
s Source: Parking Studies of Health Club facilities prepared by LLG and 41h Edition, Parking Generation published by the Institute
of Transportation Engineers.
10 Based on a City parking code ratio of4 spaces
per 1,000 SF of GFA plus 2 spaces for each walk-up automatic teller machine.
75A-38
TABLE 4
WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS"
METROPLACE, SANTA ANA
(2) (3)
)
5
Land Use Retail Family Fast-Food Health
Club Bank C7
r
C
' (7)
Restaurant Restaurant
Size 60.513 KSF 14.326 KSF 4.876 KSF 42.770 KSF 3.072 KSF 22K
S
F Total (8)
Pk Rater' S /KSF14 10 /KSF 10 /KSF 5.5 /KSF" 5.21 /KSF16 2 /KSF Spaces = Comparison w/
Gross 290 Spc. 143 Spc. 49 Spc. 235 Spc. 16 Spc. 5 Spc. 738 Parking Supply
Spaces Shared 655 Spaces
Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Parking Surplus
Time of Da Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Demand (Deficiency)
6:00 AM 8 23 3 153 0 0 187 468
7:00 AM 21 47 5 87 0 0 160 495
8:00 AM 46 74 10 69 8 0 207 448
9:00 AM 114 104 15 96 10 0 339 316
10:00 AM 165 131 26 69 14 0 405 250
11:00 AM 206 131 40 96 16 0 489 166
12:00 PM 244 143 46 96 15 0 544 111
1:00 PM 267 125 46 60 0 0 498 157
2:00 PM 290 100 41 51 0 0 482 173
3:00 PM 290 65 29 60 U 0 444 211
4:00 PM 278 71 25 107 0 0 481 174
5:00 PM 264 93 29 193 0 0 579 76
6:00 PM 235 105 39 184 0 0 563 92
7:00 PM 220 105 38 116 0 0 479 176
8:00 PM 195 99 24 60 0 0 378 277
9:00 PM 154 54 15 20 0 0 243 412
10:00 PM 107 45 10 4 0 0 166 489
11:00 PM 44 32 5 4 0 0 85 570
12:00 AM 0 19 3 0 U U 22 633
" Source: LTLI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005.
The current ULI shared parking edition does not have a profile for childcare facilities. For this analysis, we have confirmed that
the facility is closed on weekends.
Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios.
" Parking calculated at 5 spaces per 1,000 SF of GFA for retail space plus 2 spaces for 1000 SF of GFA for 4,200 SF of outdoor
sales / storage area.
15 Source: Parking Studies of Health Club facilities prepared by LLG and 4i° Edition, Parking Generation published by the Institute
of Transportation Engineers.
is Based on a City parking code ratio of 4 spaces per 1,000 SF of GFA plus 2 spaces for each walk-up automatic teller machine.
75A-39
APPENDIX A
ULI PARKING CALCULATION WORKSHEETS
L1NScoTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers
LLG Ref: 2-08-3054-2
Gold Gym at Metroplace, Santa Ana
t t, ?7 4_.,u _. 11 I. ft«Izal N I'1
75A-40
APPENDIX TABLE A-1
SHOPPING CENTER (TYPICAL DAYS
WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS17
METROPLACE, SANTA ANA
Land Use Shopping Center (Typical Days)
Size 60.513 KSF
Pkg Rate1s 5 /KSF
Gross 290 Spaces
Spaces 234 Guest Spc. 56 Emp. Spc. Shared
Time % Of # Of % Of # Of Parking
of Day Peak [31 Spaces Peak [31 Spaces Demand
6:00 AM 1% 2 9% 5 7
7:00 AM 5% 12 14% 8 20
8:00 AM 14% 33 36% 20 53
9:00 AM 32% 75 68% 38 113
10:00 AM 59% 138 77% 43 181
11:00 AM 77% 180 86% 48 228
12:00 PM 86% 201 90% 50 251
1:00 PM 90% 211 90% 50 261
2:00 PM 86% 201 90% 50 251
3:00 PM 81% 190 90% 50 240
4:00 PM 81% 190 90% 50 240
5:00 PM 86% 201 86% 48 249
6:00 PM 86% 201 86% 48 249
7:00 PM 86% 201 86% 48 249
8:00 PM 72% 168 81% 45 213
9:00 PM 45% 105 68% 38 143
10:00 PM 27% 63 36% 20 83
11:00 PM 9% 21 14% 8 29
12:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0
17 Source: UL[ - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005.
18 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 parking provided by ULL
75A-41
APPENDIX TABLE A-2
SHOPPING CENTER (TYPICAL DAYS)
WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS19
METROPLACE, SANTA ANA
Land Use Shopping Center (Typical Days)
Size 60.513 KSF
Pkg Rate20 5 /KSF
Gross 290 Spaces
Spaces 232 Guest Spc. 58 Emp. Spc. Shared
Time % Of # Of % Of # Of Parking
of Day Peak [3] Spaces Peak [3] Spaces Demand
6:00 AM 1% 2 10% 6 8
7:00 AM 5% 12 15% 9 21
8:00 AM 10% 23 40% 23 46
9:00 AM 30% 70 75% 44 114
10:00 AM 50% 116 85% 49 165
11:00 AM 65% 151 95% 55 206
12:00 PM 80% 186 100% 58 244
1:00 PM 90% 209 100% 58 267
2:00 PM 100% 232 100% 58 290
3:00 PM 100% 232 100% 58 290
4:00 PM 95% 220 100% 58 278
5:00 PM 90% 209 95% 55 264
6:00 PM 80% 186 85% 49 235
7:00 PM 75% 174 80% 46 220
8:00 PM 65% 151 75% 44 195
9:00 PM 50% 116 65% 38 154
10:00 PM 35% 81 45% 26 107
11:00 PM 15% 35 15% 9 44
12:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0
Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005.
Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure nonnalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of
guest vs. employee parking provided by ULI.
75A-42
APPENDIX TABLE A-3
FAMILY RESTAURANT
WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS41
METROPLACE, SANTA ANA
Land Use Family Restaurant
Size 14.326 KSF
Pkg Rate 22 10 /KSF
Gross 143 Spaces
Spaces 123 Guest Spc. 20 Emp. Spc. Shared
Time % Of # Of % Of # Of Parking
of Day Peak [3[ Spaces Peak [3[ Spaces Demand
6:00 AM 18% 22 35% 7 29
7:00 AM 35% 43 53% 11 54
8:00 AM 42% 52 63% 13 65
9:00 AM 53% 65 63% 13 78
10:00 AM 60% 74 70% 14 88
11:00 AM 63% 77 70% 14 91
12:00 PM 70% 86 70% 14 100
1:00 PM 63% 77 70% 14 91
2:00 PM 35% 43 70% 14 57
3:00 PM 32% 39 53% 11 50
4:00 PM 32% 39 53% 11 50
5:00 PM 53% 65 67% 13 78
6:00 PM 56% 69 67% 13 82
7:00 PM 56% 69 67% 13 82
8:00 PM 56% 69 67% 13 82
9:00 PM 42% 52 56% 11 63
10:00 PM 39% 48 46% 9 57
11:00 PM 35% 43 46% 9 52
12:00 AM 18% 22 25% 5 27
Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parkin Second Edition, 2005.
" Parking rates for all land uses based on LTLI procedure normalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of
guest vs. employee parking provided by ULI.
75A-43
APPENDIX TABLE A4
FAMILY RESTAURANT
WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS23
METROPLACE, SANTA ANA
Land Use Family Restaurant
Size 14.326 KSF
Pkg Rate' 10 /KSF
Gross 143 Spaces
Spaces 122 Guest Spc. 21 Emp. Spc. Shared
Time % Of # Of % Of # Of Parking
of Day Peak 131 Spaces Peak [31 Spaces Demand
6:00 AM 10% 12 50% 11 23
7:00 AM 25% 31 75% 16 47
8:00 AM 45% 55 90% 19 74
9:00 AM 70% 85 90% 19 104
10:00 AM 90% 110 100% 21 131
11:00 AM 90% 110 100% 21 131
12:00 PM 100% 122 100% 21 143
1:00 PM 85% 104 100% 21 125
2:00 PM 65% 79 1000/0 21 100
3:00 PM 40% 49 75% 16 65
4:00 PM 45% 55 75% 16 71
5:00 PM 60% 73 95% 20 93
6:00 PM 70% 85 95% 20 105
7:00 PM 70% 85 95% 20 105
8:00 PM 65% 79 95% 20 99
9:00 PM 30% 37 80% 17 54
10:00 PM 25% 31 65% 14 45
11:00 PM 15% 18 65% 14 32
12:00 AM 10% 12 35% 7 19
Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005.
Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak denuuid ratios. Breakdown of
guest vs. employee parking provided by ULI.
75A-44
APPENDIX TABLE A-5
FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT
WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS25
METROPLACEt SANTA ANA
Land Use Fast-Food Restaurant
Size 4.876 KSF
Pkg Rate 26 10 /KSF
Gross 49 Spaces
Spaces 42 Guest Spc. 7 Emp. Spc. Shared
Time % Of # Of % Of # Of Parking
of Day Peak [3] Spaces Peak [3] Spaces Demand
6:00 AM 5% 2 15% 1 3
7:00 AM 10% 4 20% 1 5
8:00 AM 20% 8 30% 2 10
9:00 AM 30% 13 40% 3 16
10:00 AM 55% 23 75% 5 28
11:00 AM 85% 36 100% 7 43
12:00 PM 100% 42 100% 7 49
1:00 PM 100% 42 100% 7 49
2:00 PM 90% 38 95% 7 45
3:00 PM 60% 25 70% 5 30
4:00 PM 55% 23 60% 4 27
5:00 PM 60% 25 70% 5 30
6:00 PM 85% 36 90% 6 42
7:00 PM 80% 34 90% 6 40
8:00 PM 50% 21 60% 4 25
9:00 PM 30% 13 40% 3 16
10:00 PM 20% 8 30% 2 10
11:00 PM 10% 4 20% 1 5
12:00 AM 5% 2 20% 1 3
Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition. 2005.
Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express percentage in terms ofabsolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of
guest vs. employee parking provided by ULI.
75A-45
APPENDIX TABLE A-6
FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT
WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS27
METROPLACE, SANTA ANA
Land Use Fast-Food Restaurant
Size 4.876 KSF
Pkg Rate28 10 /KSF
Gross 49 Spaces
Spaces 42 Guest Spc. 7 Emp. Spc. Shared
Time % Of # Of % Of # Of Parking
of Day Peak [3] Spaces Peak [3] Spaces Demand
6:00 AM 5% 2 14% 1 3
7:00 AM 9% 4 19% 1 5
8:00 AM 19% 8 28% 2 10
9:00 AM 28% 12 37% 3 15
10:00 AM 51% 21 70% 5 26
11:00 AM 79% 33 93% 7 40
12:00 PM 93% 39 93% 7 46
1:00 PM 93% 39 93% 7 46
2:00 PM 84% 35 89% 6 41
3:00 PM 56% 24 65% 5 29
4:00 PM 51% 21 56% 4 25
5:00 PM 56% 24 65% 5 29
6:00 PM 79% 33 84% 6 39
7:00 PM 75% 32 84% 6 38
8:00 PM 47% 20 56% 4 24
9:00 PM 28% 12 37% 3 15
10:00 PM 19% 8 28% 2 10
11:00 PM 9% 4 19% 1 5
12:00 AM 5% 2 19% 1 3
Source: ULf - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005.
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 parking provided by ULI.
75A-46
APPENDIX TABLE A•7
HEALTH CLUB
WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS29
METROPLACE, SANTA ANA
Land Use Health Club
Size 42.770 KSF
Pkg Rate 30 5.5 /KSF
Gross 235 Spaces
Spaces 222 Guest Spc. 13 Emp. Spc. Shared
Time % Of # Of % Of # Of Parking
of Day Peak [3] Spaces Peak [31 Spaces Demand
6:00 AM 70% 155 75% 10 165
7:00 AM 40% 89 75% 10 99
8:00 AM 40% 89 75% 10 99
9:00 AM 70% 155 75% 10 165
10:00 AM 70% 155 75% 10 165
11:00 AM 80% 178 75% 10 188
12:00 PM 60% 133 75% 10 143
1:00 PM 70% 155 75% 10 165
2:00 PM 70% 155 75% 10 165
3:00 PM 70% 155 75% 10 165
4:00 PM 80% 178 75% 10 188
5:00 PM 90% 200 100% 13 213
6:00 PM 100% 222 100% 13 235
7:00 PM 90% 200 75% 10 210
8:00 PM 80% 178 50% 7 185
9:00 PM 70% 155 20% 3 158
10:00 PM 35% 78 20% 3 81
11:00 PM 10% 22 20% 3 25
12:00 AM 0% 0 00/0 0 0
Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005.
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 parking provided by ULI.
75A-47
APPENDIX TABLE A-8
HEALTH CLUB
WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS31
METROPLACE, SANTA ANA
Land Use Health Club
Size 42.770 KSF
Pkg Rate" 5.5 /KSF
Gross 235 Spaces
Spaces 225 Guest Spc. 10 Emp. Spc. Shared
Time % Of # Of % Of # Of Parking
of Day Peak 131 Spaces Peak 131 Spaces Demand
6:00 AM 66% 149 41% 4 153
7:00 AM 37% 83 41% 4 87
8:00 AM 29% 65 41% 4 69
9:00 AM 41% 92 41% 4 96
10:00 AM 29% 65 41% 4 69
11:00 AM 41% 92 41% 4 96
12:00 PM 41% 92 41% 4 96
1:00 PM 25% 56 41% 4 60
2:00 PM 21% 47 41% 4 51
3:00 PM 25% 56 41% 4 60
4:00 PM 45% 101 62% 6 107
5:00 PM 82% 185 82% 8 193
6:00 PM 78% 176 82% 8 184
7:00 PM 49% 110 62% 6 116
8:00 PM 25% 56 41% 4 60
9:00 PM 8% 18 16% 2 20
10:00 PM 1% 2 16% 2 4
11:00 PM 1% 2 16% 2 4
12:00 AM 0% 0 00/0 0 0
Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005.
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 parking provided by ULI.
75A-48
APPENDIX TABLE A-9
BANK
WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS33
METROPLACE, SANTA ANA
Land Use Bank
Size 3.072 KSF
Pkg Rate" 5.21 /KSF"
Gross 16 Spaces
Spaces 10 Guest Spc. 6Emp. Spc. Shared
Time % Of # Of % Of # Of Parking
of Day PeakJ6 Spaces Peak" Spaces Demand
6:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0
7:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0
8:00 AM 50% 5 60% 4 9
9:00 AM 90% 9 100% 6 15
10:00 AM 100% 10 100% 6 16
11:00 AM 50% 5 100% 6 11
12:00 PM 50% 5 100% 6 11
1:00 PM 50% 5 100% 6 11
2:00 PM 70% 7 100% 6 13
3:00 PM 50% 5 100% 6 11
4:00 PM 80% 8 100% 6 14
5:00 PM 100% 10 100% 6 16
6:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0
7:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0
8:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0
9:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0
10:00 PM 0% 0 011/0 0 0
11:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0
12:00 AM 0% 0 00/0 0 0
33 Source: LJLI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking." Second Edition. 2005.
34 Parking rates for all land uses based on LJLI procedure normalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of
guest vs. employee parking provided by ULI.
35 Based on a City parking code ratio of 4 spaces per 1.000 SF of GFA plus 2 spaces for each walk-up automatic teller machine.
16 Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between week-day Parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios. as
summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual.
75A-49
APPENDIX TABLE A-10
BANK
WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS37
METROPLACE, SANTA ANA
Land Use Bank
Size 3.072 KSF
Pkg Rate38 5.21 /KSF"
Gross 16 Spaces
Spaces 10 Guest Spc. 6Emp. Spc. Shared
Time % Of # Of % Of # Of Parking
of Day Peak" Spaces Peak"' Spaces Demand
6:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0
7:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0
8:00 AM 25% 3 90% 5 8
9.00 AM 40% 4 100% 6 10
10:00 AM 75% 8 100% 6 14
11:00 AM 100% 10 100% 6 16
12:00 PM 90% 9 100% 6 15
1:00 PM 0% 0 0% 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
9:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0
10:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0
11:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0
12:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0
37 Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking." Second Edition. 2005.
38 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 parking provided by ULI.
39 Based on a City parking code ratio of 4 spaces per 1.000 SF of GFA plus 2 spaces for each walk-up automatic teller machine.
40 Percentage ofPeak 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.
75A-50
ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA AMENDING CHAPTER 41 OF THE SANTA
ANA MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING GYMNASIUMS AND
HEALTH CLUBS AS PERMITTED USES IN THE ARTERIAL
COMMERCIAL (C5) ZONING DISTRICT (ZOA NO. 2011-02)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana does hereby find, determine
and declare as follows:
A. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2011-02 is to amend the
permitted uses section of the Arterial Commercial (C5) zoning district (Santa
Ana Municipal Code Section 41-424) to allow gymnasiums and health clubs
as a permitted use.
B. The proposed amendment supports the General Plan policies of
encouraging viable commercial development along arterial streets,
promoting rehabilitation of commercial properties, and supporting
developments that are harmonious with existing development in the area.
Uses such as health clubs and gymnasiums in this zoning district will further
strengthen the City's commercial base and will provide support services to
the surrounding neighborhoods.
C. On March 28, 2011, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing and voted to recommend that the City Council adopt Zoning
Ordinance Amendment No. 2011-02 to amend Section 41-424 of the Santa
Ana Municipal Code to allow gymnasiums and health clubs in the Arterial
Commercial (C5) zoning district.
D. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2011-02 came before the City Council of
the City of Santa Ana for a duly noticed public hearing on April 18, 2011, to
consider all testimony, written and oral.
E. The City Council adopts as findings all facts presented in the Request for
Council Action dated April 18, 2011, accompanying this matter. For these
reasons, and each of them, Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2011-02 is
hereby found and determined to be consistent with the General Plan of the
City of Santa Ana and otherwise justified by the public necessity,
convenience, and general welfare.
75A-51
Section 2. Section 41-424 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 41-424. Uses permitted in the CS district.
The following uses are permitted in the C5 district:
(a) Administrative and professional offices.
(b) Retail and service uses.
(c) Automobile parking lots, but excluding the sale or storage of
automobiles, trucks, trailers, boats, or tractors, whether new or used.
(d) Churches, chapels, mortuaries, and theaters.
(e) Government buildings.
(f) Restaurants and cafes, other than those specified in section 41-
424.5.
(g) Schools and studios operated for commercial or public purposes.
(h) Child care facilities.
(i) The printing, publishing, and circulation of a newspaper, including
plant and office.
Q) Two-family dwellings not exceeding one (1) unit per three thousand
(3,000) square feet of lot area, provided such units front on a
secondary or local street.
(k) Cyber cafes subject to compliance with the requirements of section
41-198.200.
(1) Gymnasiums and health clubs
Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that
it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause,
phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
75A-52
ADOPTED this day of 12011.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph Straka
City Attorney
By:
Ryan O. Hodge
Assistant City Attorney
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
NOT PRESENT
Councilmembers
Councilmembers
Councilmembers
Councilmembers
Miguel A. Pulido
Mayor
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached
Ordinance No. NS- to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the
City of Santa Ana on and that said ordinance was published in
accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana.
Date:
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
75A-53
75A-54
ROH - 04/18/11
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2011-03 AS
CONDITIONED TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED PARKING
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1945 EAST
SEVENTEENTH STREET, UNIT 103
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines
and declares as follows:
A. Applicant is requesting approval of Variance No. 2011-03 to reduce the
required parking standards for a health club facility at 1945 East
Seventeenth Street, Unit 103.
B. On March 28, 2011, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing and voted to recommend that the City Council:
1. Adopt an ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No.
2011-02.
2. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2011-03 as conditioned.
C. Variance No. 2011-03 came before the City Council of the City of Santa
Ana for a duly noticed public hearing on April 18, 2011, to consider all
testimony, written and oral.
D. Variance No. 2011-03 has been filed with the City of Santa Ana seeking to
reduce the required parking standards for a proposed Gold's Gym at 1945
East Seventeenth Street, Unit 103. Section 41-1375 of the Santa Ana
Municipal Code requires one parking space per 28 square feet of physical
activity area for the health club.
E. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the City Council to
grant a variance upon making certain findings.
1. 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.
Resolution No. 2011-
75A-55 Page 1 of 6
The project site has a special circumstance related to its
size, shape and location. Due to its location, there is no
feasible option for providing additional parking for the health
club. The number of on-site parking spaces on the site will
be sufficient to accommodate all uses as the Parking
Analysis for the project has determined that a surplus of
parking spaces will be provided for the project 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.
Policy 2.2 of the Land Use element supports commercial
uses that accommodate the City's needs for goods and
services.
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 materially detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property as
the parking analysis for the project has noted that 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 site is
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 granting of the variance will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City since 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
Gold's Gym that promote a balance of land uses to address
basic community needs and which enhance the City's
economic and fiscal viability.
Resolution No. 2011-
75A-56 Page 2 of 6
F. 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. 2010-122 will be filed for this
project.
Section 2. The City Council, after conducting the public hearing, hereby approves
Variance No. 2011-03 as conditioned in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated
herein, to reduce the required parking standards for a health club facility at 1945 East
Seventeenth Street, Unit 103.
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 March
28, 2011, and exhibits attached thereto; the Request for City Council Action dated April
18, 2011, and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, all of which are
incorporated herein by this reference.
ADOPTED this day of , 2011.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph Straka
City Attorney
By:
Ryan O. Hodge
Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers
Miguel A. Pulido
Mayor
75A-57
Resolution No. 2011-
Page 3 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached
Resolution No. 2011- to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of
the City of Santa Ana on
Date:
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
Resolution No. 2011-
75A-58 Page 4 of 6
Conditions for Approval for Variance No 2011-03
Variance No. 2011-03 is approved 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
All proposed improvements must conform to the Site Plan Review
approval of DP No. 2010-40 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. Additional landscaping shall be installed along the northern and western
property lines to minimize the impacts on the adjacent residential
neighbors. Said landscaping shall be designed and installed subject to
the approval of the Planning Division.
4. Landscaping, once installed, shall be maintained per the approved
landscape plan. After project occupancy, landscaping is to be
maintained to include the minimum level of plant materials installed at the
time of occupancy and per the approved plan.
5. The north door(s) shall be kept closed at all times during the operation of
the premises except in cases of emergency and to permit deliveries.
Said door(s) may not consist of a screen or ventilated security door.
6. A gate shall be installed to enclose the rear parking lot. Said gate shall
restrict parking to patrons beginning at 8:00 pm. Parking in the rear
parking lot shall be made available to employees at all times.
EXHIBIT A
Resolution No. 2011-
75A-59 Page 5 of 6
B. Police Department
One state licensed uniformed security guard shall be required in the rear
parking lot from 8:00 p.m. until all individuals have left the business.
2. A security plan must be submitted to the Police Department at the plan
check stage for approval. The plan must cover all aspects of the
project's security including security personnel, surveillance/camera
equipment, parking control measures, and access control hardware.
The project will be required to have a minimum of one state licensed
uniformed security personnel as agreed upon between the applicant and
the Police Department. Alternate means and methods can be proposed
that mitigate the concerns specified above with Police Department
approval.
Resolution No. 2011-
75A-60 Page 6 of 6
April 13, 2011
City of Santa Ana
clerk of the council office
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Re: zoning ordinance Amendment No. 2011-92;
variance No. 2011-03
Dear Sir:
I am against adopting the above zoning amendments.
There is not a lack of gyms and parking availability is
enough of a problem.
Very truly yours,
Beverly M. Geddy
2013 N. Williams St.
Santa Ana, CA 92705
75A-61
75A-62