Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout31B - VARIANCE - 3600-3796 S BRISTOL STREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JULY 18, 2011 TITLE: VARIANCE NO. 2011-08 TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN PARKING FOR A NEW RESTAURANT/RETAIL BUILDING WITHIN THE METRO TOWN SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER AT 3600 THROUGH 3796 SOUTH BRISTOL STREET - JAMES CARTER, APPLICANT CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ? As Recommended ? As Amended ? Ordinance on 151 Reading ? Ordinance on 2nd Reading ? Implementing Resolution ? Set Public Hearing For_ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER Receive and file the staff report approving Variance No. 2011-08 as conditioned. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On June 13, 2011, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution approving Variance No. 2011- 08 as conditioned by a vote of 6:0 (Alderete absent) to allow a reduction in parking for a new restaurant/retail building within the Metro Town Square Shopping Center at 3600 through 3796 South Bristol Street located in the General Commercial (C2) zoning district. The Planning Commission made no changes to the recommended conditions of approval outlined in the attached staff report (Exhibit A). FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. Ja . Trevino Executive Director Planning & Building Agency VC: rb v6repo rtsWa 11-08. M etroTownSq ua re. cc Exhibit: A. Planning Commission Staff Report 31 B-1 31 B-2 REQUEST FOR Planning Commission Action PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JUNE 13, 2011 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 2011-08 TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN PARKING FOR A NEW RESTAURANT/RETAIL BUILDING WITHIN THE METRO TOWN SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER AT 3600 THROUGH 3796 SOUTH BRISTOL STREET Prepared by Verny Carvajal Executive Director RECOMMENDED ACTION PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY APPROVED ? As Recommended ? As Amended ? Set Public Hearing For DENIED ? Applicant's Request ? Staff Recommendation CONTINUED TO - f ??Gi.Gr/1 Planning anager Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2011-08 as conditioned. DISCUSSION Request of the Applicant Mr. James A. Carter, representing Metro Town Square LLC, is requesting approval in order to construct a new 10,000 square foot restaurant and retail building within the Metro Town Square shopping center located at 3600 through 3796 South Bristol Street. Specifically, the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 41-1341 for a reduction in required parking to allow for the construction of a new building and to accommodate additional restaurant and medical office uses within the existing commercial center. Project Location and Site Description The Metro Town Square development is a 22-acre parcel of land located at 3600 through 3798 South Bristol Street and 3701 through 3795 South Plaza Drive. The complex is situated at the southwest corner of Bristol Street and MacArthur Boulevard and also bordered by Plaza Drive to the west. The site currently contains a total of 232,160 square feet of leasable retail, office, restaurant, bank, and health club space located within 10 structures. These structures, which do not include the square footages for the new restaurant/retail building and additional uses proposed by Variance No. 2011-08, include: 1. Approximately 112,420 square feet of retail uses; 2. 29,420 square feet of medical office; 3. 30,540 square feet of restaurant space; 1 31 B-3 Variance No. 2011-08 June 13, 2011 Page 2 4. 15,100 square feet of bank and savings & loan uses; 5. 35,570 square feet of health club area; and 6. 9,100 square feet of administrative office space. The proposed 10,000 square foot restaurant and retail building will serve to replace a smaller structure currently located along Bristol Street that is currently occupied by a Casual Male retail store at 3638 South Bristol Street. The site is surrounded by commercial uses to the north, south, and east; and multi-family residential to the west (Exhibits 1 and 2). Project Description The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing 2,790 square foot retail building and construction of a new 10,000 square foot restaurant and retail multi-tenant building at its previous location. The building will feature a contemporary architectural theme with courtyard style entrances along each elevation and will include pedestrian links to both Bristol Street and the interior of the existing center. Key architectural elements to complement the existing center will include exposed wood trellis features, smooth stucco finish, fired stone slate, and a decorative mission tile roof. In addition to the proposed building, the applicant intends to expand the amount of restaurant and medical office square footage allowed within the center in order to accommodate for future market demands and allow for a varied tenant mix. The center's ownership wishes to convert 18,125 square feet of existing vacant retail floor area to medical office and 2,319 square feet of existing vacant retail space to restaurant uses. These changes represent an intensification of use from a parking perspective, as both medical office and restaurant uses require additional parking per the municipal code. For example, retail uses require 5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area, while medical office uses and restaurant uses are parked at 6 per 1,000 square feet and 10 per 1,000 square feet, respectively. Application of city code requirements treat each tenant as a "stand alone" use therefore increasing the parking requirement for the center as a whole. Since the number of parking spaces required by the code exceeds the number present at the center, the applicant is requesting a variance from the parking requirements (Exhibits 3 through 6). Project Background The Metro Town Square development was originally constructed in 1972 and underwent a series of additions, facade improvements and building renovations in 1998 which included additions to the existing Vons supermarket and the center as a whole. In 2000, a zone change and variance were approved to allow the construction of a Bally's Health Club and Jack-In-The-Box restaurant. The previous entitlements allowed for a 12.8 percent reduction in required parking and allowed the existing nonconforming landscaped setbacks to remain. Since 2000, the Metro Town Square has attracted additional interest from medical office operators and prospective restaurant tenants. 31 B-4 Variance No. 2011-08 June 13, 2011 Page 3 General Plan and Zonina Analvsis The General Plan land use designation for the site is District Center (DC), which allows for commercial and office uses. District Centers are designed to serve as anchors to the City's commercial corridors, and to accommodate major development activity. These areas serve as major employment centers locally and regionally and include development which promotes the City as a regional activity center. The project is consistent with this General Plan land use designation. The zoning for the site is General Commercial (C2). The C2 zoning district allows for retail, restaurant and office uses making the proposed uses consistent with the zoning code. Proiect 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 1,226 parking spaces to serve all of the buildings. The proposed retail and restaurant building is parked at a rate of five spaces per 1,000 square feet, pursuant to the City's retail parking standards, and 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet, pursuant to the City's restaurant parking standard. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to convert 18,125 square feet of vacant space from retail to medical office uses and convert 2,319 square feet of vacant retail space to restaurant space. Based on code requirements, a total of 1,408 parking spaces would be required for this site, while 1,227 spaces will be provided at completion of the proposed expansion. This is a net difference of 181 spaces or a 12% reduction. To analyze whether the existing parking on the site could accommodate the new building as well as the conversion of vacant space to more intense uses, and therefore substantiate the variance request, the applicant hired the traffic engineering firm of Linscott, Law and Greenspan to prepare 31 B-5 Variance No. 2011-08 June 13, 2011 Page 4 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 those found at Metro Town Square. The parking study was intended to provide an analysis of the demand for parking based on the different activity patterns of the center. The study analyzed the current parking demand for the existing tenants in the center based on City code requirements, application of shared parking usage patterns by time-of day based on the ULI methodology, and existing parking demand surveys for current tenants combined with shared parking methods for all vacant and proposed areas of the center. By using additional field verification of the existing utilization of the parking currently provided, combined with a future demand calculation based on a shared parking model for the full occupancy of the existing vacant space with the proposed new uses, the study concluded that a surplus of 392 spaces will be available even at peak times (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 South 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 new uses. In addition, the shared parking analysis prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan has determined that sufficient parking will be provided for the project by utilizing multiple methods. The study concluded that even under peak demand, a minimum of 392 parking spaces will be available within the shopping center. 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 buildings with uses that will identify the site as an economically viable development. Further, the reduction in parking will provide flexibility of leasing options that would support Policy 2.7 and policy 5.7 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan which promotes rehabilitation of commercial properties and encourages increased levels of investment while anticipating that intensity of new development does not exceed available capacity. 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. 31 B-6 Variance No. 2011-08 June 13, 2011 Page 5 Finally, the project will not adversely affect the general plan as the proposed commercial uses are consistent with Goals 1 and 2 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. These goals encourage uses such as retail, office and eating establishments 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 1.9 which encourages new development along arterial intersections in commercial district such as South Bristol Street and Policy 5.4 in support of land uses which are compatible with surrounding uses. Public Notification The project site is located near the boundaries of the South Coast Neighborhood Association. The president of this Neighborhood Association, Connie Hamilton, was contacted by phone and 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. 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. 2011-10 will be filed for this project. Conclusion Based on the analysis provided within this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 2011-08 as conditioned. Verny Carvajal Senior Planner VC:jm WreportsWa 11-08. MetroTownSq ua re. pc. d oc Attachments: Exhibit 1 - Vicinity Map Exhibit 2 - Land Use Map Exhibit 3 - Metro Town Center Site Plan Exhibit 4 - Proposed Building Partial Site Plan/Floor Plan Exhibit 5 - Sample Building Elevations Exhibit 6 - Landscape Plan Exhibit 7 - Summary of Parking Study Findings Vince Fregoso, AICP Principal Planner 31 B-7 31 B-8 Rl Al Al istil Cl 12__ v Ml J Rf o __.1' .t I w ti ' w' n?RU RI 1? 84 I R1 _ t R1 R1 Ni- R1- Ri• ?• t R1?IIID RI C1 R Fm "D Pro ? I r4l O Rl Ml wy Ri Rl O ? Rt I Rt R1 R1 $0-5 C4 1 R1 5064 I I C1_ R1 i RZ-M / ._ / R4 R1 R1 fj?- WCANT" ILVCI - ' i __-' ----. I C2 ,i; e i R1 P? i I T --------? RI t SO7r WE C= SM' I R4 ? _ii? j i i t R4 ? ( Rl Itt ' Rl Ri r tt t t PA mom cpj f ? + O 1 SD-" CR 40 R1 Rt F-li It. F C I 1 r • f C a e / a M e i • Al CAGWACMC4LVWt G COMRIOKAILL iWAI R1 SNOM94AVAYRfl109dCE i PMA"AtODWCAWN GC GOV3"ApffCN9 m a rAWAMRYFS50540 C-SM 00MMmICKSOUM MAIN Mi l1GW*i1U{NMl R3 MULIVU4AAWFAlMa Cl CommuNrlycom maAL Rll FIfMA'RIt141S1111AL M SUSUMAMAFARTMEM Claw 4MMC0MMGFAVL-VAAGWCKTRICT MO MRAAMOPIPATM a Rt3KBN1VNLKVm C] GBMFLCOMMOCK 0 ORH sma SD SPEOFICOTODPM00 G CENTAALPJID SS P PROFUSNOW SP Wam PLAN Gal CilfAK4L%PV=-AMrVILtAGl PCD PI/MON0DcowIR:MTT41E1aawApQ G NRANWIMOPPMIGCoffn PAD KAlOROIlSDY711AlCevOLOPMENT G ARAMALCO6MMRCYIL VAR 11-08 METRO TOWN SQUARE 3638 SOUTH BRISTOL STREET _ _ _,N>oF i" ? 1000 fEfT 1 L A N N 1 N 6 A N D 4 U I L D 1 N 6 A 6 E N C Y VK"w m" EXHW I 31 B-9 31 B-10 MEW AMIRTM6MT3 WTAL POAL ? COMMERCNL MAC ARTHUR BLVD. ws STAMN S COMMERCIAL O 'r - 'r 0 j V O ? r W = d ? Z O ¢ V O C O M M E R C I t V COMMERCAt VAR 11-08 METRO TOWN SQUARE - 3638 SOUTH BRISTOL STREET R L A N N 1 N G A N D 8 W I t D I N G A G E N C Y LAND USE AMP EXHOff 2 31 B-11 31 B-12 7 [sa[ itLUti OI..I ViI ... da.«.uT[[ MW.G!}Ya1uY/Y.3rva6MY•o3uN.Tnq.y •)w4 !}IpYM WYbnw. of w. grYip[Yy •PI[ ?? ? t3sv rs. a of B ? - 7?T J: d-N-.[iN"Y - wmw[a?Arnwn iBtw'IIO'.[' . RI.M®'WVY'NECYJOX{ ...? - Yili VNY YFY[5 R/6-YK r[t %V1 .Y?YgS-![1311E1M.1 T'E. NV7d 3LS H31N3D 9NWdONS a+wt.n ....a..a« . MACARTHUR-'BLVD. \ \ '? Ear ? _ • _ gl - -- ? ? I -- E ? _! --? P?",nt4??.., - -\ i r?P+ir.'? R =:1 R =tic iF r u iL Rua <? 5 13i: Jam s en?sTa sT. I I ?;,?I I ai? ?1 M °Y':[`°'.r y? -$ suuo acsruB.vr rr APSA. sTJm so R. I ?I C'`T`?n? ?-??? ?...? ?EaO ?r„ ° ---1 PT-PT-PT-Pi-P a O O 4 I IL I i a I I ? IFI ? ` ©/ ?? ?I c eT ? a.[[r rmx mrvrss I I I PoRrl 1 1 1 1 1 1 ® P I I r v ? ? &t I `l JT14 z. PtNA rAwE _ PARCEL A 17341 U _6 '3 I?I I ` I .Br._ ss.sm w.Yr. i ? I C?7 ?? { I. ? 1 OO r c? h !_ I ? 3600 BRSWL sr. - _ -_ ? r ? a - -?4 1 ' 1 I I' I I I I' ^'? .? I I I I , ; ?J?so PT © ?f?Li?Yti}I o I Lo ,:? , I' III f I I I I I I i?? ; _?.[os -IT ? - ti. -m -it I{r o a $? ?? >E I of" IIII (?I?II ;.??V, 194 I of _ _ .a v ?, I m O ? dY I I I nx. [r.pe so IT. wvs v.P.[T r Mw S. nnsm n I >? I 4 n 1 . IrIr'' 1 i X li ® I , 7,16 t; 4 ? `aar 't: i rnm v ? p iF 99ir B0. R i ; m I ? uu y .t . 49 ; PoAtIOM Cf ¦ P A : E ` J2 _ ?r C PARCEL 2 R 5 a' w w :1 - I 7n u[ 49 \ q !F . . 1 yp z j ? INS&FI?AfRES ¢ W? I ? . =' ; C? O J } :? I x[Twr Rsr.u4wr ¢ W ? _ ll .... 1 A "n I - a I / PT-.PT-... I Ar 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i wrw.-_ c '": zz??yy 12 m i I AE[nl •wq,.. 4 _ C.l ? I n ;Y . u a s J I I d [AEM?R. I I F I I ?? I JB.AK ? .l1EAIfA JO S BMSTOt ST. I .L.L?1J I L?A.11.[Y ? ? I] = I I I - I I '? • . A[srwq,wT ?1 J.EJB SO R. I J1lJ B. BN?SIOL sT. -s _ T, E. aB SnR -` ? ___ r-Pr-Pr-PT--Pr ;?* Qucm - - -- ___ __-- ? CALULB B COMMON r s I i B= ? SLriFu [ 44fA'T fwrS+MO.et.FkaGnf.[AMW KEGRF??q*[[o.S11: A?cin4?'rscrAa<e ..,,Y,kcyu?aACS PTNCppyy[ ': _ e{mmrvac?GA. rcecnu.'coe¢c+vx,rY[,«s ...._....... ... EXHIBIT 3 31 B-13 31 B-14 ?I j zo f? s i Y ?S Jg a l? ffI i 7- Ib i O I i 31 B-16 tl?YYrtiM?lYnr?MYw?f tY 1oIKMM Y / -FM1 w?wiw?.r? x ? PY 4 ?Y-FOlN{lilY wwYm'woau VAM M NAM O f 4.. EXHIBIT b 31 B-17 31 B-18 Iv- ..? i.......,.......?e.s....gl. U.Y..b..M, Y,wY .Yb.Nt7I,.U.?,,..011. ? ; i • MY?Wr?.wlw?wYlu1 ? MIM Y7?1/Wf1R?1,f VuW?M ¦i¦¦ Y t? 5 i EXHISrr 5 31 B-19 31 B-20 ? rwt?r,r twr e .w..n..""'..'t v?"i„r"?iaZ vy vNw rows tYlpY?w rurfl?»tu t noo w?s+? U31133 E)MddONS - 3urnos wwi O ! t e . ? 4444d444d FBI :'r tom oa-©a ;? Or1 tB ..?5 a e. ' q 1 I i ? _ _ a i C 1 / r? ;ttt I kFirprT 6 1 31 B-22 CC yHV h1 ? G' CC La H ? b O H O L w ? w o °' C a, o oo 0 ? ? r U v U fn N ` fn cd O. y M U w M ti h N N O M r1 C , , ? U c ) R. N U U Q ^, Y O h n u O U v G O U C cd U T U N C w U ? ? cd U rn a U c? ? O CD 00 " w Cl) 7 M w a i N U rr h o0 'O T u Cd nN. a. C U N 00 N W N c in. C-4 <D U '. O N y V ?' O ? u v T U U C N C U N .C 1? to CIS n L 60 tu ? t 0 L -?4 L CIS (/) Q u, a a S b v T T V cd i o ti U 47 A GO U a ri cn U, a O vi Q ., cd cd ? cc y y LL T O O ca -3 O U y O ? N 3 0 co o ? a N .D cTd N N T 0? O' L L R 0. O cLd Ld yl? ?-0 d u n u 0 z EXHIBIT 7 31 B-23 March 23, 2011 ' Mrs. Lawna Munholland, Property Manager Metro Town Square 3719 South Plaza Drive Santa Ana, CA 92704 LLG Reference No. 2.10.3182.1 ' Subject: Updated Parking Analysis for Metro Town Square Santa Ana, California ' Dear Mrs. Munholland: 1 As requested, Linscott, Law, & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this updated Parking Analysis for Metro Town Square, an existing 232,158 square foot (sf) mixed-use center supported by an inventoried parking supply of 1,226 spaces, located in Santa Ana, California. The update was prompted by recent refinements in your expected tenancy mix. At the time of our recent parking demand field study, the existing center had a current vacancy of 35,039 sf. Ownership proposes to convert 18,125 sf of its vacant retail floor area to medical office and 2,319 sf of vacant retail floor area to restaurant use. Additionally, an existing Casual Male building is expected to be demolished and replaced with a new structure providing space for three suites including a replacement Casual Male store. The replacement building would add 7,206 sf of floor area to the site, resulting in 239,364 sf, and the loss of three parking spaces. Based on planned restriping west of Tiffany 2000 and north of Bally's Total Fitness, 4 parking spaces will also be added, resulting in a net new space count of 1,227. A parking study has been required by the City of Santa Ana to evaluate the parking requirements and operational needs of the center at future full occupancy with conversion of some of its vacant retail to medical office and restaurant use (18,125 sf and 2,319 sf), respectively along with the 7,206 sf floor area expansion in place. This report evaluates those needs based on actual field study of existing peak parking demands at the site, application of City code, and further application of the Urban Land Institute's (ULI) Shared Parking methodology. Engineers & Planners Traffic Transportation Parking Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 1580 Corporate Drive Suite 122 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714.641.1587 T 714.641.0139 r wymIlgengineers.com Pasadena Costa Mesa San Diego Las Vegas Philip M. Linscott, PE os24m) Jack M. Greenspan, PE iaeLl Wilbam A Law, PE met) Paul W. Wilkinson, PE John P. Keating, PE David S. Shender, PE John A. Boarman, PE Clare M. Look-Jaeger, PE Richard E. Barretto, PE Keel D. Maberry, PE 31 B-24 An LB2VVB rweaay rounded 1965 ' Mrs. Lawna Munholland March 23, 2011 1 Page 2 t 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 1,226 spaces. ¦ Existing (November/December 2010) peak parking demands at the site total roughly 600 spaces. A "code" calculation for existing (November/December 2010) occupancy levels and tenancy types requires 1,147 spaces, and a similar "shared parking" calculation (code parking ratios and ULI time-of-day profiles) indicates a "design level" requirement of 900 spaces for that same occupancy condition, thus illustrating the conservative nature of the shared parking approach. ¦ Looking to the future fully occupied condition, with all of the floor area in the modified Casual Male building devoted to retail tenancies, code would require 1,466 spaces, and the shared parking "design level" need calculates to 1,143 ' spaces, versus an anticipated supply of 1,227 spaces. A "blended" calculation using actual demands for existing uses and shared parking for full occupancy of any otherwise vacant space puts the expected peak utilization at 835 spaces, resulting in a minimum functional surplus of 392 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 The Metro Town Square is located north of Callens Common, south of MacArthur Boulevard, east of Plaza Drive and west of Bristol Street in the City of Santa Ana, California. Figure 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 Metro Town Square, and illustrates the existing buildings and parking areas. ' Metro Town Square is an existing mixed-use 232,158 sf mixed-use center, with 1,226 parking spaces, and has a current vacancy totaling 35,039 sf. Table 1, located at the end of this letter report, following the figures, summarizes the existing and proposed land uses/tenants and associated floor areas for Metro Town Square. Pending modifications include conversion of a portion of its vacant retail to medical office and restaurant use (18,125 sf and 2,319 sf), respectively, and a further modification in the 1 area of the existing Casual Male store (see Figures 3 and 4) to add 7,206 sf in a new 31 B-25 I n Mrs. Lawna Munholland March 23, 2011 Page 3 building for replacement of that store plus two added retail spaces. The resulting center floor area would become 239,364 sf. Beyond those changes, this parking study accounts for re-occupancy of the remaining portion of vacant center space with 2,357 sf of retail, 8,500 sf of restaurant, and 3,738 sf of medical office. The proposed Project includes modifications to the existing surface lot in the Casual Male building area, which will result in a net reduction of 3 spaces. Based on planned restriping west of Tiffany 2000 and north of Bally's Total Fitness, 4 parking spaces will also be added, thus restoring the future space count to the existing total of 1,227. PARKING SUPPLY-DEMAND ANALYSIS This parking analysis for the Metro Town Square involves determining the expected parking needs, based on full occupancy for the size and type of the future tenant mix and square footage tabulation, versus the planned 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 treat each tenancy type as a "stand alone" use at maximum demand). ¦ Application of shared parking usage patterns by time-of-day (which recognize 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 Metro Town Square because the individual land use types (i.e., retail, restaurant/food uses, office, health club, etc) experience peak demands at different times of the day. CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTS The code parking calculation for Metro Town Square is based on the City's requirements as outlined in Chapter 41 - Zoning, Article Xi! Off-Street Parking of the 31 B-26 Mrs. Lawna Munholland March 23, 2011 Page 4 City of Santa Ana Municipal Code. The City's Municipal Code specifies the following parking requirements: ¦ Retail stores and service uses: five (5) spaces per 1,000 sf of Gross Floor Area ' (GFA). ¦ Restaurants, cafes, etc.: ten (10) spaces per 1,000 sf of GFA. t ¦ Office, business and professional: three (3) spaces per 1,000 sf of GFA. ¦ Medical, dental, psychiatric and chiropractic offices and clinics: six (6) 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: Per Variance No. 00-002, the parking requirement for Bally's at Metro Town Center is 6.3 spaces per 1,000 sf of GFA. ' Table 2 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 (prior to the proposed changes). Existing occupied buildings/suites in the center require 1,147 spaces, a number that is directly comparable to the field studied peak parking demands established in this study. Accounting for current vacancies (based on their historical tenancy type) adds a requirement of 221 spaces. Combining these results in a calculated code requirement of 1,368 spaces. The existing site has a supply of 1,226 spaces, which translates to a theoretical shortfall of 142 spaces when compared to city code requirements. Table 3 calculates the code parking requirements for the proposed future condition assuming a fully occupied center with anticipated project site modifications. The city code parking requirement for the fully occupied future condition is 1,466 spaces. Contrasting with an expected supply of 1,227 spaces reveals a theoretical shortfall of 239 spaces when compared to city code requirements. However, the specific tenancy mix of Metro Town Square provides an opportunity to share parking spaces based on the utilization profile of each included land use ' component. The following section calculates the parking requirements for Metro Town Square based on the shared parking methodology approach. 31 B-27 Mrs. Lawna Munholland March 23, 2011 ' Page 5 ' 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 Metro Town Square, opportunities to share parking now occur and can be expected to continue with the pending center modifications and full center floor area occupancy. The objective of this shared parking analysis is to forecast the M 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 time 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 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"d Edition publication by the Urban Land Institute (ULI). ' Shared parking calculations for Metro Town Square 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. 31 B-28 ' Mrs. Lawna Munholland March 23, 2011 ' Page 6 Shared Parking Ratios and Profiles The hourly parking demand profiles (expressed in percent of peak demand) utilized in this analysis and applied to the Metro Town Square 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 nine (9) general land use categories: retail, fine & casual dining, family restaurant, fast-food restaurant, office, ' medical-dental office, bank and health club. These profiles of parking demand have been used directly, by land use type, in the analysis of this site. 11 1 Application of Shared Parking Methodology Tables 4 and 5 present the weekday and weekend (typically Saturday) parking demand profiles for Metro Town Square based on the shared parking methodology, assuming full occupancy of the center including pending changes. Those include addition of 7,206 sf to the existing Casual Male Big and Tall store, conversion of a portion of its vacant site retail to medical office and restaurant use (18,125 sf and 2,319 sf), respectively, and re-occupancy of the existing residual vacant space (2,357 sf of retail, 8,500 sf of restaurant, 3,738 sf of medical office). Review of Tables 4 and 5 indicates that the future full occupancy weekday and weekend peak parking demands will occur at 1:00PM and 11:00 AM with peak "design level" demands of 1,227 and 1,072 spaces, respectively. Based on the proposed parking supply of 1,227 spaces, the peak demand hours on a weekday will exactly balance "design level" demand and supply. On a weekend day (typically Saturday), the minimum surplus is projected to total 155 spaces. ACTUAL FIELD STUDY COMBINED WITH SHARED PARKING METHODOLOGY Key Parking Demand Field Study Findings The code calculations of Table 2 for existing (December 2010) tenancies at the site (1,147 spaces), contrast with the peak shared parking requirement for only those existing occupancies presented at the center of Tables 4 and 5 (948 spaces at 1:00 PM and 5:00 PM on a weekday and 780 spaces at 11:00 AM on a weekend day), can further be compared to actual field-studied existing peak demands at Metro Town Square. 31 B-29 Mrs. Lawna Munholland March 23, 2011 Page 7 Observed parking demand surveys were conducted hourly at the site (from 8:00 AM through 8:00 PM) by National Data and Surveying Services (NDS) on a Thursday, Friday and Saturday (November 18, 19 and December 4, 2010). It should be noted that on December 4, 2010, a Christmas Tree Lot was in operation within the parking lot in the vicinity of Baja Fish Tacos, near Bristol Street. To best depict typical (and in this case holiday) weekend conditions at the center, the existing Saturday counts utilized in this study tracked separately and have excluded all parked vehicles related to the Christmas Tree Lot sales. Appendix A contains the weekday and weekend survey data. The left portions of Tables 6, 7 and 8, present the actual site-wide parking demands observed throughout the center on the three field-studies days. As shown, actual Thursday demand peaked at noon with 605 spaces. The Friday peak was at Noon with 592 spaces. The code requirement of 1,147 spaces for existing tenancies at the site are roughly double the actual field-studied peak demand for those same tenancies. That field-studied demand also very comfortably fits the shared parking "design level" envelope of 948 spaces (from the center of Table 4 at 1:00 PM and 5:00 PM) for those same existing occupancies. So while the shared parking results represent a reduction from "pure code", the conservancy of the shared parking approach is validated for predicting actual site parking needs. A similar comparison of actual demand on even a Christmas season Saturday (peak at 11:00 AM with 521 spaces) to the shared parking "design" peak of 797 spaces (actually one hour later at noon; see the center portion of Table S) is also very favorable. Actual Demands "Blended" with Shared Parking Application to Vacant Floor Area In order to illustrate likely actual future peak parking demands at Metro Town Square, 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 modification/expansion and vacant floor areas. Tables 6, 7 and 8 also present this approach. These add, to actual field-studied demands, the City code parking ratios and ULI time-of-day parking profiles for the expanded and vacant floor areas. Tables 6 and 7 consider a weekday (Thursday and Friday, respectively). In addition, Table 8 presents a similar evaluation for the weekend day (Saturday). Among the three scenarios, the minimum functional surplus is 392 spaces. S 1 i i ! „< . dr.. 'C, :k iii,< n h ., . , 31 B-30 Mrs. Lawna Munholland March 23, 2011 1 Page 8 ' In considering and presenting actual existing parking demands our field study results ' ignore parking "poachers" at the site. Residents and visitors to the Versailles Apartment Homes were observed to use site parking lots near Plaza Drive for overflow residential parking. It is estimated that during the peak hours on Thursday, Friday and Saturday, the Versailles Apartment Homes represented approximately 29, 32 and 47 parked vehicles, respectively, within the field-studied existing demands at the center as reported in this study. Appendix B contains the weekday and weekend day shared parking analysis calculation ' worksheets. Based on LLG's experience, the results presented in Tables 6, 7 and 8 represent the ' most pragmatic approach to likely future parking conditions, and suggest that the future absolute peak parking "design level" needs of the site, at a calculated 1,227 spaces, and corresponding to a minimum 0-space surplus (see Table 4) using the ' shared parking approach, provide an appropriate "code-like" basis to determine the site's future parking requirements. ' SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ' 1. Metro Town Square is generally located at the southwest comer of Bristol Street and MacArthur Boulevard in the City of Santa Ana, California. The Metro Town ' Square is an existing mixed-use center of 232,158 sf, with a current vacancy of 35,039 sf, and an existing parking supply of 1,226 parking spaces. ' 2. This parking demand analysis evaluates a proposed future development and occupancy scenario, which includes the addition of 7,206 sf to the existing ' Casual Male Big and Tall store location, conversion of a portion of its vacant retail to medical office and restaurant use (18,125 sf and 2,319 sf), respectively and re-occupancy of the remaining existing vacancieswith 2,357 sf of retail, ' 8,500 sf of restaurant and 3,738 sf of medical office. A total of 1,227 parking spaces will be provided at completion of the proposed expansion. ' 3. Direct application of City parking codes to the existing and proposed mix of uses of Metro Town Square results in a total parking requirement of 1,466 parking ' spaces. With a proposed parking supply of 1,227 spaces, a code shortfall of 239 spaces is indicated. h'. k 31B-31 ' Mrs. Lawna Munholland March 23, 2011 ' Page 9 ' 4. Given the mix of center tenancies a shared analysis has been prepared parking and ' indicates that the proposed parking supply for Metro Town Square will be sufficient to meet the projected peak parking demands of existing and proposed uses. For the proposed condition, the weekday scenario will exactly balance ' "design level" demand and supply at the peak of the day. The weekend conditions is forecast to have a minimum surplus of 155 spaces. The shared parking template ' developed in this study is a recommended basis for evaluating any further tenancy or floor area adjustments to the on-going operations of Metro Town Square. ' 5. A "blended" analysis of actual parking demand for existing occupancies and a shared parking approach for vacant floor areas indicates that the future minimum functional surplus at Metro Town Square will be much greater. For the proposed ' tenancy mix, the weekday (Thursday and Friday) conditions are forecast to have a surplus of at least 392 spaces. The weekend (Saturday) condition is forecast to have ' a functional minimum surplus of 414 spaces. * * * * * * * * * * ' We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this analysis for Metro Town Square. 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 ' Paul W. ilkinson, P.E. Principal ' Attachments cc: ' file I42::?h?P;,-3; 31 B-32 n t tfltft-fl-Zl t+K4t •01 •N't-1Et!lf\ ws ow- -unm -in wow - ft140ti%®6Nf\'w Ana s ?yd ? r xs ? ? 1S now '?j? ?? r .ny is Y! 1 aeau:xs i, j) wiml a 3` s n s iS IS 113itI1 d W3n18 . sux ': W J = k v M ,r Av lc Yt' 1S U r. ??? ?? ?? ? L± d rµCCN tr : fg r ti 09D._ •, pft r Lt 1-Nifsii`NS "? A35Niltl9 ?i oiAi+!, i 1. J a-Z ?? < ixr a <. 8 ?A11NS: lS...'i ` 3A] 10 is l13l101 z e 1S 113No1 is a3N of W n3NJ{Di sing *[ Jo (";.,I p r ; PMK A? ? _ . 83M 'f STOL ST-Li f ? 'r I _A4: ti 10 REM t' ; )c 1;?$ L'1dE ?? IxM 3'.+rz_! !__ ryrv17i14V$?. ? ?Z'ks?„ Y3s _a! r.,w ? 1 t AA VNI-1 II S sb C80lMFny a l lSn3 ; rl 7? i 11L WWtW" t l AS SY na. S 6 t _. Yi1 six •,` 1[ > rMAV 3S'tll!A k3??5'r u_ .? ,I,fji?+rl _ 11f1Af 15 Sily! ?- ,r is is (15 V3033 A ttMA LS v( ?. 15 owas?- u "° ?' ??Q$ e.7 y in Mt, ? An fK a 1S ONOMf10 ? ? t: 819 tc 1 rrr i ',. .. lal 13S13J _ ,r - n ? jG VSKINNt .a h .1._...- ) . I , 1S 3111AN3311® t!s?w?? n ' _ y Ali 111AN3316 WV AV Z ' - j ?Afi-' snares • = R:, ? r -K? :3 ,? e? ?•j AM 144 15 SIRV x N1 *%" I t 'G` I a t ^_{ L? t atits2l l ?1X lMti 11?. T M G??--vva? i»l i} ? ? rN r Iq.1w 31 B-33 ?...? z N w 5< H O O 0 N to l? 11 U !" ' 1 J EXISTING DEVELOPMENT TOTALS PARKING RATE COD E REQUIRED PARKING RETAIL = 112,426 S.F, 5/1000 562 SPACES (89,625 S F. OCCUPIED. 22,8C1 S f VACANT) MEDICAL. z 29,4220 S.F. 6/1000 176 SPACES (25,692 S.F. OCCUPIED, 3,738 S.F. VACANT) RES'AURANI _ 30,542 S.F. 10/:O0C 30 SPACES (22.042 S.F. OCCUPIED, 8,500 SP, VACANT) HANK = 15.100 SF OCCUPIED (7 WALK-UP TELLERS] 4/1000 r 2 FOR 74 SPACES EACH WALT(-UP AUTOMAT,C TELLER HEALTH CLUB ? 35,57C S.F_ OCCUPIED 6 3/1000 224 SPACES OFF-CE - 9,100 SF. OCCUPIED 3/I0CC 27 SPACES TtitA1 -. 232,155 S.F. ;,368 SPACES :3ils'r v j •:? for `' i?rflfl WGImm SLID ?lj? a ?I1 >_ c i x } i '.ate AIE KEY FIGURE 2 - IDENTIFY RECENT MOGIF7CAT10NS TO EXISTING SITE PLAN BASED ON FIELD VERIFICATION 'T CONDUCTED BY LLD STAFF IN DECEMBER 2010 1? NO 5CAt c. EXISTING SITE PLAN MFTRO TOWN SQUARE, SANTA ANA 31 B-34 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TOTALS RETAIL - 92,888 S.F. MEDICAL - 47,545 S.F. RESTAURANT - 39,161 SF. BANK - 15.100 S.F. (7 WALK--UP TELLERS) HEALTH CLUB - 35,570 S.F. OFFICE - 9,100 SF. SHARED PARKING CODE REQUIRED REO AT 1PM PARKING RATE PARKING PW (WEEKDAY_] 5/1DOO 464 SPACES 419 SPACES 6,1000 285 SPACES 267, SPACES 1 10/1000 392 SPACES 309 SPACES 4/1000 + 2 FOR 74 SPACES 50 SPACES EACH WALK-UP AUTOMATIC TELLER 63/1000 224 SPACES 158 SPACES 3/1000 27 SPACES 24 SPACES TOTAL - 239,364 S.F. 2 SPACES ADDED DUE TO PROPOSED RESTRIPINO IM4ww &V I ?s f flu DUE TO PROPOSED RESTRIPING PROVIDED PARKING = 1.227 SPACES (1,181 REGULAR, 46 HANDICAP) U, =ITtMrT Tl'Tifi= t s, 3 111ll ~ 1 r?. 1 EI x; y x I "??" ? , I I • " 111111 ??._ j ? ° i 1 1BUIL ANG MODIFICATION RESULTS IN THE LOSS r, { OF 3 SPACES 1 f? KEY FIGURE 3 Y / A-PROPGSED SITE MODIFICATION AREA NO (NO SCALE MODIFICATIONS TO Ex1SnNG SITE PLAN EXISTING SITE LAYOUT WITH PROPOSED MODIFICATION AREA METRO TOWN SQUARE, SANTA ANA 31 B-35 ' jolm6o 1102-91-fo 1111411 dol 6MD'4-lZB if\6Mp\ouo o?uos 'aonbs "'o' 0",w ze,coFz\oo"\:. m . ? r ?JNI?kIVd ?JNIISIX3 ? ? ` OIil)IUVd MUM O U- Q Z ujo ectl 31 B-36 v. Z a a W d Q H z z ? oN Ey W U Q w AU) O Q'i ~ QO w a E w F, a a N U O W U w D O to W J Q U) O Z z NVIAIJ 3M?T?? TABLE 1 EXISTING LAND USE SUMMARY (NOVEMBER /DECEMBER 2010), METRO TOWN SQUARE, SANTA ANA Address Business Name Land Use Building Size (sf) 3694 S. Bristol St VACANT Retail 1,164 sf 3696 S. Bristol St DVD Zone Retail 1,286 sf 3698 S. Bristol St VACANT Retail 1,450 sf 3640 S. Bristol St Han's Ice Cream and Deli Restaurant 1,154 sf 3642S. Bristol St Designer Closet Retail 1,125 sf 3644 S. Bristol St Western Federal Credit Union Retail 2,652 sf 3646S. Bristol St Citi Financial Services Retail 2,250 sf 3650 S. Bristol St Vons Retail 47,208 sf 3664 S. Bristol St Baja Fish Tacos Restaurant 2,546 sf 3666 S. Bristol St Kut N Beauty Retail 2,319 sf 3668 S. Bristol St Bonjour Nails Retail 1,220 sf 3672 S. Bristol St Jasper's Restaurant 3,383 sf 3674 S. Bristol St Imax Realty Retail 765 sf 3676 S. Bristol St Insurance Retail 725 sf 3680 S. Bristol St Storage Retail 5,018 sf 3686 S. Bristol St VACANT Retail 3,422 sf 3688A S. Bristol St VACANT Retail 1,428 sf 3688 S. Bristol St VACANT Retail 1,428 sf 3744 S. Bristol St VACANT Retail 1.428 sf 3742 S. Bristol St VACANT Retail 1,368 sf 3740A S. Bristol St Romantic Nails Retail 576 sf 3740 S. Bristol St VACANT Retail 1,413 sf 3738 S. Bristol St Newport Tailor Retail 1,043 sf 3736 S. Bristol St Dentistry Dental Office 2,028 sf 3734 S. Bristol St Cigar Shop Retail 1,272 sf 3732 S. Bristol St George's Thai Bistro Restaurant 3,830 sf 3752 S. Bristol St Storage Retail 850 sf 3719 S. Plaza Dr Leasing and Management Office Retail 1,300 sf 3719 S. Plaza Dr Spruce Grove Inc. Retail 1,625 sf 3731 S. Plaza Dr Plaza Medical Imaging Retail 4,267 sf 3735 S. Plaza Dr Jim's Shoe Repair Retail 582 sf 3739 S. Plaza Dr VACANT Retail 1,067 sf 3743 S. Plaza Dr VACANT Retail 2,343 sf 3747 S. Plaza Dr Chanteh Design Retail 667 sf 3751 S. Plaza Dr VACANT Retail 1,250 sf 3755 S. Plaza Dr VACANT Retail 1,500 sf Source: Metro Town Square Property Management (12-10-10). 31 B-37 1 L L i TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) EXISTING LAND USE SUMMARY(NOVEMBER /DECEMBER 2010r METRO TOWN SQUARE, SANTA ANA Address Business Name Land Use Building Size (sf) 3759 S. Plaza Dr Tiffany 2000 Retail 1,513 sf 3763 S. Plaza Dr VACANT Retail 700 sf 3767 S. Plaza Dr Accent Cleaners Retail 1,768 sf 3771 S. Plaza Dr VACANT Retail 2,112 sf 3775 S. Plaza Dr Maly's West Retail 2,746 sf 3780 S. Plaza Dr VACANT Retail 728 sf 3785 S. Plaza Dr I" Team Retail 4,054 sf 3600 S. Bristol St Chase Bank 9,100 sf 3600 S. Bristol St Chase Office 9,100 sf 3608 S. Bristol St South Coast Winery Restaurant 8,493 sf 3638 S. Bristol St Casual Male Big and Tall Retail 2,794 sf 3701 S. Plaza Dr Bally's Total Fitness Health Club 35,570 sf 3710S. Bristol St Jack in the Box Restaurant 2,636 sf 3730 S. Bristol St Bank of America Bank 6,000 sf 3620 S. Bristol St 3 Story MOB MOB 23,654 sf 3620 S. Bristol St VACANT MOB 3,738 sf 1500 W MacArthur Blvd VACANT Restaurant 8,500 sf umma : Total Occupied Retail Square Footage 83,757 sf Total Occupied Restaurant Square Footage 22,042 sf Total Occupied Office Square Footage 9,100 sf Total Occupied Medical Office Building Square Footage 25,682 sf Total Occupied Bank Square Footage 15,100 sf Total Occupied Health Club Square Footage, 35,570 sf Total Occupied Permanent Storage Square Footage 5,868 sf Vacant Retail Square Footage 22,801 sf Vacant Restaurant Square Footage 8,500 sf Vacant Medical Office Building Square Footage, 3,738 sf TOTAL OCCUPIED EXISTING SITE SQUARE FOOTAGE 197,119 sf TOTAL VACANT EXISTING SITE SQUARE FOOTAGE 35,039 sf TOTAL EXISTING SITE SQUARE FOOTAGE 232,158 sf ' 2 Source: Metro Town Square Property Management (12-10-10). 31 B-38 ' TABLE 2 t EXISTING (NOVEMBER /DECEMBER 2010) CRY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENT METRO TOWN SQUARE, SANTA ANA ?I City of Santa Ana Spaces Land Use Size Code Parking Ratio3 Required Retail stores and service 83,757 sf 5 spaces per 1,000 sf of GFA. 419 Restaurant, cafes, etc. 22,042 sf 10 spaces per 1,000 sf of GFA. 220 Offices, business and professional 9,100 sf 3 spaces per 1,000 sf of GFA. 27 Medical, dental, psychiatric and chiropractic offices and clinics 25,682 sf 6 spaces per 1,000 sf of GFA. 154 Bank and financial institutions' 15,100 sf 4 spaces per 1,000 sf of GFA plus 2 spaces for each 74 walk-up automatic teller machine. Exercise gyms, spas, health clubs, 35 570 sf 6.3 spaces per 1000 sf of GFA based on Variance etc. , No. 00-02 224 Permanent Storage Area 5,868 sf 5 spaces per 1,000 sf of GFA. 29 Vacant (Retail) 22,801 sf 5 spaces per 1,000 sf of GFA. 114 Vacant (Restaurant) 8,500 sf 10 spaces per 1,000 sf of GFA. 85 Vacant (MOB) 3,738 sf 6 spaces per 1,000 sf of GFA. 22 TOTAL: 232,158 sf TOTAL: 1,368 A. TOTAL OCCUPIED PARKING CODE REQUIREMENT 1,147 B. TOTAL VACANT PARKING CODE REQUIREMENT 221 C. TOTAL PARKING CODE REQUIREMENT BASED ON FULL OCCUPANCY 1,368 D. TOTAL EXISTING PARKING SUPPLY 1,226 E. PARKING SURPLUS/DEFICIENCY (+/-) BASED ON FULL OCCUPANCY (D - C) -142 3 Source: City of Santa Ana Municipal Code. Chapter 41 - Zoning, Article Xi' Off-Street Parking. ' a Seven (7) walk-up automatic tellers are currently located on-site. 31 B-39 J TABLE 3 CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENT BASED ON PROPOSED FLOOR AREA AND TENANCY ADJUSTMENTS METRO TOWN SQUARE, SANTA ANA Land Use Size Retail stores and service 83,757 sf Restaurant, cafes, etc. 22,042 sf Offices, business and professional 9,100 sf Medical, dental, psychiatric and 25,682 sf chiropractic offices and clinics Bank and financial institutions6 15,100 sf Exercise gyms, spas, health clubs, 35,570 sf etc. Permanent Storage Area 5,868 sf Vacant (Retail) 2,357 sf Vacant (Retail) Converted to MOB 18,125 sf Vacant (Restaurant) 8,500 sf Vacant (Retail) Converted to 2,319 sf Restaurant Vacant (MOB) 3,738 sf Casual Male Building Modification (Net Added Retail) 906 sf Casual Male Building Modification 300 6 sf (Net Added Restaurant) , City of Santa Ana Code Parking Ratios Spaces Required 5 spaces per 1,000 sf of GFA. 10 spaces per 1,000 sf of GFA 3 spaces per 1,000 sf of GFA. 6 spaces per 1,000 sf of GFA. 4 spaces per 1,000 sf of GFA plus 2 spaces for each walk-up automatic teller machine. 6.3 spaces per 1000 sf of GFA based on Variance No. 00-02 5 spaces per 1,000 sf of GFA. 5 spaces per 1,000 sf of GFA. 6 spaces per 1,000 sf of GFA. 10 spaces per 1,000 sf of GFA. 419 220 27 154 74 224 29 12 109 85 10 spaces per 1,000 sf of GFA. 23 6 spaces per 1,000 sf of GFA. 5 spaces per 1,000 sf of GFA. 10 spaces per 1,000 sf of GFA. TOTAL: 1239,364 sf I TOTAL: A. TOTAL PARKING CODE REQUIREMENT BASED ON FULL OCCUPANCY INCLUDING ADJUSTMENTS B. TOTAL PROPOSED PARKING SUPPLY C. PARKING SURPLUS/DEFICIENCY (+/-) BASED ON FULL OCCUPANCY INCLUDING ADJUSTMENTS (B - A) 22 5 63 1,466 1,466 1,227 -239 t S Source: City of Santa Ana Municipal Code, Chapter 41 - Zoning, Article XV Off-Street Parking. 6 Seven (7) walk-up automatic tellers are currently located on-site. 31 B-40 Z Q a O J 4 Y2 Q a K 2 N Y 3 3 G ? i fi T V v o ? V Y h 9 r : Y E ? O C l M ? Q - r O ^ C as - c'+ C 'i ? W F 9 'p er W O W UF?' p = G '?. ? W L q ??L ` ? `G 'O CO 00 p q i ? . Z Y y " A= i C" G w ? 1 i c i:??7l?g o o K? a Z m v Z C lY. ; j C ? ? G? 'G^ ? M C l L - C P1 f - T T O Yi N 3 N u z z C- C ? ? S j j C ? LCL .fi L .'• '? fi '? ?? P P P x s "L C z O' = L ?+ G E G K - - Q - C O - G - C - G c - f ? c z y z` f. z ? P y L, C T oC P m ? Y L ` K' ?( J. y y L S A T T f l a a Ef 'G r L G G? ?. r? G f ?` ¦ T 00 oC P T 1 _ ?S v n ?1 . ? L 1 2 ? ? 6 ? 00 .C G V ? v r R v T `c E - v C ?r P " E G 7 Y ? C 1 ;} c O J. - ` R = 2 w C yc ;? L L T Y v. I !C ? Y. OC ? - •- G{zs ` c a z l i ?. G ^ i .`Y 3 L T v ? n G ? Y W Yv C 5 r r G L ? C > > S C J ? KR ? - ? ?6 '_ - ` - ? n, v, c E ? c ,c ; ,o ? c 7 T .c ,c c tt G Y x ° Z o ? ?' < G C ? X L 1 L L l 5 ? 3 l z V f F C ? G j ? C O G C+ ? ? L - Q - - a a 1-? 2 y W K C c to W Q U Z F Q Q S oO S O a O 13 N m N T Q Q Q w O Y a O N z yW T r C ? Y G ? i G a f N ! T Y ? C ? Df 9 C a m i v w r _ •t f` - r h CP ± C L v Y L y x ?= c Y x ss L ,F. m Y F z,=.1d LV, f L? ra 4 („! s 4 S a i V. J ? T T _ I 4 m ? ? r j?? ty? C L r' ` c r >So .. I? ra ;f z a i ? .`?. is n G ! L W r l P - `? C Z „ L Y Y C a u ? i x = u C' Z ? y . j Y £ o as 1. £ _ E ! -' - pp - - v , j a? i vv. . c Y rl ? ? 1 + C? ft C _ C C d p.. ? ? ,c a ?c `o 9 ? u Y j V 6 C L y j ? L OC V x L x E ? N T ? ?t ?i Q J L q a 17 17 G G C T c V _ r cy a v N? ?` L v T O _ _ ----- _ C$CO r, v of 7 - 4 ? c ? ? "? ? l v L p 1 rt ? rt - - C ( C _ C o a ny ? 1' 1 c L ? Y i ¢ c Y 7 Y_ Ny p C ? r! r E r. Z I ? c n c 1 ? _ - c - r T K N - i v 7 ?- Y• E G N T ? y Y V. ? E c ? ? ? r 3 P - ? ? P ap ? v 5 v. ? t, L r. G GT ?' Q j ? G ? ? dT. i L I y a x '" 5 r r i ?' ?? L G C " . C O L C L ? ZC S ? r - J. - T •C C? OC Q Q F Q Vn w 07 N H O K LL. e 3 C i q ! G .? 1 4 31 B-43 s J m g i i h ? N ? 9 fr'l. + r' a h N N N M v?? ?QQ t? v N S! 'C7 ? ? ? w ? ?D aNt C vii O ? ?Q h V1 ?r oe: M ? 00 ? iT n sT E T - ? ?tp? ? O ? ? h h G F 116 L 'ah C t? N M 06 OG v ' R y ^ $ g ^ N M N SO M SO N M 1 M ifi M 7 N h N M m it ? ? ? ? ? cn ? - N M et et N ? ?t V' Et ? `t st 0 fi }? ??gg y >ga 1p+p? t` y O N L a 00 - N N N N N lN4 N ^ N - h M w O ? `- ?„ ' .r N t? M N M N sf M '@ N O? N it s ?,? `o w >w Q? + ?d ° a Cie « z? 0 M It p O C] C : O O O O O+ !M+ rMi O ? r„ C y? O w ' V? E E N th •O O .. C C - .-- O' z A F' ' Z w t4 ' ' D` N t" M .p IN N D : v vMi O vl 1 N EM7+ N NV w rk) ? O '? Q 00 17, M @ N ?O h M i 1 y 1 1 1 ? 1 1 1 00 1 ' t V I a v v N n?y 6aA ? n h '? V' M ? h ?' ? by V ? N w Vim' 10 h ?0 01/ C„ r ? p IS. h t- V j N1 ,G yE" ? Fi r ~ V p I v N M " Q m " M M M N h " low i N V ? 's y N M ?Y ^d' v1 at v v v v v ris ? ® n v Ui z N N N N N N N N N h M N r y z ? ? ? f/? O ? v1 l? M 1' M ?! tT N e} Y . N R'V ? N ^ ? > .+ e > QQt O y? C• M 'R v's v v1 ON or1 v1 M N N r- ?t ON V' ON V' 0% et ?j 00 00 V z r ? V l o g s en en 4+ ? 1t , iu E z e ?p G ^ ` pa t R S; Z N M N V' O? V• QM+ Y1 t. 11") V"1 V' '?f N vl N N V? h?i V' n M O CtiL I N m v h NO h 90 4 N 31 B-44 'O s c ?E c d a eL Y s? .. N M 'M' : 00 M P t ? 0 0 O? ?C ? { ? r j ? V t? '?' ?' y e*1 pN? r- `Q No ?n 0 O kn Own Q. eo M en R R ? « f" Q C ` _ eo sf' .?• . a0 V1 in N M N m M M M m M V'1 O? sfi O en ? ? ? Vmq ?? z /G F ? ? ? ? y p In © N M ?1' ? N N V1 V1 N v v v Fw. "p O N1 ? h ? $? ? ^ N N '? N O O O O O O O O Y > " 8 M N GG i1 CA z a b ?'"' P? [V 1 N N M N M O, aC p « ( i3j Y1 f `I N _ N z U K E w t%' g 16 'o ? ? $ M qr wli ? %0 ?n >fi. ? a e o e? z M ? iJ o ? 44 1 0 g h o O O O O O O O U ? C h N ? N N ^ a O - N - N N O O ? > a 44 a Z' a ?yr1 •? a .r ?q o x 4 CT 00 M a %C @ ?+yw V1. o `C * %n N 40 %n W ?Op M 0, t- M e q W) M CD N M CC r- N Q c IL CL 06 'CL CL. A CL g ' " ?- S S $ 8 8 8 8 $ 8 . ? 8 ILI ®0 C1 .•. N M sr h ?O t? 00 H 31 B-46 APPENDIX A EXISTING PARKING COUNT WORKSHEETS 31 B-47 ' W r m _N N-d Q N A{p m M to A N M d m D ?Mtl V Q? 1n Yl d Q H i i m 7 m 7 d 7 U x T U_ r N ? x C Y = L a ? L N U CCl6 ca U N m LL U S W U x O U x U U x m U x Q N om .- b M N M N m ? -- 0 O - '- N Q ? N N N ? '- O N N N A m m m m d m M m A O O ? ? N Q M N ? ? O -- N O O N O O O N O ? O O ? O ? '- O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O ? O N 0 0 0 0 O O O O O N O O ? 0 0 0 0 N W N M N A M LL] M m N A N M N N M N M O ? N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N M N ? N a V M N N W N M N M N '- O ? m N ?[1 A m 0 M d M Q Q ? N ? O O N N O aW0 N O m n ? ? n m ? 0 0 ? ? ? ? N M M O m m N W N N N N E .- N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m N 0 Q W d N n O m W m m r 0 n t[1 r m r m r N m W Q O O O N M M M N ? O - O O W N d ? S a d v umi ? 'rQ N m o o o ? .- M O O O ? o o m N M Q N ? O < h tm0 d M M 0 0 0 0 0 01 -1 - 0 0 0 0 0 Q N N ? M N d M O N m m 0 Q Q m M A Q d r m n m m O O O O ? M M ? O N N M N d N ? Q N M M LL) p S m tp ? In n N m h ? o o o o .- o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 W m ? ? N N M r M O M Q t'? m M N M W M O M Q N N N O _N O m ?- Q Qp Z CL CL CL Q p? EL Q- Q. 0- i p ? S S ? O S O S O S S O S O ? m W ? '- ? '- N M Q N m r 00 Q m W M N m m m LL9 m Q r N N W? W m W? N Q N N r M d d m LL'1 N Q Q m 4'i m d M OD 7 .o 7 7 d N U 2 x V x U x LL U x W V 2 O U i U U x m U x 0 0 •- ? N M M N ? d M N N ? N ? ? M N ? N N N ? 0 o N a ? m m Q W r n m r 0 0 .- Q W O d d ? ? N r m O O O M O N O O ? O ? O .- ? N Q ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? A O N O N n ? N M Q N to N N N m N m ? r ? m o n -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O h S r Q 7 m M N M U] M n M .- N p N •- N M N m ? m m Q N O O N m ? N N O M W N Q N N u') N - O - ? N O N N m N M 0 W W - h m t0 m W am0 W S N d ? m N m M n N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m M N h O m r 10 m r m m 0 r f 1 r N m m m m m M h m M 0 0 ? O O O ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 N M I 1? a N op M N N N ? r m O o O N 0 ?- 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 N N N Q Q O M M O V I m V m Q m d N m N m 0 0 0 0 0 + 1 - 0 o O o 0 0 m m c°? m r ? m Q ?n m m ? m o M M Q M ? n m Q ?n a M Q m m aA0 m p 6f W m T m m A S o o o o .- o o o o o 0 0 0 W N y Q S < { p m Q Q Q Q N N Q O c c z S S Q Z ?C 'QQQOQQQOg$$gSOSSSooS O O p ? C! O m W - ?N MQ hm rm 1 31 B-48 0 O r m iff O Q m N M ? m m E x oo p O W r M O? m N N O OMf b N m N M d -Id d m N Q d M M M N m 7 m d 7 U S x x U 2 U S LL U x W U x U 2 U U 2 m U x O m ? N O m N M d d Q N N 0 .- 0 0 ? ? 0 0 e- ? 0 0 O d m m m co - .0 r r m O O F F Q I T N m m h ?A LLi 0 0 0 0 - Q N 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .- ? N N N . 0 0 0 0 0 0 .- m m r M m m r W M M O r ? N M Q Q d N ?- N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Q h N LLN5 m N Y a N N N d M d M W Q Q Yf M m h N N N N ? N N N N N N N N m in Q ?n M ? M N ? o a o o O W m t7 VI O r W h pp M m O O W m m m ? f l m t n m N m g W Q m d M N M Q M .- '- N N N N 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W m N N m ? N O N W m W ? M m U7 M Q Q d YJ Q M M N 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m d m m O N r IA N N N m n M M r 0 0 0 O N -1 01 01 - 0 01 01 0 N m ? Q S d y M N Q N N N m O p p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q N m W m W N t '1 f 7 id N V l` ] I V Y N N O N O ? ?- N M N M ? N M d n m O A A m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M m o m M d N n W r n ?n N M Q M u1 Q M N r Q 0 a- m W m W m? m r m m m w o O Z N CSS Q Q 4 ?? n QQp Z a- m O O Q o N S S O S O S S S OD W ? ? ? ? N i7 V in m h m u APPENDIX B ULI PARKING CALCULATION WORKSHEETS 1 t 1 1 31 B-49 t I I Appendix Table B-1 SHOPPING CENTER (TYPICAL DAYS) WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS 11] Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Occupied Shopping Center (Typical Days) Size Pkg Rate[2] 83.757 KSF 5 /KSF Gross 419 Spaces Spaces 338 Guest Spc. 81 Em p. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 14% 47 36% 29 76 9:00 AM 32% 108 68% 55 163 10:00 AM 59% 199 77% 62 261 11:00 AM 77% 260 86% 70 330 12:00 PM 86% 291 90% 73 364 1:00 PM 90% 304 90% 73 377 2:00 PM 86% 291 90% 73 364 3:00 PM 81% 274 90% 73 347 4:00 PM 81% 274 90% 73 347 5:00 PM 86% 291 86% 70 361 6:00 PM 86% 291 86% 70 361 7:00 PM 86% 291 86% 70 361 8:00 PM 72% 243 81% 66 309 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. 1 31 B-50 F1 Appendix Table B-2 SHOPPING CENTER (TYPICAL DAYS) WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Occupied Shopping Center (Typical Days) Size Pkg Rate[2] 83.757 KSF 5 /KSF Gross 419 Spaces Spaces 335 Guest Spc. 84 Emp. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 10% 34 40% 34 68 9:00 AM 30% 101 75% 63 164 10:00 AM 50% 168 85% 71 239 11:00 AM 65% 218 95% 80 298 12:00 PM 80% 268 100% 84 352 1:00 PM 90% 302 100% 84 386 2:00 PM 100% 335 100% 84 419 3:00 PM 100% 335 100% 84 419 4:00 PM 95% 318 100% 84 402 5:00 PM 90% 302 95% 80 382 6:00 PM 80% 268 85% 71 339 7:00 PM 75% 251 80% 67 318 8:00 PM 65% 218 75% 63 281 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 B-51 ri 17 t Appendix Table B-3 FINEXASUAL DINING WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Fine/Casual Dining Size Pkg Rate[2] 8.493 KSF 10 /KSF Gross 85 Spaces Spaces 72 Guest Spc. 13 Emp. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 0% 0 45% 6 6 9:00 AM 0% 0 68% 9 9 10:00 AM 14% 10 81% 11 21 11:00 AM 36% 26 81% 11 37 12:00 PM 68% 49 81% 11 60 1:00 PM 68% 49 81% 11 60 2:00 PM 59% 42 81% 11 53 3:00 PM 36% 26 68% 9 35 4:00 PM 45% 32 68% 9 41 5:00 PM 68% 49 90% 12 61 6:00 PM 86% 62 90% 12 74 7:00 PM 90% 65 90% 12 77 8:00 PM 900/0 65 90% 12 77 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 B-52 1 11 t Appendix Table B-4 FINEXASUAL DINING WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [11 Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Fine/Casual Dining Size Pkg Rate [21 8.493 KSF 10 /KSF Gross 85 Spaces Spaces 72 Guest Spc. 13 Emp. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak 131 # Of Spaces % Of Peak [31 # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 0% 0 30% 4 4 9:00 AM 0% 0 60% 8 8 10:00 AM 0% 0 75% 10 10 11:00 AM 15% 11 75% 10 21 12:00 PM 50% 36 75% 10 46 1:00 PM 55% 40 75% 10 50 2:00 PM 45% 32 75% 10 42 3:00 PM 45% 32 75% 10 42 4:00 PM 45% 32 75% 10 42 5:00 PM 60% 43 100% 13 56 6:00 PM 90% 65 100% 13 78 7:00 PM 95% 68 100% 13 81 8:00 PM 100% 72 100% 13 85 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 [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. 1 31 B-53 1 t Appendix Table B-5 FAMILY RESTAURANT WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Occupied Family Restaurant Size Pkg Rate[2] 7.213 KSF 10 /KSF Gross 72 Spaces Spaces 62 Guest Spc. 10 Emp. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 42% 26 63% 6 32 9:00 AM 53% 33 63% 6 39 10:00 AM 60% 37 70% 7 44 11:00 AM 63% 39 70% 7 46 12:00 PM 70% 43 70% 7 50 1:00 PM 63% 39 70% 7 46 2:00 PM 35% 22 70% 7 29 3:00 PM 32% 20 53% 5 25 4:00 PM 32% 20 53% 5 25 5:00 PM 53% 33 67% 7 40 6:00 PM 56% 35 67% 7 42 7:00 PM 56% 35 67% 7 42 8:00 PM 56% 35 67% 7 42 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 1 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 B-54 t t 1 Appendix Table B-6 FAMILY RESTAURANT WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Occupied Family Restaurant Size Pkg Rate[2] 7.213 KSF 10 /KSF Gross 72 Spaces Spaces 61 Guest Spc. 11 Emp. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 45% 27 90% 10 37 9:00 AM 70% 43 90% 10 53 10:00 AM 90% 55 100% 11 66 11:00 AM 90% 55 100% 11 66 12:00 PM 100% 61 100% 11 72 1:00 PM 85% 52 100% 11 63 2:00 PM 65% 40 100% 11 51 3:00 PM 40% 24 75% 8 32 4:00 PM 45% 27 75% 8 35 5:00 PM 60% 37 95% LO 47 6:00 PM 70% 43 95% 10 53 7:00 PM 70% 43 95% 10 53 8:00 PM 65% 40 95% 10 50 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 B-55 F1 t J Appendix Table B-7 FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Fast-Food Restaurant Size Pkg Rate[2] 6.336 KSF 10 /KSF Gross 63 Spaces Spaces 54 Guest Spc. 9 Emp. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 20% 11 30% 3 14 9:00 AM 30% 16 40% 4 20 10:00 AM 55% 30 75% .7 37 11:00 AM 85% 46 100% 9 55 12:00 PM 100% 54 100% 9 63 1:00 PM 100% 54 100% 9 63 2:00 PM 90% 49 95% 9 58 3:00 PM 60% 32 70% 6 38 4:00 PM 55% 30 60% 5 35 5:00 PM 60% 32 70% 6 38 6:00 PM 85% 46 90% 8 54 7:00 PM 80% 43 90% 8 51 8:00 PM 50% 27 60% 5 32 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 B-56 ?1 J 11 Appendix Table B-8 FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Fast-Food Restaurant Size Pkg Rate[2] 6.336 KSF 10 /KSF Gross 63 Spaces Spaces 54 Guest Spc. 9 Emp. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces % Of Peak [3[ # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 19% 10 28% 3 13 9:00 AM 28% 15 37% 3 18 10:00 AM 51% 28 70% 6 34 11:00 AM 79% 43 93% 8 51 12:00 PM 93% 50 93% 8 58 1:00 PM 93% 50 93% 8 58 2:00 PM 84% 45 89% 8 53 3:00 PM 56% 30 65% 6 36 4:00 PM 51% 28 56% 5 33 5:00 PM 56% 30 65% 6 36 6:00 PM 79% 43 84% 8 51 7:00 PM 75% 41 84% 8 49 8:00 PM 47% 25 56% 5 30 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. I 31 B-57 F? Appendix Table B-9 OFFICE WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Office Size Pkg Rate[2] 9.100 KSF 3 /KSF Gross 27 Spaces Spaces 2 Visitor Spc. 25 Emp. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 20% 0 75% 19 19 9:00 AM 60% 1 95% 24 25 10:00 AM 100% 2 100% 25 27 11:00 AM 45% 1 100% 25 26 12:00 PM 15% 0 90% 23 23 1:00 PM 45% 1 90% 23 24 2:00 PM 100% 2 100% 25 27 3:00 PM 45% 1 100% 25 26 4:00 PM 15% 0 90% 23 23 5:00 PM 10% 0 50% 13 13 6:00 PM 5% 0 25% 6 6 7:00 PM 2% 0 10% 3 3 8:00 PM 1% 0 7% 2 2 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 B-58 I Appendix Table B-10 OFFICE WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Office Size Pkg Rate[21 9.100 KSF 3 /KSF Gross 27 Spaces Spaces 2 Visitor Spc. 25 Emp. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 6% 0 6% 2 2 9:00 AM 8% 0 8% 2 2 10:00 AM 9% 0 9% 2 2 11:00 AM 10% 0 10% 3 3 12:00 PM 9% 0 9% 2 2 1:00 PM 8% 0 8% 2 2 2:00 PM 6% 0 6% 2 2 3:00 PM 4% 0 4% 1 1 4:00 PM 2% 0 2% 1 1 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: ' [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. J 31 B-59 u Appendix Table B-11 MEDICALIDENTAL OFFICE WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Occupied Medical/Dentai Office Size Pkg Rate[2] 25.682 KSF 6 /KSF Gross 154 Spaces Spaces 103 Visitor Spc. 51 Emp. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 90% 93 60% 31 124 9:00 AM 90% 93 100% 51 144 10:00 AM 100% 103 100% 51 154 11:00 AM 100% 103 100% 51 154 12:00 PM 30% 31 100% 51 82 1:00 PM 90% 93 100% 51 144 2:00 PM 100% 103 100% 51 154 3:00 PM 100% 103 100% 51 154 4:00 PM 90% 93 100% 51 144 5:00 PM 80% 82 100% 51 133 6:00 PM 67% 69 67% 34 103 7:00 PM 30% 31 30% 15 46 8:00 PM 15% 15 15% 8 23 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 B-60 t 1 t t Appendix Table B-12 MEDICAUDENTAL OFFICE WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Occupied Medical/Dental Office Size Pkg Rate[2] 25.682 KSF 6 /KSF Gross 154 Spaces Spaces 103 Visitor Spc. 51 Emp. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 90% 93 60% 31 124 9:00 AM 90% 93 100% 51 144 10:00 AM 100% 103 100% 51 154 11:00 AM 100% 103 100% 51 154 12:00 PM 30% 31 100% 51 82 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 Notes: ' [1] 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. t 31B-61 I Appendix Table B-13 BANK WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Bank Size Pkg Rate[2] 15.100 KSF 4 /KSF Gross 74 Spaces Spaces 48 Visitor Spc. 26 Emp. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 50% 24 60% 16 40 9:00 AM 90% 43 100% 26 69 10:00 AM 100% 48 100% 26 74 11:00 AM 50% 24 100% 26 50 12:00 PM 50% 24 100% 26 50 1:00 PM 50% 24 100% 26 50 2:00 PM 70% 34 100% 26 60 3:00 PM 50% 24 100% 26 50 4:00 PM 80% 38 100% 26 64 5:00 PM 100% 48 100% 26 74 6:00 PM 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 B-62 1 Cl H Appendix Table B-14 BANK WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Bank Size Pkg Rate[21 15.100 KSF 4 /KSF Gross 74 Spaces Spaces 48 Visitor Spc. 26 Emp. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak 131 # Of Spaces % Of Peak [3I # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 25% 12 90% 23 35 9:00 AM 40% 19 100% 26 45 10:00 AM 75% 36 100% 26 62 11:00 AM 100% 48 100% 26 74 12:00 PM 90% 43 100% 26 69 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 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. L 31 B-63 Appendix Table B-15 HEALTH CLUB WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Health Club Size Pkg Rate[2] 35.570 KSF 6 /KSF Gross 224 Spaces Spaces 211 Guest Spc. 13 Emp. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 40% 84 75% 10 94 9:00 AM 70% 148 75% 10 158 10:00 AM 70% 148 75% 10 158 11:00 AM 80% 169 75% 10 179 12:00 PM 60% 127 75% 10 137 1:00 PM 70% 148 75% 10 158 2:00 PM 70% 148 75% 10 158 3:00 PM 70% 148 75% 10 158 4:00 PM 80% 169 75% 10 179 5:00 PM 90% 190 100% 13 203 6:00 PM 100% 211 100% 13 224 7:00 PM 90% 190 75% 10 200 8:00 PM 80% 169 50% 7 176 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" manual. 31 B-64 s H Appendix Table B-16 HEALTH CLUB WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Health Club Size Pkg Rate[2] 35.570 KSF 6 /KSF Gross 224 Spaces Spaces 214 Guest Spc. 10 Emp. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 29% 62 41% 4 66 9:00 AM 41% 88 41% 4 92 10:00 AM 29% 62 41% 4 66 11:00 AM 41% 88 41% 4 92 12:00 PM 41% 88 41% 4 92 1:00 PM 25% 54 41% 4 58 2:00 PM 21% 45 41% 4 49 3:00 PM 25% 54 41% 4 58 4:00 PM 45% 96 62% 6 102 5:00 PM 82% 175 82% 8 183 0OP M 78% 167 82% 8 175 7:00 PM 49% 105 62% 6 111 8:00 PM 25% 54 41% 4 58 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 B-65 t Appendix Table s-17 SHOPPING CENTER (TYPICAL DAYS) WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Metro Town .Square, Santa Ana Land Use Occupied Storage Shopping Center (Typical Days) Size Pkg Rate[2] 5.868 KSF 5 /KSF Gross 29 Spaces Spaces 23 Guest Spc. 6 Emp. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 14% 3 36% 2 5 9:00 AM 32% 7 68% 4 11 10:00 AM 59% 14 77% 5 19 11:00 AM 77% 18 86% 5 23 12:00 PM 86% 20 90% 5 25 1:00 PM 90% 21 90% 5 26 2:00 PM 86% 20 90% 5 25 3:00 PM 81% 19 90% 5 24 4:00 PM 81% 19 90% 5 24 5:00 PM 86% 20 86% 5 25 6:00 PM 86% 20 86% 5 25 7:00 PM 86% 20 86% 5 25 8:00 PM 72% 17 81% 5 22 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 [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. I 31 B-66 t I I Appendix Table 1348 SHOPPING CENTER (TYPICAL DAYS) WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Occupied Storage Shopping Center (Typical Days) Size Pkg Rate[2] 5.868 KSF 5 /KSF Gross 29 Spaces Spaces 23 Guest Spc. 6 Emp. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 10% 2 40% 2 4 9:00 AM 30% 7 75% 5 12 10:00 AM 50% 12 85% 5 17 11:00 AM 65% 15 95% 6 21 12:00 PM 80% 18 100% 6 24 1:00 PM 90% 21 100% 6 27 2:00 PM 100% 23 100% 6 29 3:00 PM 100% 23 100% 6 29 4:00 PM 95% 22 100% 6 28 5:00 PM 90% 21 95% 6 27 6:00 PM 80% 18 85% 5 23 7:00 PM 75% 17 80% 5 22 8:00 PM 65% 15 75% 5 20 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 B-67 II n u I Appendix Table B-19 SHOPPING CENTER (TYPICAL DAYS) WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Vacant Shopping Center (Typical Days) Size Pkg Rate[2] 2.357 KSF 5 /KSF Gross 12 Spaces Spaces 10 Guest Spc. 2 Em p. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 14% 1 36% 1 2 9:00 AM 32% 3 68% 1 4 10:00 AM 59% 6 77% 2 8 11:00 AM 77% 8 86% 2 10 12:00 PM 86% 9 90% 2 11 1:00 PM 90% 9 90% 2 11 2:00 PM 86% 9 90% 2 11 3:00 PM 81% 8 90% 2 10 4:00 PM 81% 8 90% 2 10 5:00 PM 86% 9 86% 2 11 6:00 PM 86% 9 86% 2 11 7:00 PM 86% 9 86% 2 11 8:00 PM 72% 7 81% 2 9 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. I 31 B-68 1 i Appendix Table B-20 SHOPPING CENTER (TYPICAL DAYS) WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Vacant Shopping Center (Typical Days) Size Pkg Rate[21 2.357 KSF 5 /KSF Gross 12 Spaces Spaces 10 Guest Spc. 2 Emp. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [31 # Of Spaces % Of Peak [31 # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 10% 1 40% 1 2 9:00 AM 30% 3 75% 2 5 10:00 AM 50% 5 85% 2 7 11:00 AM 65% 7 95% 2 9 12:00 PM 80% 8 100% 2 10 1:00 PM 90% 9 100% 2 11 2:00 PM 100% 10 100% 2 12 3:00 PM 100% 10 100% 2 12 4:00 PM 95% 10 100% 2 12 5:00 PM 90% 9 95% 2 11 6:00 PM 80% 8 85% 2 10 7:00 PM 75% 8 80% 2 10 8:00 PM 65% 7 75% 2 9 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 B-69 t I Appendix Table B-21 MEDICAUDENTAL OFFICE WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Medical/Dental Office Size Pkg Rate[2] 18.125 KSF 6 /KSF Gross 109 Spaces Spaces 73 Visitor Spc. 36 Emp. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces % Of Peak [31 # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 90% 66 60% 22 88 9:00 AM 90% 66 100% 36 102 10:00 AM 100% 73 100% 36 109 11:00 AM 100% 73 100% 36 109 12:00 PM 30% 22 100% 36 58 1:00 PM 90% 66 100% 36 102 2:00 PM 100% 73 100% 36 109 3:00 PM 100% 73 100% 36 109 4:00 PM 90% 66 100% 36 102 5:00 PM 80% 58 100% 36 94 6:00 PM 67% 49 67% 24 73 7:00 PM 30% 22 30% 11 33 8:00 PM 15% 11 15% 5 16 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 B-70 r I Appendix Table B-22 MEDICAUDENTAL OFFICE WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Medical/Dental Office Size Pkg Rate[2] 18.125 KSF 6 /KSF Gross 109 Spaces Spaces 73 Visitor Spc. 36 Emp. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 90% 66 60% 22 88 9:00 AM 90% 66 100% 36 102 10:00 AM 100% 73 100% 36 109 11:00 AM 100% 73 100% 36 109 12:00 PM 30% 22 100% 36 58 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 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 1 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. 31B-71 t 1 11 Appendix Table B-23 FAMILY RESTAURANT WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Vacant Family Restaurant Size Pkg Rate[2] 8.500 KSF 10 /KSF Gross 85 Spaces Spaces 73 Guest Spc. 12 Emp. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 42% 31 63% 8 39 9:00 AM 53% 39 63% 8 47 10:00 AM 60% 44 70% 8 52 11:00 AM 63% 46 70% 8 54 12:00 PM 70% 51 70% 8 59 1:00 PM 63% 46 70% 8 54 2:00 PM 35% 26 70% 8 34 3:00 PM 32% 23 53% 6 29 4:00 PM 32% 23 53% 6 29 5:00 PM 53% 39 67% 8 47 6:00 PM 56% 41 67% 8 49 7:00 PM 56% 41 67% 8 49 8:00 PM 56% 41 67% 8 49 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. 1 31 B-72 t t t i Appendix Table B-24 FAMILY RESTAURANT WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1) Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Vacant Family Restaurant Size Pkg Rate[21 8.500 KSF 10 /KSF Gross 85 Spaces Spaces 72 Guest Spc. 13 Emp. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [31 # Of Spaces % Of Peak [31 # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 45% 32 90% 12 44 9:00 AM 70% 50 90% 12 62 10:00 AM 90% 65 100% 13 78 11:00 AM 90% 65 100% 13 78 12:00 PM 100% 72 100% 13 85 1:00 PM 85% 61 100% 13 74 2:00 PM 65% 47 100% 13 60 3:00 PM 40% 29 75% 10 39 4:00 PM 45% 32 75% 10 42 5:00 PM 60% 43 95% 12 55 6:00 PM 70% 50 95% 12 62 7:00 PM 70% 50 95% 12 62 8:00 PM 65% 47 95% 12 59 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 B-73 t Appendix Table B-25 FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Fast-Food Restaurant Size Pkg Rate[2] 2.319 KSF 10 /KSF Gross 23 Spaces Spaces 20 Guest Spc. 3 Em p. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 20% 4 30% 1 5 9:00 AM 30% 6 40% 1 7 10:00 AM 55% 11 75% 2 13 11:00 AM 85% 17 100% 3 20 12:00 PM 100% 20 100% 3 23 1:00 PM 100% 20 100% 3 23 2:00 PM 90% 18 95% 3 21 3:00 PM 60% 12 70% 2 14 4:00 PM 55% 11 60% 2 13 5:00 PM 60% 12 70% 2 14 6:00 PM 85% 17 90% 3 20 7:00 PM 80% 16 90% 3 19 8:00 PM 50% 10 60% 2 12 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. 1 31 B-74 I n t J t Appendix Table B-26 FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Fast-Food Restaurant Size Pkg Rate [21 2.319 KSF 10 /KSF Gross 23 Spaces Spaces 20 Guest Spc. 3 Em p. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [31 # Of Spaces % Of Peak [31 # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 19% 4 28% 1 5 9:00 AM 28% 6 37% 1 7 10:00 AM 51% 10 70% 2 12 11:00 AM 79% 16 93% 3 19 12:00 PM 93% 19 93% 3 22 1:00 PM 93% 19 93% 3 22 2:00 PM 84% 17 89% 3 20 3:00 PM 56% 11 65% 2 13 4:00 PM 51% 10 56% 2 12 5:00 PM 56% 11 65% 2 13 6:00 PM 79% 16 84% 3 19 7:00 PM 75% 15 84% 3 18 800 PM 47% 9 56% 2 11 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 B-75 t t Appendix Table B-27 MEDICAUDENTAL OFFICE WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Vacant Medical/Dental Office Size Pkg Rate[2] 3.738 KSF 6 /KSF Gross 22 Spaces Spaces 15 Visitor Spc. 7 Emp. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 90% 14 60% 4 18 9:00 AM 90% 14 100% 7 21 10:00 AM 100% 15 100% 7 22 11:00 AM 100% 15 100% 7 22 12:00 PM 30% 5 100% 7 12 1:00 PM 90% _ 14 100% 7 21 2:00 PM 100% 15 100% 7 22 3:00 PM 100% 15 100% 7 22 4:00 PM 90% 14 100% 7 21 5:00 PM 80% 12 100% 7 19 6:00 PM 67% 10 67% 5 15 7:00 PM 30% 5 30% 2 7 8:00 PM 15% 2 15% 1 3 Notes: I [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 1 "Shared Parking" manual. 1i t 31 B-76 F1 11 I Appendix Table B-28 MEDICAUDENTAL OFFICE WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Vacant Medical/Dental Office Size Pkg Rate [21 3.738 KSF 6 /KSF Gross 22 Spaces Spaces 15 Visitor Spc. 7 Emp. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 90% 14 60% 4 18 9:00 AM 90% 14 100% 7 21 10:00 AM 100% 15 100% 7 22 11:00 AM 100% 15 100% 7 22 12:00 PM 30% 5 100% 7 12 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 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 B-77 l 7 II' r Appendix Table B-29 SHOPPING CENTER (TYPICAL DAYS) WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Shopping Center (Typical Days) - Casual Male Size Pkg Rate[2] 0.906 KSF 5 /KSF Gross 5 Spaces Spaces 4 Guest Spc. 1 Emp. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [3] Hof Spaces % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 14% 1 36% 0 1 9:00 AM 32% 1 68% 1 2 10:00 AM 59% 2 77% 1 3 11:00 AM 77% 3 86% 1 4 12:00 PM 86% 3 90% 1 4 1:00 PM 90% 4 90% 1 5 2:00 PM 86% 3 90% 1 4 3:00 PM 81% 3 90% 1 4 4:00 PM 81% 3 90% 1 4 5:00 PM 86% 3 86% 1 4 6:00 PM 86% 3 86% 1 4 7:00 PM 86% 3 86% 1 4 8:00 PM 72% 3 81% 1 4 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 B-78 Appendix Table B-30 SHOPPING CENTER (TYPICAL DAYS) WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Shopping Center (Typical Days) - Casual Male Size Pkg Rate[2] 0.906 KSF 5 /KSF Gross 5 Spaces Spaces 4 Guest Spc. 1 Em P. S pc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 10% 0 '40% 0 0 9:00 AM 30% 1 75% 1 2 10:00 AM 50% 2 85% 1 3 11:00 AM 65% 3 95% 1 4 12:00 PM 80% 3 100% 1 4 1:00 PM 90% 4 100% 1 5 2:00 PM 100% 4 100% 1 5 3:00 PM 100% 4 100% 1 5 4:00 PM 95% 4 100% 1 5 5:00 PM 90% 4 95% 1 5 6:00 PM 80% 3 85% I 4 7:00 PM 75% 3 80% 1 4 8:00 PM 65% 3 75% 1 4 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 ' [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in "fable 2-2 of the ' "Shared Parking" manual. 31 B-79 11 7 n Appendix Table B-31 FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Fast-Food Restaurant Size Pkg Rate[2] 6.300 KSF 10 /KSF Gross 63 Spaces Spaces 54 Guest Spc. 9 Emp. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 20% 11 30% 3 14 9:00 AM 30% 16 40% 4 20 10:00 AM 55% 30 75% 7 37 11:00 AM 85% 46 100% 9 55 12:00 PM 100% 54 100% 9 63 1:00 PM 100% 54 100% 9 63 2:00 PM 90% 49 95% 9 58 3:00 PM 60% 32 70% 6 38 4:00 PM 55% 30 60% 5 35 5:00 PM 60% 32 70% 6 38 6:00 PM 85% 46 90% 8 54 7:00 PM 80% 43 90% 8 51 8:00 PM 50% 27 60% 5 32 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 B-80 Appendix Table B-32 FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Metro Town Square, Santa Ana Land Use Fast-Food Restaurant Size Pkg Rate[2] 6.300 KSF 10 /KSF Gross 63 Spaces Spaces 54 Guest Spc. 9 Em p. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces % Of Peak [3] # Of Spaces Parking Demand 8:00 AM 19% 10 28% 3 13 9:00 AM 28% 15 37% 3 18 10:00 AM 51% 28 70% 6 34 11:00 AM 79% 43 93% 8 51 12:00 PM 93% 50 93% 8 58 1:00 PM 93% 50 93% 8 58 2:00 PM 84% 45 89% 8 53 3:00 PM 56% 30 65% 6 36 4:00 PM 51% 28 56% 5 33 5:00 PM 56% 30 65% 6 36 6:00 PM 79% 43 84% 8 51 7:00 PM 75% 41 84% 8 49 8:00 PM 47% 25 56% 5 30 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. 31B-81 31 B-82 ROH - 06/13/11 RESOLUTION NO. 2011-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2011-08 AS CONDITIONED TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED PARKING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3600 THROUGH 3796 SOUTH 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. 2011-08 to reduce the required parking standards for a new restaurant / retail building within the Metro Town Square Shopping Center at 3600 through 3796 South Bristol Street. B. Variance No. 2011-08 came before the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana for a duly noticed public hearing on June 13, 2011, to consider all testimony, written and oral. C. Variance No. 2011-08 has been filed with the City of Santa Ana seeking to reduce the required parking standards set by Santa Ana Municipal Code section 41-1341. 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 South 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 new uses. In addition, the shared parking analysis prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan has determined that sufficient parking will be provided for the Resolution No. 2011-11 Page 1 of 5 31 B-83 project by utilizing multiple methods. The study concluded that even under peak demand, a minimum of 392 parking spaces will be available within the shopping center. 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 buildings with uses that will identify the site as an economically viable development. Further, the reduction in parking will provide flexibility of leasing options that would support Policy 2.7 and policy 5.7 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan which promotes rehabilitation of commercial properties and encourages increased levels of investment while anticipating that intensity of new development does not exceed available capacity. 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 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. Finally, the project will not adversely affect the general plan as the proposed commercial uses are consistent with Goals 1 and 2 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. These goals encourage uses such as retail, office and eating establishments 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 Resolution No. 2011-11 Page 2 of 5 31 B-84 consistent with Policy 1.9 which encourages new development along arterial intersections in commercial district such as South Bristol Street and Policy 5.4 in support of land uses which are compatible with surrounding uses. 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. 2011-10 will be filed for this project. Section 2. The Planning Commission, after conducting the public hearing, hereby approves Variance No. 2011-08 as conditioned in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein, to reduce the required parking standards for a restaurant / retail building within the Metro Town Square Shopping Center at 3600 through 3796 South 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 June 13, 2011, and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. ADOPTED this 13th day of June, 2011. AYES: Commissioners: Acosta, Gartner, Mill, Nalle, Turner, Yrarrazaval (6) NOES: Commissioners: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioners: Alderete (1) ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: None (0) James Gartner Vice Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph A. Straka, City Attorney By: Ryan O. Hodge Assistant City Attorney Resolution No. 2011-11 Page 3 of 5 31 B-85 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, MARTHA RAMIREZ, Secretary of the Planning Commission, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2011-11 to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on June 13, 2011 . Date: Secretary of the Planning Commission City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2011-11 Page 4 of 5 31 B-86 Conditions for Approval for Variance No. 2011-08 Should the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 2011-08, 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 All proposed improvements must conform to the Site Plan Review approval of DP No. 2011-01 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. 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. Resolution No. 2011-11 Page 5 of 5 31 B-87 31 B-88