HomeMy WebLinkAboutParking Determination-Park NewportCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. &
August 21, 2003
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
Chandra Slaven, Assistant Planner
cslaven citv.newport- beach.ca.us (949) 644 -3231
SUBJECT: Determination of substantial compliance of the existing parking plans
for Park Newport pursuant to Use Permit No. 1412.
Introduction:
Due to a recent Zoning Compliance Letter request, it has been discovered that a revised
parking plan for the Park Newport apartment complex was never reviewed by the Planning
Commission as required. The Commission's review of the parking plans for Use Permit
No. 1412 should have occurred more than thirty (30) years ago in 1968 with the original
use permit. Staff believes that this outstanding component of the use permit should be
heard before the Planning Commission as originally stated in the records. The
determination of substantial compliance of the existing parking plan for Park Newport will
bring closure to this unresolved issue related to Use Permit No. 1412 and will allow staff to
provide a zoning compliance letter for this project as requested.
Discussion:
Park Newport was originally constructed pursuant to Use Permit No. 1412 and Tract Map
6947 in 1968. The applicant, in materials submitted to the Planning Commission prior to
the hearing on the use permit, indicated that 2,226 parking spaces would be provided on-
site with the majority being "covered parking." The apartment complex would have been
parked at 1.71 spaces per unit. However, the Planning Commission did not impose any
condition on the use permit or tract map that obligates the property owner to provide a
specific number of spaces nor spaces with a minimum clear width. The Commission
approved the project conceptually with the understanding that revised plans would be
resubmitted to the Commission at a future meeting after certain "unanswered questions"
were resolved through discussions with staff. Following approval of the use permit by the
Planning Commission, the applicant and staff reached agreement regarding the parking
plans including the use of compact spaces. However, there is no indication that the final
parking plans were reevaluated or approved by the Planning Commission as required.
Park Newport Parking (UP1412)
August 21, 2003
Page 1
In 1989, the existing parking structure was required to undergo a seismic retro-fit for
earthquake protection. The physical changes to the structure reduced the width of some of
the parking spaces. Before the retro -fit, the actual count of parking spaces was taken and
2,210 were provided. This equated to a reduction of 16 spaces from the original plan. The
City then issued building permits allowing installation of support devices (steel beams)
necessary to protect against earthquake damage with the understanding that the owner
would develop and process the revised parking plans with the City for the purpose of final
review of the parking layout. The seismic retrofit reduced the parking from 2,210 to 2,192
due to the width of the new supporting columns. This reduction resulted in a final parking
space /unit ratio of 1.68. The Planning Commission never saw nor approved the modified
1989 plan. Staff has no explanation as to why the review never occurred.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff has reviewed the current parking layout and we believe it to be acceptable and
consistent with the approval of Use Permit No. 1412. At the time building permits were
made final in 1989, this development was in compliance with the conditions of approval
addressed in the use permit and the City's Zoning Code. No amendment to the existing
Use Permit No. 1412 is necessary at this time. Park Newport has experienced no
difficulties with their parking ratio throughout the passage of time and because of this, staff
recommends that the revised parking plans approved by the City in 1989 be found in
substantial compliance with approval of Use Permit No. 1412.
Environmental Review:
A determination of substantial compliance is considered a feasibility or planning study by
staff, which is statutorily exempt pursuant to Section 15262 of the Implementing Guidelines
for the California Environmental Quality Act.
Public Notice:
Notice is not required for a determination of substantial compliance request.
Prepared by:
Chandra'151aven '-
Assistant Planner
Exhibits:
Submitted by:
paj,�i(A'&- r-1044d -
Patricia L. Temple
Planning Director
1. Planning Commission Staff Report and Hearing Minutes dated November 7, 1968.
2. Planning Commission Staff Report and Hearing Minutes dated December 5, 1968.
3. Letter and Associated Exhibits from the City Attorney's Office regarding seismic retro-
fit dated November 9, 1989.
Park Newport Parking (UPI 412)
August 21, 2003
Page 2
EXHIBIT 1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AND HEARING MINUTES
DATED NOVEMBER 7,1968.
November 7, 1968
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
ZONE:
Application
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Commission
Planning Department
Use Permit Application 1412
Gerson Bakar & Associates
Unclassified
This application seeks approval to permit the construction of a
1304 unit apartment complex, along with recreational and con-
venience shopping facilities on property in the unclassified dis-
trict.
Subject Property and Surrounding Land Use
The subject property contains 49.13 acres located on the north-
west corner of Jamboree Road and the proposed westerly extension
of San Joaquin Hills Road. The'site overlooks the bay, is essen-
tially. flat.
There is no development in existence around the subject site at
the present time. Across Jamboree Road to the southeast is the
Irvine Coast Country Club golf course. To the north the site drops
off into the Big Canyon area that is being considered for a City
County park. To the south is the proposed extension of San Joaquin
Hills Road which is shown on the plan to link with Back Bay Drive.
Developmental Characteristics
The following outline describes the major developmental character-
istics of the proposed project.
General
Site Size in Acres
No. of Dwelling Units
Dwelling Units Per Acre
Building Coverage
No. of Parking Spaces
(Covered 1746)
(Uncovered 480
Parking Spaces Per Unit
49.13
1304
30
24%±
2226
1.71
TO: Planning Commission - 2.
Type of Units
Efficiency (no bedroom)
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
135 (10.3X)
553 (42.4X)
540 (41.5X)
76 ( 5.8%)
(There shall be 5 permanently vacant rental display units.)
Building Height Maximum 501 feet
In one, two and three story buildings,
above ground level parking.
Architectural Style
Recreational Facilities
Six inner court swimming pools
One large community swimming pool
One large core area park
Putting greens
Small tennis club house building
7 tennis courts
2 practice 1/2 tennis courts
Large plaza and fountain
Contemporary
Recreational building with lounge,
meeting-rooms and exercise facilities 18,000 sq.ft.
A passive recreational area at the
point.
Miscellaneous landscaped walkway areas.
Commercial Facilities
A small convenience center for the use
of apartment complex occupants only and
consisting of such things as a beauty
parlor, barber shop, dry cleaning shop,
ice cream parlor and mini mart (minia-
ture grocery store) totalling 5500 sq.ft.
in all.
TO: Planning Commission - 3.
Circulation
Access to the site is proposed via one
entrance located on San Joaquin Hills
Road. Once inside the site.a wide
cul de sac road pattern allowing access
to the parking areas is provided. The
interior roads are proposed to be pri-
vately maintained.
Analysis
In considering this application staff immediately analyzed the
acceptability of the land use, namely multiple dwellings. A
thorough review of existing-and proposed land use and zoning in
the area of the project clearly established that apartment housing
in this area was not only acceptable but highly desirable.
Once this fact had been clearly established it then remained for
planning staff to analyze the developmental characteristics pro-
posed. First density was considered. The proposal is for approx-
imately 30 units per acre which falls well under the 36 units per
acre permitted in zone R -3 (zone R -4 oermits up to 50 units per
acre). Therefore it was staff's conclusion that the density pro-
posed was not out of line insofar as the zoning ordinance was
concerned. Next density was considered in terms existing on pro-
posed utility and street system. Here again after consultation
with Public Works, Fire and Police we concluded that there were
no problems. Staff therefore concluded that density was not a
problem in this particular case and that the area could easily
accommodate the demands of the densities proposed.
Next staff began to analyze the more precise developmental charac-
teristics embodied in the proposed plans. This review generally
produced satisfactory findings in that it was evident that the
applicants site planners and architects had studied the site devel-
opment plans quite carefully. The arrangement of.buildings is
generally goad. The proportions of buildings to the spaces which
surround them also seems sensitively planned. There appears to be
a significant amount of landscaped area which will tend to make the
project appear park like. The placement of the parking areas to
the residential units is in most cases convenient. The location of
the recreational facilities and the commercial facilities seems to
relate well to the circulation patterns both vehicular and pedes-
trian. All things considered, the plan appears to be a very good
one and should be quite acceptable to'. the City.
It should be pointed out however that any approvals given at this
time should be:,prelA urinary in nature since the plans do not entirely
answer all of.the questions and desires of the Planning, Public
Works, Police and Fire departments.
6
T0: Planning Commission - 4.
Typical unresolved matters deal with such things as the exact
design of the entrance on San Joaquins Hills Road, fire equipment
accessibility to a few areas, internal circulation in one area,
building setbacks along Jamboree Road, the "funicular" to the
beach below and perimeter walls and screening.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Because there are enough unanswered questions that could when
studied result in minor design modifications it is staff's
opinion that the Planning Commission should approve the_proje
e aeveiooea as a resu
If the Commission chooses this method of processing this applica-
tion the applicant will have a green light as to the uses and
concepts embodied in the plan and will only have to iron out any
minor details raised by the Commission or staff.
It would be staffs further suggestion that such revised and more
detailed plans be again reviewed by the Planning Commission on the
basis of a continued public hearing.
It would be staffs intention to place the usual conditions of
approval regarding such things as the submittal of working drawings
in substantial compliance with.the approved preliminary, plans and
resubdivision requirements in the report that addresses itself to
the revised preliminary plans.
7rn7estv/ma tfully submitt d,
er,
Planning Oirecto
EM:hh
Attachments: Vicinity Map
Plans and Elevations
Text
1
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COMMISSIONERS
0
O
w� y
G �� N
i � 1.N O
0 N � i
—
November 1 1968
UP -1410
HUFFMAN, R. J. 708 Jasmine, CdM
Lot 10 & 112 Lot 8 Block 737 Corona del Mar
APPROVED
Zone R -2
Applicant requests approval of an addition to
an existing nonconforming building,
Mr. Huffman was present at the meeting.
The application was approved subject to the
Motion
x
following conditions:
Second
All Aye
1, The garage fn the new.addition shall
meet all requirements for a,2 car
garage (18' x -201 inside dimensions
minimum).
2. The nonconforming carport roof shall
be removed,
3. All existing sheds and accessory
structures attached to the -fence
shall be removed,
UP•1411
BAHIA CORINTHIAN YACK CLUB 1501 -1601 Bayside
Dr.
Lot 7 & 8 Tract 3232 - -Zone C -1 -H
APPROVED
Applicant requests approval, of the sale of
alcoholic beverages within 200 -feet of resi-
dentially zoned property,
Mr, Howard Langley represented the applicant.
The application was - approved for a period of
Motion
X.
one year,
Second
x
All Aye
UP -1412
GERSON BAKAR & ASSOCIATES Northwest corner o
J- ambaree Rd, and San
APPROVED
Joaquin Hills Road
CONC 1U-
Por. Blocks 55 & 56 Irvine's Subdivision
xn-r —
Zone "U"
MTSED
Applicant proposes development, of approximate)
V ART'
1300 dwelling units and ancillary facilities
D =5
including recreation and-- convenience shopping.
Mr, Gerson Bakar of 2280!Powe11 Street, San
Francisco addressed the Commission.
After a discussion, the Commission complimente
Mr. Bakar on. his presentation and approved the
Motion
x
plans conceptually subject to submittal of
Second
revised plans to be presented to the Commissior
All Ayes
Page 4;
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
November 7. 1968
COMMISSIONERS
i 0 N N N N
on December 5, 1968 for final review and
approval.
UP -1413
RICH, James E. DoV,M, South of San- Miguel Dr.
on west side of Acocado
CONTINUED
Avenue, Newport Center
Pora Block 93 Tract 6015
UNTIL
WW721
Applicant requests approval of the development
of a small animal hospital in a fully enclosed
building.
Mr. Jeff Pence of Coldwell Banker Company
represented the applicanto
The application was continued until November
Motion
x
21, 1968 in order to -obtain more information
Second
x
about future development in the area.
All Ayes
RESUBDIVI
IONS
THE IRVINE COMPANY 'Newport?Center Drive
R 57
North of Proposed Santa
CONTINUED
Barbara Drive
Por, Block 55 Irvine's Subdivision
UATTC-
MUT721
Zone C- O -H -UL
Applicant requests ap roval of the creation of
1 lot (for a car wash .
Mr. David Kaylor.represented-the Irvine Compan
.
The application was continued until November
Motion
x
21, 1968 in order that it could-be
Second
x
considered concurrently with-the use permit
All Ayes
application for the car wash.
COMMUNICA
IONS
The Commission considered a requ-est from
to
Harry V. Anderson that condition No. 3 of Use
Permit 1071 which permits a motel and coffee
shop at 2627 Newport Boulevard be modified so
:that real estate sales or related sales that
are In harmony with the motel operation may
be permitted (in lieu of the coffee shop).
The Commission recommended °approval for a
Motion
x'
real estate office only,
Second
x
All Ayes
I�
Page 5.
EXHIBIT 2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AND HEARING MINUTES
DATED DECEMBER 5,1968.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
December 5, 1968
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: Use Permit Application No. 1412
APPLICANT: Gerson Bakar & Associates
ZONE: Unclassified
Background
On November.7, 1968 the Planning Commission reviewed this applica-
tion for a 1304 unit apartment complex along with recreational and
convenience shopping facilities on property in the Unclassified
District.
The Commission will recall that the project was conceptually approved
subject to the submittal of revised plans to be brought to the Commis-
sion for final review. The public hearing was closed.
Of concern to the Commission at the November 7th meeting was:.
2.
3
The addition of an emergency entrance from Jamboree
Road at the northwest corner of the project.
The addition of a loop road around the recreational
area to provide easy access of public safety equipment.
That the applicant restudy the parking situation in
that the project appears to be approximately 250
spaces short.
Present Analysis
The applicant submitted a revised plan indicating that the first two
areas of concern -.have been complied with. The applicant indicates
that they will prepare parking studies to indicate where additional
future on -site parking can be provided and the number of cars that
can be accommodated if.a need for such parking develops.
At the time of this writing, the various municipal departments have
not had sufficient time to review the revised plan and prepare the
required conditions of approval which will be necessary for this
application. The applicant will be present at the study session on
December 5, 1968 to present his proposal and answer any questions
from the PlanningJommission. At that time staff will review the
proksed condjti;(As of approval.
e�tfu11Y sl(bmi
\ Acting Plannin�l Director
Note: Revised plot plan
will be on display
at the meeting.
J�
JTY OF NEWPORT BEAC.I
Ilcram4.na C. 1 OA.4
COMMISSIONERS
VARIANCES
ORWIG, Dorothy D. 613 Poinsettia Ave.,Cd
I
V -954
Lot 13 Bl. 642 Corona del Mar Tract Zone R-2
WITHDRAWN
Applicant requests approval to use the require
rear yard for off - street parking.
The application was withdrawn at the request
of the applicant's agent, Dennis W. Harwood of
Harwood, Soden and Adk.inson.
USE PERMI
S
FOTOMAT CORPORATION 4601 W. Coast Highway
UP -1409
Por. Block 0 Banning Tract Zone C -1 -H
APPROVED
Applicant requests approval of the construc-
tion of a drive -thru film sales and photo pro-
cessing business.
Mr. Dixon G. Garner represented the Fotomat
Corporation.
After a discussion, the application was
Motion
x
approved subject to the following conditions:
Second
x
All Ayes
1. That adequate travel lane striping
and directional arrows be painted on
the pavement subject to the Traffic
Engineer's approval.
2. That the normal flag type awning sign
utilized on the building not be a
part of this structure. Other sign-
ing to be approved by the Planning
Department,
3. The normal yellow roof as proposed
on this application shall be of a
more subdued nature and to be approved
by the Planning Director.
UP -1412
GERSON BAKAR & ASSOCIATES Northwest corner of
Jamboree Rd. and Sa
APPROVED
Joaquin Hills Road
Por. Blocks 55 & 56 Irvine's Subdivision
Zone Unclassified
Applicant proposes development of approximate)
1300 dwelling units and ancillary facilities
including recreation and convenience shopping.
Mr. Karl Treffinger was in attendance repre-
Page 2.
'ITY OF NEWPORT BEAC,
December 5. 1968
COMMISSIONERS
� 6
' � O
senting the applicant.
After a discussion, the application was app-
Motion
x
roved, subject to the following conditions:
Second
x
All Ayes
1. Plans for the layout of the water
main and fire hydrant system to be
approved by the Fire Chief and
said system be deeded to the City
with an easement for access and
maintenance.
2. A resubdivision shall be processed
and a parcel map shall be recorded
creating the proposed building site
prior to issuing a building permit.
3. A master plan of sewer and water
utilities and drainage facilities
shall be approved by the Public
Works Department prior to issuance
of building permits.
4. All utilities, including power and
telephone, shall be installed under-
ground.
5. Grading of the site shall be in
accordance with a grading plan and
report approved by the City Engineer
and a qualified soils engineer. Upon
completion of the grading, the soils
engineer shall certify that the
grading has been completed according
to the plan and.grading ordinance.
A reproducible copy of the grading
plan on a standard size sheet shall
be furnished the Public Works Depart-
ment.
6. All improvements shall be constructed
as required by City ordinance and the
Public Works Department. (Precise im-
provement requirements will be made a
condition of approval of the resubdivi-
sion.)
7. All street improvement plans shall be
prepared on standard size sheets by
a licensed civil engineer.
Page 3.
JTY OF NEWPORT BEAC. ,+
December 5, 1968
COMMISSIONERS
� � C"
A -4
1 N D J v i 3
y N
a 0
8. A satisfactory surety shall be
posted and an agreement executed
guaranteeing completion of public
improvements, and a standard inspec-
tion fee shall be'paid.
9. Any necessary easements for public
utilities shall be at least 12 feet
wide.
10. All landscaped areas shall be pro-
vided with an underground sprinkler
system.
11. Final plans for landscaping and the
sprinkler system shall be approved
by the Planning Department.
12. The neighborhood commercial area
designated on the development plan
shall be subject to review by the
Planning Department prior to the
issuance of building permits on any
stage of the commercial development.
(Details of parking, uniform signing,
setbacks, architectural compatibility
and any other development standards
deemed appropriate by the Planning
Department shall be subject of said
review.) .
13. A six foot masonry wall shall be
constructed around the site where
said site abuts public right -of -way.
(Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills
Road.)
14. A building permit for all or part
of the development shall have been
issued before expiration of one year
from the date of approval of this
use permit or a new use permit appli-
cation shall be filed.
15. Special intersection channelization,
including lanes and islands, shall
be provided at the main entrance and
at the intersection of San Joaquin
Hills Road and Jamboree Road. The
design shall be as approved by the
Public Works Department.
Page 4.
EXHIBIT 3
LETTER AND ASSOCIATED EXHIBITS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE REGARDING SEISMIC RETRO -FIT DATED NOVEMBER 9,1989.
\A
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH[
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659-1768
(7]4) 644 -3131
November 9, 1989
Gerson Bakar, General Partner
Gerson Bakar & Associates
201 Filbert Street
San Francisco, California 94133 -3288
Re: Park Newport Construction
Dear Mr. Bakar:
YRECEtvE1
..
t
� i
�avio1989
C�i'f tdr
/ NE�^%i'D�tt ;;^EACH•
CALIF-
.
This letter will confirm our understanding regarding proposed
construction in the parking structures in Park Newport. The
construction involves installation of steel beams and will
slightly increase the width of certain supporting columns within
the parking structures. This increased width will reduce the
space available for parking in the spaces adjacent to the columns.
After construction is complete, the clear width for two spaces
adjacent to the columns will be 14'611. Parking spaces 713" wide
do not conform with current City standards (minimum 810" clear
width).
Park Newport was constructed pursuant to Use Permit 1412 and
Tract Map 6947. The applicant, in materials submitted to the
commission prior to the hearing on Use Permit 1412, indicated that
2,226 parking spaces would be provided on -site with the vast
majority to be "covered parking." (See Exhibit A). However, the
Planning Commission did not impose any condition on the use permit
or tract map that obligates the property owner to� provide a
specific number of spaces nor spaces with a minimum clear width.
The Planning Commission approved the project "conceptually" with
the understanding that revised plans would be resubmitted to the
Commission after certain "unanswered questions" were resolved
through meetings with staff. (See Exhibits B & C).
Shortly after Planning Commission approval, owner
representatives and staff apparently reached agreement regarding
parking plans and the appropriate number of compact spaces. (See
Exhibits D & E) . There is no indication that the project was
reevaluated by the Planning Commission until an unrelated use
permit amendment was processed in 1973.
The Planning Commission review of the parking in Park Newport
should have occurred more than twenty (20) years ago. Your
proposed construction will further reduce the width of parking
spaces currently substandard and apparently changes an agreement
J�
3300 Newnort Boulevard. Newnort Beach
Mr. Gerson Bakar
November 9, 1989
Page 2
between you and staff that should have been reviewed by the
Commission. Accordingly, we suggest you work with the Planning
and Traffic Engineering Departments to develop a parking plan
satisfactory to staff and submit that plan to the Planning
Commission for their review and approval pursuant to the original
motion for approval. No amendment to the use permit will be
required. The City will issue building permits allowing
installation of support devices necessary to protect against
earthquake damage with the understanding that you will diligently
develop and process the revised parking plan. Please contact me
if you have any questions.
truly yours,
b�g"rt H. Burnham
ty Attorney
RHB:jg
Attachments
cc: Dana Aslami, Associate Planner
Richard Edmonston, Traffic & Parking Engineer
Jim Hewicker, Planning Director
Bill Laycock, Current Planning Manager
Robyn Limburg, One Park Newport
Robert L. Wynn, City Manager
EXHIBIT A
PUBLIC SPACES
All apartments above the ground ;evei can be reached by
elevator, centrally located to rain n:ze x&!kin, d:stance frorn the
I bby t0 the r2 ap2CiiVe unit. Each apartment also has direct access
.o the park, the swimming pool areas and the courts and plazas.
Lac-.dry rooms and trash chutes lave been centrally located in each
building and ample bulk storage for tenants has been provided on each
floor.
PAR KEN G
2ZZ6 parking;spaces have been provided for an overall ratio
of 1.71 cars per living unit. These are distributed throughout the
site to maintain approximately that ratio in all areas for the con-
venience of both occupants and guests. All parking is on -site and
includes reinforced concrete structures and open surface areas as
follows;
Covered parking 1746
Surface parking 580
Total 2226
In connection with this parking count and ratio, attention is directed
to the DeLeuw- Cather final report, dated March 27, 1968, included
herein, and specifically to page 3, paragraph 3 of that report.
RECREATIG \AL FACILITIES
These amenities are provided throughout the site for the
exclusive use of residents. The spa is approximately 18, 000 sq.ft.
with lounges, meeting rooms and exercise facilities. This building
looks out over the principal swimming pool and lower IVewport Bay,
as well as back into the central park. At the center of the park is
the tennis club with 7 courts, and 2 practice courts. Additional
amnenities include putting greens, children's play areas, plazas, pools,
fountains, and quiet lounging areas.
Also scattered throughout the project are many subsidiary
I areas for quieter, more convenient use. These sab
A\
EXHIBIT B
GERSON BAY.AR & ASSOCIATES - USE PERMIT 1412
Jakosky - Consideration to be given to what might be called a loop
road around the recreation area in the center so that in
case of a major fire there would be two means of getting
to both areas of the development. Also concerned about
a suitable truck loading area for your convenience center
and perhaps.a loop road that would come down behind the
convenience center might serve twoO purposes, one for ingress
and egress of trucks and also for fire fighting equipment.
Also, would like to provide some additional parking for the
employees of the project such as operators of the convenience
center, the staff and rental office.
Bakar - We are perfectly willing and recognize the constructive
suggestion of the loop road to the community building and
can implement that. With respect to the loop at the
commercial'area I would hope that we can come back with a
re -study of the area to give good evidence of the truck
delivery to the commercial area.
Watson - It appears to me that we are about 250 parking spaces
short, etc.
Bakar - With respect to Mr. Watson's comment, we feel that our
parking based on the experience we have had is ample but
we certainly recognize not only from your criteria, but from
our own that it has to be right. We must provide and it is
very important to us that we have ample parking. What I
would like to suggest is that we give the City clear evidence
of the ability to implement the parking to approximately 250.
I cannot promise exactly that number and to do it in the
formation of the loop road would be rather unsightly. If
I may tell you what our thoughts are at the moment is to
give the City evidence of the ability to extend this parking
structure with subsequent landscaping and in effect, just
remove that parking and put it on top of the structure and
would so state to the City and have that as a provisional
area for the additional if it is proved needed. We want to
be able to have that parking there and would give clear
evidence of theability to place the parking in the project and
be granted the use permit with the qualification that if the
parking is deemed necessary, the project will go ahead and
put it in.
Copelin: I would like to see in the veryfi northeast corner an emergency
entrance.
Bakar: We are willing and can readily do this.
Motion: Close the public hearing and approve the plans coneeptually
subject to submittal of revised plans to be brought to the
Commission for final review and approval indicating to the
applicant that the plans would have to meet the staff and
Commission requirements in terms of the modifications that
have been discussed here this afternoon and evening. ��
EXHIBIT C
TD: Planning Commission - 4.
Typical unresolved matters deal with such things as the exact
design of the entrance on San Joaquins Hills Road, fire equipment
accessibility to a few areas, internal circulation in one area,
building setbacks along Jamboree Road, the "funicular" to the
beach below and perimeter walls and screening.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Because there are enough unanswered questions that
studied result in minor design modifications it is
opinion that the Planning Commission should r1
in in concept subject to the submittal off remand
drawings that would be oeve
s
result o —
could when
staff's
the5ro'ect
more detailed
ther discussi
If the Commission chooses this method of processing this applica-
tion the applicant will have a green light as to the uses and
concepts embodied in the plan and will only have to iron out any
minor details raised by the Commission or staff.
It would be staffs further suggestion that such revised and more
detailed plans be again reviewed by the Planning Commission on the
basis of a continued public hearing.
It would be staffs intention to place the usual conditions of
approval regarding such things as the submittal.of working drawings
in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary. plans and
resubdivision requirements in the report that addresses itself to
the revised preliminary plans.
Tsrnectf ully submitt d, , t ra er, J
Planning Directo
EM:hh
Attachments: Vicinity Nap
Plans and Elevations
Text
EXHIBIT D
February 18, 1969
Mr. Oliver Grant
Director, Building Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92660
Re: Park Newport Apartments
Dear Air. Grant:
In accordance with our agreement Friday, enclosed herewith
are the following exhibits:
1/16" Parking Plans of Building 2 showing current
parking layouts and extent of ventilating
openings in side hulls.
1/4" Section of Building 2 showing typical garage
ventilation openings in side walls.
1/4" Detailed Parking Plan showing typical car swings
and stalls.
Letter dated.2 /16/69 from John Watt, Director, Building
Department, city of San Mateo.
1h'oodlake Apartments Garage Level Plan, which is essen-
tially similar in parking bay dimensions to Park
Newport.
Photographs of driving demonstrations at the Woodlake
development showing ease of parking with same
size dtalls and aisles, and character of venti-
lating openings.
The two issues that need to be resolved are: (1) use of an
overall parking bAf size of 62' -0" rather than 6100 ", and
(2) elimination of mechanical ventilation Witbin these garages.
Some of the arguments for these interpretations are as follows:
A�
M r. Oliver Grant
February 16, 1969
—2—
1) Garage Bay Size
a) Kcwport Beach's published parking standards call
for a minimum of 60'0" for exterior parking. Ve
see no reason why the same standard is not applicable
inside.
b) Parking standards in most other metropolitan areas
range from 60' to 621. San Francisco, which has one
of the most stringent codes in the country, requires
61' and Opkland requires 601.
c) Standard references, teats and templates all indicate
that even large cars can swing into these stalls in a
single motion without complicated maneuvering.
2) Ventilation Requirements
a) Open garages of this type, without mechanical ventila-
tion, have been built throughout California for many
years, and they are permitted without question in every.
major metropolitan area,.including Gerson Bakar and
Associates; Koodlake development in the City of San
Mateo and the Oak. Creek development near Stanford.
b) Experience has proven that there is no problem with
fumes and /or odors within these open garages, and that
they are, in fact, more satisfactory than closed garages .
where the.mechanical ventilation may or may not be
operative.
c) Since the garages project well beyond the face of the
apartments, there is no hazard to the apartments, either
of flame spread or of odors from the garage area.
d) The provision of UBC Section 1109 (b) for natural venti-
lation through 505 of two walls should logically be
applicable to this situation regardless of the number of
parking tiers.
In addition to these two basic issues we also indicate the sub-
stitution of a small percentage of small cars in lieu of standard
cars. This increases the holding capacity of the garage without
changing its size and should make a difference of approximately
100 cars undercover throughout the project. 'We feel that these
extra car spaces are more important than having every space
EXHIBIT E
February 20, 1969
Mr. Karl Treffinger
Karl Treffinger and Associates
Hearst Buiidimg
Market at Third
San Francisco, California 94103
Dear Karl:
In response to your letter of February 18, 1969.
to Mr. Oliver Grant regarding the parking plans
of Building 2, we offer the following comments:
1. We have reviewed the plans-and other
support material and find the proposed
parking design with a 62 foot overall
dimension for 900 parking to be in sub-
stantial compliance with the Off - Street
Parking Standards for the City of Newport
Beach. He have enclosed a copy of these
standards with'the applicable dimensions
underlined for your reference.
2. Your request that a number of required
parking spaces designed for compact cars,
amounting to approximately 14.7% of the
total parking provision, meats with our
approval. This decision is based on a
recent Planning Commission approval 'of a
similar request for a development some-
what comparable to the one proposed in
this case.
Therefore, in light of these two points, we see no
need for this matter to be presented for Planning
Commission consideration.
�U
Mr. Karl Treffinger - Page 2.
If we can be of any further service, do not
hesitate to contact either myself or Brian Hawley
at 673 -2110. Extension 33.
Sincerely,
DAREN A. GROTH.
Acting Planning Director
Enclosure: Off- street Parking Standards
CC: Oliver Grant
DAG /BNH /kk
�1