Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRECREATION VEHICLE PARKING11111111 lill 111111111111111111111111111-1111111 *NEW FILE* RECREATION VEHICLE PARKING Fwpo copy 1• =, / BERRY MAN, MOHLE, STEPHENSON &. PERRY, INC. - CONSULTANTS TO GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES - 2030 East Fourth Street, Suite 230 Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 558-3701 6055 E. Washington Blvd„ Suite 812 Los Angeles, California 90040 (213) 723.4639 September 20, 1976 Mr. Jim Hewicker Assistant Director Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 ATTN: Mr. Bill Foley, Senior Planner Subject: Recreation Centers Parking Demand Study Dear Mr. Hewicker: This is the final report concerning our study'of parking requirements for recreational centers specializing in racquetball and tennis activities. The study was con- ducted in accordance with our proposal dated June 28,' 1976. The main purpose of the study was to develop "formulas" by which a proposed recreational center could be evaluated in terms of needed parking. The "as usual" superb cooperation of the City staff, specifically Bill Foley and Bob Leonard, is recognized. The opportunity to be involved in this project is sin- cerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, BERRYMAN, MOHLE, STEPHENSON & PERRY, INC. e R. Henry mule Vice President RHM:jh U Y ATHLETIC AND TENNIS CLUB PARKING REQUIREMENTS A STUDY FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUGUST 1976 Prepared by BERRYMAN, MOHLE, STEPHENSON & PERRY, INC. 2030 East Fourth Street, Suite 230 Santa Ana, California 92705 TABLE OF CONTENTS 4&? INTRODUCTION 1 CONCLUSIONS 1 RECOMMENDATIONS 3 SURVEY METHODOLOGY 4 PARKING DEMAND COMPONENTS AND PEAK PERIODS 5 RACQUETBALL/HANDBALL COURT DESCRIPTION 6 STUDY LOCATIONS - RACQUETBALL 7 Location "A" 7 Location "B" 8 Location "C" 9 Location "D" 9 REVIEW OF INTERIOR FACILITIES USING ONE FACILITY AS A TYPICAL EXAMPLE 10 STRESS -TESTING FACILITIES 12 RACQUETBALL CLUB OCCUPANCY FACTORS 13 TENNIS CLUB OBSERVATIONS 14 APPENDICES A - Vehicle Occupancy - Racquetball/Handball Clubs 18 B - Vehicle Occupancy - Tennis Clubs 18 C - Recommended Building Occupancy Factors Based on Floor Area per Person 19 D - Athletic Club Parking Requirements, Various Orange County Cities 20 - E - Data Collection, Athletic Clubs 21 F - Athletic Club Parking Equation 22 G - Tennis Club Parking Equation 23 H - List of Athletic Clubs Sampled 24 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to present the results of a study to determine the estimated parking demand for athletic clubs (with racquetball as their primary attrac- tion) and private "membership" tennis clubs. The parking demand statistics are based on surveys at four racquetball and two tennis clubs in Orange County. The clubs are, with one exception, all relatively isolated in that there is little or no extraneous influence concern- ing parking. This isolation also makes the sampling easier to accomplish. It is felt that the clubs studied with their similar activities are typical of proposed facilities and the data represented by the sampling is representative and applicable to the design of parking requirements for future athletic clubs (with racquetball as their primary feature) and for tennis clubs. The following conclusions and recommendations summarize the study results. CONCLUSIONS 1. Where racquetball/handball courts are,the primary attraction, it was found that most members arrived for play in their own vehicle, unaccompanied. The very nature of the one-on-one challenge of racquetball discourages, for the most part, a more concentrated vehicle occupancy. Pe 1 --1 Ad 2. Athletic clubs which attract a large percentage of women will achieve greater efficiency from their parking area, in particular during the noon period. it was found that the women members tend to arrive with a companion rather than alone. Offering coed activities will also increase the vehicle occupancy rate. It was noted at study location "B" that many male/female members arrived together. This was not found significantly at the other club which offered concurrent but separate activities for men and women. 3. Athletic club staff was found to be quite low con- sidering the size of the facilities studied. Many of the services provided such as laundry, janitorial, and refreshments are contracted, thereby not requiring a permanent staff. It was found that four staff members is a representative figure. 4. Court occupancy for racquetball/handball has a maxi- mum of four players. This, however, does not occur often (perhaps less than 10 percent of the time) and the usual number of players is two. Three players may also be on a court, at the same session. It was estimated from this information concerning the game participation that a factor of 2.30 persons for each court should be used to calculate total court occu- pancy on the average. This is similar to tennis which also may have four players on a court during a doubles session. The total occupancy of the club reflects the overlap of racquetball/handball players in the building between games. These players are reflected in the estimate by being distributed among the other 2 activities of the club, either prior to or after playing. 1. Parking demand for athletic clubs which offer racquetball/handball, exercise room, and spa facili- ties should be assessed at one space for every 1.15 people occupying the club. 2. Building occupancy, which is often estimated from floor area exclusively, should be estimated using a combina- tion of players for each court and floor space require- ments for other activities. This will provide a more realistic approach to the occupancy of the building and also the parking requirements. 3. Provisions for employee or staff parking should be based on one space for each staff member. The recom- mended number of spaces to be provided is four. How- ever, adjustments to this figure should be made where proof of greater or fewer staff members can be verified. 4. The context of the recommended parking formulas is that the indicated parking requirements (by the formulas) are for normal, non -tournament, non -swim meet periods of operation of the facilities. Extraordinary parking demands can be created by these special events. The possibility of these special events should be a separate item of consideration in the planning of the proposed facility. Observations during this study indicated a higher than average vehicle occupancy during a swim meet at one of the tennis clubs. This high occupancy factor tends to reduce the severity of the parking 3 .* demand; however, these special events should not.be overlooked as to their possible adverse effect on the surrounding land uses. The use of adjacent "under utilized" parking facilities, such as a school or other facility normally not in use during these special events, should be considered. 5. The recommended parking requirement formulas for athletic clubs and tennis clubs are shown in Appen- dices F and G (pages 21 and 22), respectively. SURVEY METHODOLOGY The data used to estimate the parking demand was acquired by sampling several existing facilities within the area. All facilities sampled are similar in function and provided data relative to athletic clubs with racquetball/ handball requirements concerning vehicle occupancy and parking demand. Peak periods were specifically sought out and sampled. This was accomplished by a head count per vehicle taken at each facility at two separate times on separate days. The individual establishments provided the time of day information to determine the peak periods which were sampled. The peak periods were typical. The clubs selected are relatively isolated in respect to other businesses nearby. This isolation provides for a more significant and uncontaminated sampling of vehicles. Parking lots are used exclusively by the study facility or such that customers of the study facility are easily identified and counted. 0 0 4 Club managers were interviewed in respect to their own facility and the services which it provided. From this interview, peak building use periods were found which also indicated when to study the parking area. The operation and capacities of the club's actual activities were dis- cussed. This helped to determine the building occupancy factors. Actual observation of interior activities was used, together with comments from the club managers, to determine the occupancy of the building. Each activity was evaluated and provided with an occupancy factor relative to its capacity and use. PARKING DEMAND COMPONENTS AND PEAK PERIODS The study consisted of counting individual people using a vehicle and parking at the study facility. Each club was approached separately and the parking data com- pared to the activities offered within each individual club. Even though the club may offer services unrelated to racquetball, it was agreed by the club managers that racquetball is their primary activity in that the courts are nearly always full. Services, such as exercise rooms and spas, were found to be available at all of the clubs surveyed. Parking demand for employees must also be considered as a part of this study. It has been estimated that an average of four employees may be required at a racquetball club. Few employees are necessary due to many of the operational functions being contracted out to companies which specialize in services such as laundry or janitorial. 61 is The parking spaces for employees should be allowed at one -for -one when estimating parking demand for a new facility. For the total parking requirements, the neces- sary employee parking, together with the parking demand based on the capacities of each activity, will determine the number of required spaces. The peak periods were provided by the club managers. it was found that the busiest days are week days (Monday through Friday) and the busiest hours are those between 4:00 and 8:00 p.m. A secondary peak period does occur between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. during the week and reflects lunch hour use of the activities available. An interesting fact which became evident during the vehicle occupancy counts was that in all cases the noon interval had a higher occupancy rate per vehicle. Both peak periods were sampled (noon and evening) to determine vehicle occupancy. This was done at each study location in order to determine if any variables in occu- pancy occur due to the influence of various activities. RACQUETBALL/HANDBALL COURT DESCRIPTION The racquetball court is identical to that used for handball - the game itself is quite similar. The racquet- ball courts popular with athletic clubs are the enclosed type. That is, the court is a room with a single door to the rear of the playing area. The court measures 20 feet wide and 40 feet deep or 800 square feet of floor space each. Four players may be on the court at one event; however, this almost never occurs as the game is primarily r a one-on-one contest. Many clubs have a "challenge ladder" ,I* I•• similar to that found at tennis clubs and is indicative of the one-on-one attitude of the game. The number of possible players can vary from two to four when having a contest. It has been estimated that 80 percent of the time the court is in use it is occupied by two players. The remaining 20 percent is divided evenly (10 percent-10 percent) for three players and four players. Based on this estimation of players and court utilization, we may derive a factor of 2.3 players per court. STUDY LOCATIONS - RACQUETBALL Location "A" (See Appendix "H", Page,241 for Identification) This club has six racquetball/handball courts avail- able and associated facilities for warming up prior to play or cooling off after playing. Also offered to members is an exercise room plus spa facilities. The spa facilities work well with racquetball in that this provides the means for warming up and cooling off relative to playing racquetball. The spa provides a heated pool, a whirlpool, steam bath, and sauna to general members. Court members receive the privileges of general members with the addition of the use of the racquetball/handball courts. Court membership includes the use of courts on a reservation basis, tournaments, the challenge ladder, and lessons. 7 I-0 -0 The vehicle occupancy at location "A" was found to be nearly one per vehicle with only about a 10 percent in- crease during the noon peak period. This low vehicle occupancy is similar'to that found at location "D" which is exclusively a men's club. During the observation-, very few women were found to be using the facility. Club privileges for women are available on limited days. This feature discourages higher vehicle occupancy since men and women will not arrive together for coed activities, other than an infrequent racquetball game. Location "B" This facility contains ten racquetball/handball courts, an exercise room, a lounge -game room, and spa. Physical fitness and health programs are offered to members. The racquetball/handball courts are the primary func- tion of this facility and are occupied during most of the club's open hours. This club has separate schedules for men and women only during limited times. For the most part, the facilities, other than spa areas, are coed, including the exercise room. Having coed services tends to increase vehicle occupancy, thereby providing greater efficiency of the parking lot. During observations made to determine vehicle occupancy, it was noted that a higher percentage of women use this facility than other clubs which were surveyed. This higher percentage of women seems to attribute to the higher vehicle occupancy rate found at this club. Many women arrived with G a men, indicating the versatility and attitude of the club. The vehicle occupancy at location "B" is 26 percent higher during the noon survey period than that for location "A." The evening increase is 12 percent higher than location "A." Both samples reflect the presence of women arriving separately or together with men. The majority of the women customers, based on the sampling, use the facility during the mid -day period, thereby increasing the vehicle occu- pancy rate for that study period. The evening study period is more typical of other clubs with the addition of women. That is, in the evening, the customers are mostly men coming directly from the office. Location "C" Location "C" has six racquetball/handball courts avail- able, together with exercise areas and spas with saunas, steam rooms, and hydrotherapy pools. The exercise rooms and health spa facilities are separate for men and women. This means that separate days or separate hours are not necessary and men and women may arrive and use the club at any time. The vehicle occupancy average for location "C" is 1.15 with an increase of 6 percent for the noon peak study period. This occupancy figure is similar to that for location "B" which also allows for the simultaneous use of the club by both men and women. Location "D" This club has four racquetball/handball courts avail- able to members. Other activities offered are a track E facility, basketball, weight room, and a spa. The manager indicated that all activities are popular and get full use. However, it was also noted that the racquetball/handball courts are used almost 100 percent of the available time, making this activity the most popular. This particular club is somewhat more established than the others surveyed. It is also less isolated which, due to its location, eliminated the possibility of a noon study period. Location "D" unlike the others offers its services to men exclusively and has a full membership which is also unlike the other study locations. The club is located in a commercial area which is densely developed and therefore draws noontime members from adjacent office buildings and stores. Evening is different in that the parking area is free and members do drive to the facility. A noon sample was not taken at this particular club. The evening sample provided a vehicle occupancy rate of 1.02. Out of approximately fifty observations, only one vehicle had more than a single occupant. This figure reflects the peak demand period for parking and what seems to be a typical attitude for men to drive to their club alone after work, particularly when it is a part of the day's normal.activities prior to going home for the evening. REVIEW OF INTERIOR FACILITIES USING ONE FACILITY AS I This particular facility has six racquetball/handball 0U courts, a swimming pool, whirlpool, sauna, exercise room, and a lounge. The exercise room contains the following equipment: one bench press machine, four sit-up stations, three in- cline boards, one vertical butterfly, four vibrator belts, four high -low rollers, one arm curl machine, one jungle machine, and several barbell/dumbell sets. It is estimated that the total capacity for the exer- cise room is 26 individuals, each utilizing an apparatus. During the peak period, the room count does not exceed 20 persons, which constitutes approximately 80 percent capacity. The normal high use period is closer to 60 per- cent. Based on the size of the exercise room, the equipment, and its peak occupancy, it has been determined that 150 square feet should be used to determine the occupancy for the exercise room. The occupancy for the racquetball/handball courts should be based on individual players rather than square footage. It has been estimated that a factor of 2.3 players for each court is realistic and will provide sufficient parking. A swimming pool is not a primary attraction, such as racquetball or the exercise room, but is estimated at one person for each 150 square feet as with the exercise room. Whirlpool and sauna -steam room facilities occupancy, from observation, can be estimated at one person for each 0101 I.! 25 square feet of the actual facilities. These facilities are often used to warm up or cool down, as previously men- tioned, relative to playing racquetball, handball, or using the exercise room. The lounge areas are for'the most part insignificant except during tournaments for viewing or at other special functions. For the purposes of determining occupancy, the special functions, for which the room can be used, should not be considered. Office space for most facilities normally has its occupancy based on square footage of floor space, such as 100 square feet as provided by the Uniform Building Code. However, for athletic clubs this approach is not charac- teristic and should be discouraged. From the clubs surveyed, it has been estimated that a factor of four persons, each with a separate vehicle, is more accurate in determining building occupancy as well as parking demand. STRESS TESTING FACILITIES A recent innovation in recreational centers is the pro- vision of stress testing facilities. While the centers included in this study did not have "stress testing" as one of their services, in the future this service will be pro- vided as part of the total services offered at some centers. Stress testing involves the complete scientific eval- uation of a person's cardio-muscular condition together with recommended physical fitness programs. The facilities required for stress testing can include: professionals' offices, stress testing rooms, audio and visual testing 12 1* I! rooms, and examination rooms. A complete stress testing unit will occupy from 1,600 to 2,400 square feet. Based on discussions with the management of proposed stress testing facilities, the person occupancy can be related to employees and examinees. Three employees can operate the facility of the size indicated. In the future, facilities are expected to require even fewer employees per area of facility because of the increased use of automated testing equipment. Examinee occupancy is recommended to be based on the number of examination rooms. If, for example, there are to be two examination rooms, the examinee occupancy should be four, to consider persons waiting to be tested. Car occupancy should be considered at one person per car. Appendix F, page 22, includes pro- vision for stress testing parking requirements. RACQUETBALL CLUB OCCUPANCY FACTORS The following table is a list of the occupancy factors previously described and proposed to be used for deter- mining building occupancy and therefore the parking demand. Racquetball/Handball - 2.3 persons per court Exercise Room -Swimming Pool - 150 square feet for each person Whirlpool, Sauna, Steam Room - 25 square feet per person for specific facility area Lounge Area - omitted from estimate Locker Area - omitted from estimate Office Area - 4 employees total for the club Stress Testing - 3 employees plus 2 persons per examination room 13 10 The total estimated building occupancy is to be divided by the vehicle occupancy factor to determine the parking requirements. The recommended vehicle occupancy rate to be used to determine the parking demand is 1.15 persons for each vehicle. This factor reflects the average during the total day at an average facility, but is also quite repre- sentative of the evening peak period which is the most significant. TENNIS CLUB OBSERVATIONS V As a secondary inclusion to this report, two tennis clubs were studied. Both facilities are similar to the racquetball clubs in that they are isolated from other types of businesses. Again, this makes the sampling of vehicles extremely convenient and accurate. Each facility offers swimming to complement the tennis. One club is quite involved in the swimming program, promoting age group (AAU) training for competition. From actual observations and interviews with club managers, the tennis courts, as with racquetball/handball courts, are occupied by more than two players on the average. During the week days the occupancy figure is estimated to be 2.6 players for each court based on 70 percent singles and 30 percent doubles play. On the weekend days the clubs which were interviewed insist that the games be doubles, thereby having four players on each court. The tennis clubs are considerably more seasonal in their peak or busy periods than racquetball. This is, of 14 course, obviously due to the nature of the facility. The summer months are more attractive than the colder time of the year and will be reflected in the use of the parking lot. Vehicle occupancy, however, does not vary signifi- cantly during the year. The peak use periods vary considerably during the year. When school is in session and the weather cooler, the week- ends are the popular days of the week. Due to the cooler weather, night playing is not as significant during the winter as in the summer months. The popular days of the week for the summer months are the week days -Monday through Friday. The busiest portion of the day starts around 9:00 a.m. and continues into the evening and then begins to lapse around 7:00 p.m. but may continue to 9:00 p.m. if proper lighting is available. Study location "A" has 12 tennis courts and a 25 yard swimming pool. At this facility swimming is a prominent activity. The club offers training programs and competition swim meets. These meets have a pronounced effect on the parking lot area since the swim meets occur simultaneously with the normal tennis activity program. Vehicle occupancy was measured prior to a swim meet to attempt to determine the impact on the facilities parking area. The average occupancy for a -vehicle was found to be 2.5. On days when the tennis and swimming activities are normal, the vehicle occupancy was 1.6 which is considerably less than that for the swim meet but is greater than the vehicle occupancy average of 1.15 for racquetball/handball clubs. 15 0 1• Study location "B" has 18 courts and a swimming pool. The pool facility is less significant than that for location "A." It was found that the busiest times are similar to those for location "A" - having the largest influence dur- ing the summer months. Location "B" provides a larger social facility than location "A" and offers a game room, banquet facilities, a bar, and tournament viewing area. Therefore, a higher percentage of non -court uses can occur. Combine the social areas with the swimming pool and the percentage will in- crease further. Actual average vehicle occupancy is similar to that for study location "A." The vehicle occupancy averaged 1.54 persons for each vehicle and is within 6 percent of the figure for location "A." Employee or staff requirements vary considerably from those of the racquetball/handball or athletic clubs. The employees used for study location "A" number 15 and for location "B" the number is 27. The larger staff for loca- tion "B" reflects the added requirements of the social area. As with the athletic clubs, the parking requirements for tennis club staff is one space for each employee. This increase in staff will place a higher demand on the park- ing area, providing fewer spaces for members. In order to determine the parking lot requirements for tennis clubs, it is necessary to consider the weekend days exclusively, particularly due to the winter months and the pronounced use of these days during the winter or cooler months. Also taking into account that doubles play is 16 I0 required on weekends makes these two days the most influen- tial on parking demand. One other factor to be used is the overlap of players waiting for a court. According to the managers inter- viewed, the players waiting will equal the players on the court and therefore double the parking requirements. To simplify the estimating of parking for tennis clubs, the equation is based on occupancy per court to determine the number of members at the facility. This figure will then be divided by the estimated vehicle occupancy to pro- vide the number of required parking stalls necessary to accommodate the people using the facility. The other factors to be used with the equation are those for employees and other services such as a swimming pool. Employees may be estimated at one for each court, which will provide a reasonable degree of accuracy relative to the services provided. The swimming pool creates a separate problem in that one facility used the pool as a separate attraction, having organized swimming competition; another facility used its pool primarily for baby sitting or merely an added benefit for members. In discussions with club managers, actual observations, and personal knowledge, it has been estimated that a factor of 10 vehicles is.sufficient for the pool activity, whether it is used for competition or not. This factor is suitable for the workout periods due to the high vehicle occupancy rate during swim workouts and because approximately 50 percent of the swimmers are dropped off and picked up after the workout. 17 LOCATION A LOCATION B LOCATION C LOCATION D U LOCATION A* LOCATION B APPENDIX A VEHICLE OCCUPANCY RACQUETBALL/HANDBALL CLUBS OCCUPANCY NOON PERIOD 1.13 1.52 1.22 NA APPENDIX B TENNIS CLUBS OCCUPANCY EVENING PERIOD 1.02 1.16 1.15 1.02 OCCUPANCY 1.63 1.54 *Vehicle occupancy during a swim meet = 2.81 at Location "A" LOCATION B (Weekend Day) • 18 1.48 APPENDIX C MMENDED BUILDING OCCUPANCY FACTORS BASED ON FLOOR AREA PER PERSON FUNCTION SQUARE FEET Gymnasium 15 Mechanical Equipment Room 300 Viewing Areas 7 Lounges 15 Locker Rooms 50 Stores (Pro -Shop) 50 1• Office Space 100 Source: Uniform Building Code �y 19 I0 1• APPENDIX D ATHLETIC CLUB PARKING REQUIREMENTS VARIOUS ORANGE COUNTY CITIES 1.(S.A.) Racquetball/Handball Courts = 4 stalls per court Other Activities = 1 stall per 150 square feet of floor area 2.(O.) Racquetball/Handball Courts = no requirements Total required parking is based on 1 stall per 200 square feet of floor area 3.(A.) Racquetball/Handball Courts = no requirements Total required parking is based on 1 stall per 70 square feet of floor area 4.(F.) Racquetball/Handball Courts = no requirements Total required parking is based on 1 stall per 250 square feet of floor area 5.(G.G.) Racquetball/Handball Courts = no requirements Total required parking is based on 1 stall per 100 square feet of floor area 6.(H.B.) Racquetball/Handball Courts = 3 stalls per court Pro -Shops = 1 space per 200 square feet of floor area Gym = 1 space per 300 square feet of floor area 7.(C.M.) Racquetball/Handball Courts = no requirements Use Uniform Building Code to determine building occupancy 0-100 people = 1 stall for every 2 persons 100-300 people = l.stall for every 3 persons over 300 people = 1 stall for every 4 persons 411 • I• 4 APPENDIX E DATA COLLECTION ATHLETIC CLUBS (DATA SHOWN IS ACCUMULATIVE) AVERAGE AVERAGE TIME ENDING n OCCUPANCY VEHICLES PARKED LOCATION "A" 4:30 14 1.0 34 5:00 25 1.03 32 5:30 38 1.02 32 6:00 54 1.02 32 LOCATION "B" 4:30 2 1.5 28 5:00 13 1.23 26 5:30 25 1.12 26 6:00 37 1.16 26 LOCATION "C" 4:30 4 1.0 9 5:00 12 1.0 10 5:30 19 1.11 13 6:00 26 1.15 15 21 • • • r7 N N Number of Racquetball Courts APPENDIX F ATHLETIC CLUB PARKING EQUATION(1) Exercise Room + x 2.3 + Pool Area + Spa Facilities(2) 150 Square Feet 25 Square Feet 1.15 3 + 2 (3) Spaces Per + Examination Room This equation combines the persons using the racquetball/handball courts (at 2.3 per court) with the people using the exercise and pool areas (at one per 150 square feet), and people using the spa facilities (at one per 25 square feet), divided by the vehicle occupancy factor (1.15) to equal the required parking spaces, plus the club staff (average of 4). The racquetball formula was checked for validity on two separate days during the late afternoon peak use period at location "A." The observed number of cars parked was within one, plus or minus, of the demand indicated by the equation. (2)Based on actual area of specific facility. (3)Use only when "stress testing" facilities are to be included. Required + 4 = Parking Spaces • Number of Tennis x 8 + Courts 1.50 APPENDIX G TENNIS CLUB PARKING EQUATION(1) Number of Employees 10 at One for + (For Swimming Each Court Pool) This equation combines the persons using a court with those waiting N w (divided by 1.50 to determine the number of cars), then adds in the number of employees and a swimming pool factor, if required. (1)Equation use intended for private "membership" only type clubs. Special considerations for "open to public" or court occupancy based on specific "by the hour" rental fees are required. Parking requirements for these types of facilities can be significantly less than for private clubs. Required Parking Spaces 1• C C I• '• APPENDIX H A LIST OF ATHLETIC CLUBS SAMPLES FOR THIS STUDY ATHLETIC CLUBS: Orange County Athletic Club - Location A - Orange Santana Courts Racquetball Club - Location B - Santa Ana Rampart Athletic Club - Location C - Costa Mesa Newport, Athletic Club - Location D - Newport Beach TENNIS CLUBS: Santiago Canyon Tennis and Swim Club - A - East Orange Newport Beach Tennis Club - B - Newport Beach John Wayne Tennis Club - C - Newport Beach 24 ENSIGN 9/2/76 - - .....1 �R. V. PARKING BAN STUDIED the garage he had to build to accommodate the big bus. He now has the motorhome parked in his front yard. "If you're going to re- strict recreational vehicles. the first thing you have to do is define the RV," Capt. Oyaas reminded the City Council in a recent memo. "+Then, you runlntothe prob- lem of 4-wheel drive ve- hicles and other vehicles that sit high in the air and block the view of drivers'; the same as a motorhome. "The municipal code al- ready gives the city traffic engineer the authority to red -curb near intersections. +, If we used that authority, we could red -curb the right- hand curb of major arteries for about 20 feet from streets. That would open up the view of the motorist who must look to his left as he approachesia main street from the side street." City Traffic Engineer Bill Darnell sees it a little dif- ferently. "I see some prob- lem with maintenance on so many red curbs," he ex- plains. "The -problem of recreational vehicles is a monster; you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. I think if we simply passed an ordinance banning all overnight parking on streets, regardless of what kind of vehicle, that would solve a lot of our problems. Fullerton has such a ban and its very effective." The City Council is ex- pected to consider some.• formal action on the subject later this year. ! Big recreational vehicles, such as motorhomes, may be banned from parking on Newport streets, because of the way they block the views of motorists near inter- sections. A City Hall traffic committee is studying the problem. But, if they take the ad- vice of Capt. Don Oyans, commanler of the police traffic division, they will let the RVs continue to park on streets. Captain Oyaas favors painting red curbs to prohibit all vehicles from parking near dangerous in- tersections. City Councilmen lastweek got a report from community - development planner Bob Lenard on how other cities deal with the problem. They learned that the city of Ir- vine, for example, has ban- ned RV street parking, but found the ban unenforce- able. Other Orange County towns prohibit parking big vehicles In driveways. San Clemente forces developers to set aside RV parking lots in neighborhoods. 4 attempt by a Newport Heights man to get his motorhome off the street tan into a storm of neighbor protests over the size of CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT August 16, 1976 TO: The City Council FROM: Captain D. F. Oyaas Chairman, Traffic Affairs Committee SUBJECT: Recreational Vehicle Parking In response to the problem of recreational vehicles parked at or near intersections, discussed at the City Council Study Session of July 26th, the Traffic Affairs Committee offers the following considerations. Recreational vehicles are generally large and when parked adjacent to an intersection they severely limit the ability of a motorist to see other vehicles approaching on the intersecting street (restricts "sight distance"). From an enforcement standpoint, it probably would be discriminatory to legislate only against parked recreational vehicles when other large vehicles, such as parked delivery trucks, create equally hazardous sight distance problems for motorists entering from side streets. Additionally, it would be difficult to define "recreational vehicle" for enforcement purposes. Using gross vehicle weight as a criteria to prohibit certain vehicles from parking adjacent to intersections would result in an unenforceable situation since vehicles are not required to have gross vehicle weight displayed on the vehicle and the police would not be able to weigh vehicles prior to issuing citations. A height -width restriction would be an approach that could be enforced to prohibit large vehicles from parking adjacent to intersections, however, this would probably require posting signs in each of the areas adjacent to intersections and would add to the "sign pollution" outcry that has recently been voiced in Newport Beach. One final alternative, and one which the Traffic Engineer and the Police Department believe to be the most practical method for alleviating the sight distance hazards at intersections is contained in Municipal Code Section 12.40.160 Prohibited Parking Areas. "The City Traffic Engineer shall appropriately sign, or mark the following place, and when so signed or marked no person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle in any of the places: (b) At any place within twenty-five feet of an intersection, except that a bus may stop at a designated bus stop." By signing or marking the curb red for a distance of twenty-five feet, no additional legislation would be necessary, sight distance for motorists would be greatly enhanced and there would be no implication of discriminatory action by the City. It has not M City Council Recreational Vehicle Pa'rkinq Auqust 16, 1976 Page 2 been the policy of the City to routinely paint twenty-five feet of red curb adjacent to all intersections, however, this appears to be a viable solution to the recreational vehicle problem, as well as enhancing the sight distance safety factor throughout the City. The Traffic Affairs Committee recommends that the City Council direct the City Staff to comply with Municipal Code Section 12.40.160(b) and to sign or mark the areas within twenty-five feet of an intersection so as to prohibit parking. Respectfully submitted, tl D. F Chai City Council Meeting 9u , 1976 August 18, 1976 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Background Study Session Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Department of 'Community Development Recreation Vehicle Parking and Storage At the City Council meeting of July 26, 1976, several questions were raised regarding recreation vehicle storage on street and on private property. In response to those questions, the staff has contacted other cities in Orange County in order to determine what kinds of approaches are being used, and to what degree of success. It appears at the outset that attempts by cities to prohibit recreation vehicle storage is being met with substantial opposition from recreation vehicle owners, manufacturers and lobbyists. What appears as a blight to the neighborhood in one person's eyes is another's dream come true. The Traffic Affairs Committee and the Police Department are investi- gating the possibility of prohibiting the parking of recreation vehicles in instances where they interfere with site distance and create a traffic hazard. A report from the Traffic Affairs Committee is forthcoming. Existing Provisions Section 12.40.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code limits on -street parking of any vehicle to seventy-two consecutive hours. Section 12.40.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code prohibits park- ing of heavy-duty commercial vehicles (more than two axles or greater than twenty feet in length) in residential districts between 12:00 midnight and 8:00 A.M. Section 12.40.160 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code prohibits park- ing anywhere within twenty-five feet of a signal or stop sign. Section 12.44.150 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code gives the Council authority to establish no parking areas by resolution, designating the days of the week and the exact hours of the prohibition. Other Jurisdictions Twelve neighboring cities were contacted to see what approaches are being used and to what degree of success. Three of the cities have recently attempted to adopt recreation vehicle ordinances but were met with overwhelming opposition. Following is a chart showing the cities contacted and the types of ordinances being used: U , ■ TO: City Council - 2. Tustin 72 Hour Ordinance On -Site On -Street Provision in Progress Standards Standards X Costa Mesa X Irvine X X Anaheim X Yorba Linda X Huntington Beach X X X X Fullerton X X Seal Beach X X Laguna Beach X X San Juan Capistrano X San Clemente X Buena Park X On -Street Standards The City of Irvine recently adopted some on -street standards by Council resolution. These standards prohibit the on -street parking of trailers or any vehicles exceeding seven feet in width. The city and village entrances will be posted. This resolution is not being enforced and will be reconsidered on August 24, 1976. Huntington Beach is holding hearings on an ordinance that would pro- hibit the on -street parking of vehicles exceeding twenty-four feet in length or ninety inches in width in residential districts. The City of Fullerton prohibits overnight parking of any vehicle on street. Off -Street Standards The cities of Anaheim, Fullerton, Laguna Beach, San Clemente and Buena Park do not permit the storage of recreation vehicles in front yard setbacks. Anaheim requires recreation vehicle storage to be on the rear of the property and under cover. Huntington Beach's proposed ordinance requires recreation vehicle storage to be screened and behind the front yard setback. San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente require developers to provide recreation vehicle storage lots in con- junction with new Planned Communities. Accessory Structures (Garages) The Newport Beach Municipal Code height limit of fifteen feet (flat roof or average height of pitched roof) for accessory structures is a fairly common provision. Other cities use fifteen feet, twenty feet or one story in most instances. Several cities do not differ- entiate between primary structures and accessory structures, and their height limit is then usually two stories. CONCLUSION: On -Street Provisions If on -street restrictions are to be adopted, it will be necessary to TO: City Council -3. describe the physical characteristics of the vehicle to be restricted. A length or width limit would be the logical approach. Restrictions should probably apply only to residential districts with restrictions on overnight parking or parking over a maximum number of hours. Signs would have to be posted in all areas affected. Off -Street Standards The City's Zoning Ordinance could be amended to prohibit storage between the setback line and the street or on the front half of a lot. Covered storage or screening could be required where such storage is permitted. Our existing height limits for accessory structures currently allow the construction of garages or carports which will accommodate most recreation vehicles, although carports are not permitted on the front half of a lot. In conclusion it should also be noted that the on -site storage of recreation vehicles in many areas of the City is already prohibited or restricted by the private CC&R's administered by Community Associ- ations. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director BY 11r R. P. LENA D Associate Planner RPL/kk City Council Meeting August 23, 1976 August 18, 1976 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Background Study Session Agenda Item No CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Department of Community Development Recreation Vehicle Parking and Storage 4(c)l r At the City Council meeting of July 26, 1976, several questions were raised regarding recreation vehicle storage on street and on private property. In response to those questions, the staff has contacted other cities in Orange County in order to determine what kinds of approaches are being used, and to what degree of success. It appears at the outset that attempts by cities to prohibit recreation vehicle storage is being met with substantial opposition from recreation vehicle owners, manufacturers and lobbyists. What appears as a blight to the neighborhood in one person's eyes is another's dream come true. The Traffic Affairs Committee and the Police Department are investi- gating the possibility of prohibiting the parking of recreation vehicles in instances where they interfere with site distance and create a traffic hazard. A report from the Traffic Affairs Committee is forthcoming. Existing Provisions Section 12.40.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code limits on -street parking of any vehicle to seventy-two consecutive hours. Section 12.40.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code prohibits park- ing of heavy-duty commercial vehicles (more than two axles or greater than twenty feet in length) in residential districts between 12:00 midnight and 8:00 A.M. Section 12.40.160 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code prohibits park- ing anywhere within twenty-five feet of a signal or stop sign. Section 12.44.150 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code gives the Council authority to establish no parking areas by resolution, designating the days of the week and the exact hours of the prohibition. Other Jurisdictions Twelve neighboring cities were contacted to see what approaches are being used and to what degree of success. Three of the cities have recently attempted to adopt recreation vehicle ordinances but were met with overwhelming opposition. Following is a chart showing the cities contacted and the types of ordinances being used: TO: City Council - 2. 72 Hour Ordinance On -Site On -Street Provision in Progress Standards Standards Tustin X Costa Mesa X Irvine X X Anaheim X Yorba Linda X Huntington Beach X X X Fullerton n Seal Beach X X Laguna Beach X X San Juan Capistrano X San Clemente Buena Park On -Street Standards The City of Irvine recently adopted some on -street standards by Council resolution. These standards prohibit the on -street parking of trailers or any vehicles exceeding seven feet in width. The city and village entrances will be posted. This resolution is not being enforced and will be reconsidered on August 24, 1976. Huntington Beach is holding hearings on an ordinance that would pro- hibit the on -street parking of vehicles exceeding twenty-four feet in length or ninety inches in width in residential districts. The City of Fullerton prohibits overnight parking of any vehicle on street. Off -Street Standards The cities of Anaheim, Fullerton, Laguna Beach, San Clemente and Buena Park do not permit the storage of recreation vehicles in front yard setbacks. Anaheim requires recreation vehicle storage to be on the rear of the property and under cover. Huntington Beach's proposed ordinance requires recreation vehicle storage to be screened and behind the front yard setback. San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente require developers to provide recreation vehicle storage lots in con- junction with new Planned Communities. Accessory Structures (Garages) The Newport Beach Municipal Code height limit of fifteen feet (flat roof or average height of pitched roof) for accessory structures is a fairly common provision. Other cities use fifteen feet, twenty feet or one story in most instances. Several cities do not differ- entiate between primary structures and accessory structures, and their height limit is then usually two stories. CONCLUSION: On -Street Provisions If on -street restrictions are to be adopted, it will be necessary to TO: City Council -3. describe the physical characteristics of the vehicle to be restricted. A length or width limit would be the logical approach. Restrictions should probably apply only to residential districts with restrictions on overnight parking or parking over a maximum number of hours. Signs would have to be posted in all areas affected. Off -Street Standards The City's Zoning Ordinance could be amended to prohibit storage between the setback line and the street or on the front half of a lot. Covered storage or screening could be required where such storage is permitted. Our existing height limits for accessory structures currently allow the construction of garages or carports which will accommodate most recreation vehicles, although carports are not permitted on the front half of a lot. In conclusion it should also recreation vehicles in many or restricted by the private ations. Respectfully submitted, be noted that the on -site storage of areas of the City is already prohibited CC&R's administered by Community Associ- DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director By P- A R. P.. LENA D Associate Planner RPL/kk V 14' City Council Meeting August 23, 1976 Study Session Agenda Item No. 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 18, 1976 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Recreation Vehicle Parking and Storage Background At the City Council meeting of July 26, 1976, several questions were raised regarding recreation vehicle storage on street and on private property. In response to those questions, the staff has contacted other cities in Orange County in order to determine what kinds of approaches are being used, and to what degree of success. It appears at the outset that attempts by cities to prohibit recreation vehicle storage is being met with substantial opposition from recreation vehicle owners, manufacturers and lobbyists. What appears as a blight to the neighborhood in one person's eyes is another's dream come true. The Traffic Affairs Committee and the Police Department are investi- gating the possibility of prohibiting the parking of recreation vehicles in instances where they interfere with site distance and create a traffic hazard. A report from the Traffic Affairs Committee is forthcoming. Existing Provisions Section 12.40.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code limits on -street parking of any vehicle to seventy-two consecutive hours. Section 12.40.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code prohibits park- ing of heavy-duty commercial vehicles (more than two axles or greater than twenty feet in length) in residential districts between 12:00 midnight and 8:00 A.M. Section 12.40.160 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code prohibits park- ing anywhere within twenty-five feet of a signal or stop sign. Section 12.44.150 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code gives the Council authority to establish no parking areas by resolution, designating the days of the week and the exact hours of the prohibition. Other Jurisdictions Twelve neighboring cities were contacted to see what approaches are being used and to what degree of success. Three of the cities have recently attempted to adopt recreation vehicle ordinances but were met with overwhelming opposition. Following is a chart showing the cities contacted and the types of ordinances being used: TO: City Council - 2. Tustin 4.4osta Mesa Irvine 72 Hour Ordinance On -Site On -Street Provision in Progress Standards Standards X Anaheim A ,,Xorba Linda X Huntington Beach X X X Fullerton X Seal Beach X X Laguna Beach X X San Juan Capistrano X San Clemente X pA`uena Park X On -Street Standards The City of Irvine recently adopted some on -street standards by Council resolution. These standards prohibit the on -street parking of trailers or any vehicles exceeding seven feet in width. The city and village entrances will be posted. This resolution is not being enforced and will be reconsidered on August 24•, 1976. Huntington Beach is holding hearings on an ordinance that would pro- hibit the on -street parking of vehicles exceeding twenty-four feet in length or ninety inches in width in residential districts. The City of Fullerton prohibits overnight parking of any vehicle on street. Off -Street Standards The cities of Anaheim, Fullerton, Laguna Beach, San Clemente and Buena Park do not permit the storage of recreation vehicles in front yard setbacks. Anaheim requires recreation vehicle storage to be on the rear of the property and under cover. Huntington Beach's proposed ordinance requires recreation vehicle storage to be screened and behind the front yard setback. San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente require developers to provide recreation vehicle storage lots in con- junction with new Planned Communities. Accessory Structures (Garages) The Newport Beach Municipal Code height limit of fifteen feet (flat roof or average height of pitched roof) for accessory structures is a fairly common provision. Other cities use fifteen feet, twenty feet or one story in most instances. Several cities do not differ- entiate between primary structures and accessory structures, and their height limit is then usually two stories. CONCLUSION: On -Street Provisions If on -street restrictions are to be adopted, it will be necessary to £x� TO: City Council -3. describe the physical characteristics of the vehicle to be restricted. A length or width limit would be the logical approach. Restrictions should probably apply only to residential districts with restrictions on overnight parking or parking over a maximum number of hours. Signs would have to be posted in all areas affected. Off -Street Standards The City's Zoning Ordinance could be amended to prohibit storage between the setback line and the street or on the front half of a lot. Covered storage or screening could be required where such storage is permitted. Our existing height limits for accessory structures currently allow the construction of garages or carports which will accommodate most recreation vehicles, although carports are not permitted on the front half of a lot. In conclusion it should also recreation vehicles in many or restricted by the private ations. Respectfully submitted, be noted that the on -site storage of areas of the City is already prohibited CC&R's administered by Community Associ- DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director By R. P. LENA D Associate Planner RPL/kk City Council Meeting A 3, 1976 _ August 18, 1976 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Background Study Session Agenda Item No. . C-C i (v CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Department of Community Development Recreation Vehicle Parking and Storage At the City Council meeting of July 26, 1976, several questions were raised regarding recreation vehicle storage on street and on private property. In response to those questions, the staff has contacted other cities in Orange County in order to determine what kinds of approaches are being used, and to what degree of success. It appears at the outset that attempts by cities to prohibit recreation vehicle storage is being met with substantial opposition from recreation vehicle owners, manufacturers and lobbyists. What appears as a blight to the neighborhood in one person's eyes is another's dream come true. The Traffic Affairs Committee and the Police Department are investi- gating the possibility of prohibiting the parking of recreation vehicles in instances where they interfere with site distance and create a traffic hazard. A report from the Traffic Affairs Committee is forthcoming. Existing Provisions Section 12.40.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code limits on -street parking of any vehicle to seventy-two consecutive hours. Section 12.40.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code prohibits park- ing of heavy-duty commercial vehicles (more than two axles or greater than twenty feet in length) in residential districts between 12:00 midnight and 8:00 A.M. Section 12.40.160 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code prohibits park- ing anywhere within twenty-five feet of a signal or stop sign. Section 12.44.150 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code gives the Council authority to establish no parking areas by resolution, designating the days of the week and the exact hours of the prohibition. Other Jurisdictions Twelve neighboring cities were contacted to see what approaches are being used and to what degree of success. Three of the cities have recently attempted to adopt recreation vehicle ordinances but were met with overwhelming opposition. Following is a chart showing the cities contacted and the types of ordinances being used: TO: City Council - 2. 72 Hour Ordinance On -Site On -Street Provision in Progress Standards Standards Tustin Costa Mesa Irvine Anaheim Yorba Linda X Huntington Beach X Fullerton Seal Beach X Laguna Beach X San Juan Capistrano X San Clemente X Buena Park On -Street Standards X X M The City of Irvine recently adopted some on -street standards by Council resolution. These standards prohibit the on -street parking of trailers or any vehicles exceeding seven feet in width. The city and village entrances will be posted. This resolution is not being enforced and will be reconsidered on August 24, 1976. Huntington Beach is holding hearings on an ordinance that would pro- hibit the on -street parking of vehicles exceeding twenty-four feet in length or ninety inches in width in residential districts. The City of Fullerton prohibits overnight parking of any vehicle on street. Off -Street Standards The cities of Anaheim, Fullerton, Laguna Beach, San Clemente and Buena Park do not permit the storage of recreation vehicles in front yard setbacks. Anaheim requires recreation vehicle storage to be on the rear of the property and under cover. Huntington Beach's proposed ordinance requires recreation vehicle storage to be screened and behind the front yard setback. San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente require developers to provide recreation vehicle storage lots in con- junction with new Planned Communities. Accessory Structures (Garages) The Newport Beach Municipal Code height limit of fifteen feet (flat roof or average height of pitched roof) for accessory structures is a fairly common provision. Other cities use fifteen feet, twenty feet or one story in most instances. Several cities do not differ- entiate between primary structures and accessory structures, and their height limit is then usually two stories. CONCLUSION: On -Street Provisions If on -street restrictions are to be adopted, it will be necessary to TO: City Council -3. describe the physical characteristics of the vehicle to be restricted. A length or width limit would be the logical approach. Restrictions should probably apply only to residential districts with restrictions on overnight parking or parking over a maximum number of hours. Signs would have to be posted in all areas affected. Off -Street Standards The City's Zoning Ordinance could be amended to prohibit storage between the setback line and the street or on the front half of a lot. Covered storage or screening could be required where such storage is permitted. Our existing height limits for accessory structures currently allow the construction of garages or carports which will accommodate most recreation vehicles, although carports are not permitted on the front half of a lot. In conclusion it should also be noted that the on -site storage of recreation vehicles in many areas of the City is already prohibited or restricted by the private CC&R's administered by Community Associ- ations. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director By R. P. LLNAKU Associate Planner RPL/kk -'F City Council Meeting /31 /97� Au , 19T6 August 18, 1976 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Background Study Session Agenda Item No., CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Department of Community Development Recreation Vehicle,Parking and,Sto.rage At the City Council meeting of July 26, 1976, several questions were raised regarding recreation vehicle storage on street 'and on private property. In response to those questions, the staff has contacted other cities in Orange County in order to determine what kinds of approaches are,being used, and to what degree of success. It appears at the outset that attempts by cities to prohibit recreation vehicle storage is being met with substantial opposition from recreation vehicle owners, manufacturers and lobbyists. What appears as a blight to the neighborhood in one person's eyes is another's dream come true. The Traffic Affairs Committee and the Police Department are investi- gating the possibility of prohibiting the parking of recreation vehicles in instances where they interfere with site distance and create a traffic hazard. A report from the Traffic Affairs Committee is forthcoming. Existing Provisions Section 12.40.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code limits on -street parking'_of any vehicle to seventy-two consecutive hours. Section 12.40.055'of the Newport Beach Municipal Code prohibits park- ing of heavy-duty commercial vehicles (more than two axles or greater than twenty feet in length) in residential districts between 12:06 midnight and 8:00 A.M. Section 12.40.160 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code prohibits park- ing anywhere within twenty-five feet of a signal or stop sign. Section 12.44.150 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code gives the Council authority to establish no parking areas by resolution, designating the days of the week and the exact hours of the prohibition. Other Jurisdictions Twelve neighboring cities were contacted to see what approaches are being used and to what degree of success. Three of the cities have recently attempted to adopt recreation vehicle ordinances but were met with overwhelming opposition. Following is a chart showing the cities contacted and the types of ordinances being used: TO: City Council - 2. 72 Hour Ordinance On -Site On -Street Provision in Progress Standards Standards Tustin Costa Mesa Irvine Anaheim Yorba Li-nda X Huntington Beach X Fullerton Seal Beach X Laguna Beach X San Juan Capistrano X San Clemente X Buena Park On -Street Standards X K X X X X M X The City of Irvine recently adopted some on -street standards by Council resolution. These standards prohibit the on -street parking of trailers or any vehicles exceeding seven feet in width. The city and village entrahces will be posted. This resolution is not being enforced and will be reconsidered on August 24, 1976. Huntington Beach is holding hearing's on an ordinance that would pro- hibit the on -street parking of vehicles exceeding twenty-four feet in length or ninety inches in width in residential districts. The City of Fullerton prohibits overnight parking of any vehicle on street. Off -Street Standards The cities of Anaheim, Fullerton, Laguna Beach, San Clemente and Buena Park do not permit the storage of recreation vehicles in front yard setbacks. Anaheim requires recreation vehicle storage to be on the rear of the property and under cover. Huntington Beach's proposed ordinance requires recreation vehicle storage to be screened and behind the front yard -,setback. San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente require developers to provide recreation vehicle storage lots in con- junction with new Planned Communities. Accessory Structures (Garages) The Newport Beach Municipal Code height limit of fifteen feet (flat roof or average height of pitched roof) for accessory structures is a fairly common provision. Other cities use fifteen feet, twenty feet or one story in most instances. Several cities .do not differ- entiate between primary structures and accessory structures, and thei.r height limit is then usually two stories. CONCLUSION: On=Street Provisions If on -street restrictions are to be adopted•, it will be necessary to w r 4 TO: City Council -3. describe the physical characteristics of the vehicle to be restricted. A length or width limit would be the logical approach. Restrictions should probably apply only to residential districts with restrictions on overnight parking or parking over,a maximum number of hours. Signs would have to be posted in all areas affected. Off -Street Standards The City's Zoning Ordinance could be amended to prohibit storage between the setback line and the street or on the front half of a lot. Covered storage or screening could be required where such storage is permitted. Our existing height limits for accessory structures currently allow the construction of garages or carports which will accommodate most recreation vehicles, although carports are not permitted on the front half of a lot. In conclusion it should also be noted that the on -site storage of recreation vehicles in many areas of the City is already prohibited or restricted by the private CC&R's administered by Community Associ- ations. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R: V. •HOGAN,' Director BY , M 1 ' ------ R. P. LENA D Associate Planner RPL/kk TO, C r 1 I I n �, I I m p A ")l rb ?2 HoJR ©itP, 1N O�-Sl`(�' On1-SyT(t��T Q2 W i Sl of4 P20 C52ES5 S Pm� D 51 r��Y�RD � X - . �-� I fL Ln(' --- r r f f i t e ; — — — -- -- -- — — — — ..«-ram--- - - - 1--� �=------ ----; • ^ A A A I k w c r �• , 1Airr W� COUNCILMEN ,p �0 nn! 1 rAi i 9 ��9i }Nrm�2 ym CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH A..n.. 0 1 074 MINUTES W To the Planning Commission for inclusion in on- I going study, a letter from the West Newport I Beach Improvement Association regarding the recommendations relating to land use and popula- tion densities of the property between Newport Beach and Laguna Beach; and their statement in favor of Alternative Four as presented by the \ Newport Beach Planning Commission on July 1. (Exhibit) (1) To staff for inclusion in on -going study, a E letter from the West Newport Improvement Associa-'. E tion expressing their opposition to such events as the "block party" on 30th Street held on July 4; and requesting that Council establish a task force to investigate alternatives for avoiding similar situations, and that a member of the West Newport Beach Improvement Association Bard of Directors be included in such a task forlestudy. (Exhibit) (m) To the Pekiding Legislation and Ethics Committee, A a letter om the Orange County Division of the League of California Cities requesting the City to send a position statement on Assembly Bill 15 to Sacramento (o particular concern to cities having undeveloped', -,,agricultural land within their jurisdiction). Exhibit) (n) To the City representati to the Flood Protection S Agency, a'letter from the ty of Costa Mesa to R Mayor Rogers requesting that ach'City take F action before the Agency's meet g of August 25 P to delay action on any recommenda on regarding A interim protection measures for the ower reaches of the Santa Ana River. (Exhi it) 3. The following communications were referred to e City Clerk for filing and inclusion in the recor (a) A letter from Betty Heckel regarding the resolu- tion of the City of Irvine that no houses will be built on the Irvine property between Laguna Beach and Corona del -Mar. (Copies mailed to Council) (b) A letter from the Balboa Peninsula Point Associa- tion opposing the parking of recreational vehicles in Balboa Pier Park. Cop es mailed to Council) (c) Resolutions from the Cities of Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, San Juan Capistrano and Villa Park 'regarding the inadequate coverage of the Orange County elections. ,�the (d) Copyof a letter from the Mayor" ity of Irvine to the Honorable -Thomas F. Riley, Super- visor of the 5th diet of Orange County, Volume 30 - Page 197 / INDEX owncoast evelop- ment pecial vents B 15 ants. Ana iver Lood rotection gency NOTE TO FILE: AT CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION OF July 26, 1976, COUNCIL DISAPPROVED IDEA OF USING BALBOA PARKING LOT FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE ZONE.