HomeMy WebLinkAboutC-3319 - Mutual Release & Settlement Agreement for 422 Redlands Avenue (curb cut encroachment)0 0
MUTUAL RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement (Release) is entered into the 17th
day of November, 1999 between William Higman and Kristin Higman ( Higman), the
owners of the property at 422 Redlands in the City of Newport Beach (Property), and the
City of Newport Beach (City).
1. Higman and City wish to settle all claims or alleged claims that arise out of,
or that may be related in any way, to any act or omission of the City (including its officers,
employees, representatives and employees) involving the Property from the date of the
acquisition of the Property by Higman to the date of this Release (Collectively referred to
as the "Claims "). The Claims include, without limitation, any act or omission related to (a)
any discussion between Higman and /or his agents and the City through its employees
and agents related to any development or redevelopment of or on the Property; (b) any
demolition of any structure on the Property; and (c) any plans, specifications, drawings or
documents describing the Property, any structure on the Property or any improvement
(proposed or existing) on the Property.
2. Each Party, on behalf of themselves and their respective officers,
representatives, employees, and agents and in consideration of the promises and
9 •
covenants in the Release, agrees that no litigation or proceeding of any kind shall be
commenced or prosecuted against the other Party with respect to the Claims.
3. Each Party, on behalf of themselves and their respective officers,
representatives, employees and agents, releases and forever discharges the other Party
with respect to the Claims and any loss, liability, damage, cost, attorneys fees or expense
that either Party now has, or may have in the future, that is in any way related to the
Claims.
4. This Release is intended as a full and complete settlement and compromise
of the Claims and each Party expressly waives any and all rights which each may have
under the provisions of Section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California which
reads as follows:
"A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not
know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release,
which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with
the debtor."
The Parties to this Release covenant that they have read Section 1542 of the Civil Code,
that their counsel has explained that Section and its significance to them, and that they
knowingly and intentionally waive and give up the rights and protection that Section would
afford in absence of this waiver.
z
0
0
5. The Parties each agree and acknowledge that the facts with respect to the
Claims may be other than, or different from, the facts now believed by the parties to be
true and each Parry expressly assumes this risk. Each Parry agrees that this Release
shall be valid and effective, and not subject to termination or rescission, in spite of any
mistake of fact.
6. This Release shall not be construed in favor of or against either Party,
rather, shall be construed as if the Parties jointly prepared this Release. This Release
shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, each Party and their heirs, personal
representatives, assigns, and other successors in interest. If any term, provision,
covenant or condition of this Release is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be
invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions of this Release shall
remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated.
7. Each Party acknowledges that they have been represented in negotiations
and preparation of this Release by counsel of that Party's choosing. Each Party also
acknowledges that they have read this Release and that the actual and potential legal
implications of this Release have been fully explained by that Party's counsel.
3
0 0
8. Each Party agrees that this Release embodies the entire agreement of the
Parties, and that no representations, promises, or inducements of any kind have been
made by either Party or any officer, employee, agent, or attorney of either party, other
than appear in writing in this Release. The Parties also agree that each covenant and
condition referenced in this Release is material consideration for each Party to enter the
Release.
9. This Release is a compromise of disputed claims and is not to be construed
as an admission of liability, wrongdoing or misconduct on the part of either Party and that
each Party expressly denies liability to the other Party.
10. Higman represents and warrants that they have made no assignment of
any right, claim, demand, contract debt, claim, obligation or causes of action that are
related to the Claims that are the subject of this Release. Higman also warrants that no
person, firm, corporation, estate, insurance carrier, or other person has had or now has
any interest in any right, claim, demand, contract, debt, obligation, or cause of action in
any way related to the Claims. Higman shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
City of Newport Beach from any and all loss, expenses, damages or liability, including
reasonable attorneys fees and costs if any person makes any claim or demand, or
institutes any legal action against the City of Newport Beach by reason of any purported
assignment, subrogation, transfer or lien that is the subject of this Paragraph.
4
0 0
11. Each Party agrees to bear their own costs and attorneys fees arising out of
the Claims and this Release. However, in the event an action is brought to invalidate or
enforce any of the terms and conditions of this Release, the prevailing Party shall be
entitled to costs and reasonable attorney fees.
12. Upon execution of this Release:
a. The City shall pay the sum of 16,500.00 to Higman;
b. Higman shall provide City with confirmation of the withdrawal of the
application for curb cut adjacent to the Property that was submitted to the
Public Works Director on October 15, 1999 and the subsequent appeal to
the City Council of the Public Works Director's denial of that application.
C. City shall waive all building, grading and /or plan check fees in
connection with the proposed construction of the new single family
residence to be constructed by Higman on the Property. This waiver is
limited to the plans and specifications submitted to the City by Higman
within twelve (12) months of the effective date of this Release.
d. Higman agrees that all plans and specification for the single family
residence at 422 Redlands that are submitted by Higman within the twelve
(12) month period following the date of this Release shall fully comply with
and conform to the ordinances, resolutions and policies of the City.
5
0
0
13. This Release shall be construed in accordance with, and be governed by,
the laws of the State of California.
14. This Release may be executed and delivered in two or more counterparts,
each of which, when executed and delivered, shall be an original, but such counterpart
shall together constitute but one and the same Release.
DATED: // —/S 19
DATED: - Ib
DATED: Z d /7
F: katldalshared64nnelHigmanrel111699 .doc
WILLIAM HIGMAN
IFSTOINMAN
t�
BY:
HOMER B16JDAU
City Manager
14
0
0
• November 8, 1999
i NOV 8 ,
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
n fld P, ITEM NO. 20
"Twx n A � W Ar— . -
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Public Works Department
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A CURB CUT ADJACENT TO 422 REDLANDS
AVENUE IN THE NEWPORT HEIGHTS AREA
RECOMMENDATION:
Deny the appeal for an Encroachment Permit to allow construction of a curb cut at 422
Redlands Avenue.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Will Higman, the owner of 422 Redlands Avenue, is requesting approval of an
Encroachment Permit for the construction of a curb cut along the Redlands Avenue
frontage to provide parking for a new home (see attached letter dated October 15,
• 1999, Exhibit "A "). Also attached is a November 1, 1999, letter (Exhibit "A -1 ")
explaining the reasons why Mr. Higman feels that City Council Policy L -2 should be
waived to allow a curb cut at 422 Redlands Avenue.
The rear of 422 Redlands Avenue abuts an alley, (see Exhibit "B "). City Council Policy
L -2 states that "curb cuts shall not be permitted to residential property which abuts an
alley ". Any exceptions to this policy must be approved by the City Council (see Exhibit
"C ").
All redeveloped properties along Redlands Avenue have provided vehicular access
from the adjacent alley. City Council Policy L -2 requires property owners that redevelop
their property to provide vehicular access from the adjacent alley and remove any
driveway access from the adjacent street. Of the 41 lots fronting on Redlands Avenue
between Cliff Drive and 15"' Street there are 8 properties that have vehicular access
from the street and the dwellings appear to have been constructed in the 1940's, 50's
or 60's. There are 3 additional unused curb cuts that have been blocked off and are no
longer in use. The City will close these curb cuts this year.
In the City's instructional memo concerning submittals and approvals required in the
Building Permit process, Mr. Higman points out that the Building or Planning
Department did not indicate that the Public Works Department/Traffic Engineering
• approval was needed.
SUBJECT: Appeal Of The DeniaT'6f An Encroachment Permit For The Construction Offurb Cut In Redlands Avenue
Adjacent To 422 Redlands Avenue In The Newport Heights Area
November 8, 1999
Page: 2
•
His letter further states that he needs a curb cut. A curb cut requires work in the City's
right -of -way. In the July plan check the applicant was directed to check with the Public
Works Department concerning the curb cut. Also, under "NOTES (c)" in the
instructional memo (see attachment to Exhibit A), it clearly states that the applicant is
responsible for submitting plans to the Public Works Department for approval and for
obtaining an Encroachment Permit for work in the City's right -of -way. This was not
done until after the Building Department plan check was completed
Staff has reviewed its procedures and is implementing revisions that will insure early
notification of the City's policy on curb cut restrictions where alley access is available.
RespectfulllyyQSuub 'tt
(r W
Don Webb
Public Works Director
By: �v •
Richard L. offstadt, P.E.
Development Engineer
Attachments: Exhibit "A" Letter dated October 15, 1999
Exhibit "A -1" Letter dated November 1, 1999
Exhibit "B" Exhibit showing location of parcel
Exhibit "C" Council Policy L -2
f:WserstpbvAshaned%counci fy99- WXnovember-8kedlands.doc •
0
• October 15, 1999
Mr. Don Webb
Public Works Department
City of Newport Beach
Dear Mr. Webb,
9
I wish to appeal the decision disallowing a curb cut at my property located at
422 Redlands Avenue. The reason for this appeal is based on the fact that
the building and planning departments have approved for construction a new
driveway and garage.
I cannot grade my driveway to the approved slope without this curb cut.
Please be aware that the original slope of the proposed driveway had to be
changed after the plans were checked. At the time these changes were
• requested by the city no one ever mentioned that we were not allowed a curb
cut at this address. I would also like to point out that during three separate
pre - design meetings with the city staff we were never requested to go the
public works department for an approval for a curb cut.
Per the city's required approval process, it is the responsibility of the
building and planning departments to direct a homeowner to the public
works department for this approval. This did not happen in my case.
(See attached.)
My house has been approved for all aspects of construction except for the
approval of the curb cut. I respectfully request to be added to the agenda for
the City Council meeting to be held on November 8, 1999, to further discuss
this appeal.
Sincerely,
W ,
Will Higman
Exhibit A
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915
iENERALLY REQUIRED SUBMITTALS AND
SUBMITTALS
a. Two sets of complete drawings (architectural, structural, and fire sprinkler
drawings if applicable)
b. One set of structural calculations
C. One set of Title 24 energy calculations
d. Two sets of grading /drainage plans
e. Two copies of soils reports
f. Building permit application, grading, electrical, mechanical, plumbing and
sprinkler permit applications, if applicable
g. Survey (Line and Grade)
APPROVALS
a. Building Department
b. Planning Department
C. Coastal Commission (if required by the Planning Department)
d. Public Works/Traffic (if required by Building or Planning Department)
e. Fire Department (multi - dwelling units)
f. Marine Division (if required by Building Department)
NOTES
a. The average plan check time is 3 1/2 weeks; incomplete submittal will result
in a delay.
b. Additional submittals and approvals may be required for special projects.
C. The applicant is responsible for submitting plans to the Public Works
Department for approval and for obtaining an encroachment permit for all
work within City rights -of -way and easements.
d. Drawings must show property lines, grades, adjacent street curb grades and
all public utility easements.
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
�J
•
• November 1, 1999
City Council Members
City of Newport Beach
Dear Council Members,
is
I would like this letter to serve as my family's testimony to the problem we are
facing with the City of Newport Beach. My family consists of myself, Will Higman,
my wife, Kristin, our daughter, Matilda, age 2, and our son, Jerome, age 1. We
reside at 5305 Lido Sands Drive in West Newport Beach and have lived at this
address for the last 15 years.
Our problem is related to the construction of our new family home located at 422
Redlands Avenue in the Newport Heights area. We purchased this property in
1996 as a rental property. Sometime in early 1998 after our two children were
born, my wife and I decided that the neighborhood at the Redlands house would
better suit our growing family. Over the next few months we discussed our
options.
• The two options we were considering were to add on to the existing home or build
a new house. The advantage of building a new house was to have the opportunity
to make a larger backyard for our children. The existing home was built in the
1950's with a 6 -car garage built in 1984. The problem with this new large garage
was that it took up most of the backyard.
At that time we felt the best option for our family was to build a new house with
the garage in the front and push the house out to the front property line. We got
this idea from looking at the next door neighbor's house which includes a
driveway and garage in the front facing Redlands Avenue. The next hurdle to
overcome was how to pull this off financially. We came up with a plan and
decided to set June 1, 1999 as our target start date.
In the fall of 1998 I visited the Planning and Building departments. The purpose
of this initial visit was to obtain all of the zoning regulations that pertain to the
building process. I discussed with the Planning Department my intentions to
build a new house on the property and the basic design we had in mind. The
design included a house with an attached garage that would face Redlands
Avenue. I came away from this meeting with all of the setback requirements that
I would need to draw the basic footprint of the new house.
Soon after I drafted the footprint I visited the property site to take some
• measurements. During this visit I noticed that the neighbor's garage had been
built within the 20' front setback. I did not understand and wondered if I had
written down the wrong setback requirement. I took my drawing back to the
Exhibit 'A -1"
0
0
Planning Department to show them that the garage I intended to build would not
match up with the neighbor's garage. It was explained to me that the neighbor's •
house had been built prior to some new setback regulations. I was told I would
have to hold my garage back to the 20' setback.
On December 1, 1998 I hired an architect to design a craftsman style house and
to complete all the required drawings and plans. Following his normal procedure
my architect visited the site and then visited the Planning Department for a pre -
design meeting. At this meeting he discussed the intentions of designing a home
with a front facing garage. He obtained all of the setback requirements which
apply to that particular property.
It is important to note that at no time during these three pre - design
meetings were we advised that we could not build a garage facing Redlands
Avenue and we were never requested to visit the Public Works Department
for any reason. Per the city's own procedure a homeowner is not required to
go to the Public Works Department unless instructed to do so by the
Building or Planning Departments.
The Planning Department is in charge of the city's zoning ordinances. They
are responsible for letting the homeowner and architect know what they can
and cannot do with respect to designing a new home. It is not the owner or •
architect's responsibility to know every setback or zoning requirement.
Over the next six months my architect created the working drawings that are
required by the Building and Planning Departments. On June 17, 1999 we
submitted the plans for plan check. The plans made it through plan check on
August 13, 1999 with no major corrections.
However in retrospect, the most interesting correction was a request by the plan
check representative to change the slope of the driveway. We were asked to
change the slope by a percent or two and add the following note to the site
drainage plan: add: "REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING CURB & GUTTER,
BRICKWALK. AND REPLACE DRIVEWAY PER CITY STD. 163 -L .... AND 1' MIN
SAWCUT AC PAVEMENT."
Please keep in'mind at this point in the correction process the city is actually
asking us to remove and replace with a new driveway per city specifications
because we had an incomplete note on the site and drainage plan. Over the next
few weeks we made all the changes that were required by plan check and we re-
submitted the plans. Once again the plans came back from plan check on
August 3151 with a few minor changes. We made those final changes and re-
submitted the plans on September 10, 1999.
At this point we were three months behind schedule and things were starting to is
move quickly. I hired my general contractor who is also a Newport Beach
resident. I was working with the bank for a construction loan but with our
2
limited resources the money we could spend on the construction of the new
• house had to fall under a certain budgeted dollar amount. With much
negotiation and a few favors here and there we barely qualified for the
construction loan. Also during this time our renters had moved out of the house.
After a year and a half of planning we were finally getting close.
At this point we were running into a couple of major stumbling blocks. The first
one was that in order for my contractor to do the job at the budgeted figure he
had to start right away. However in order to start construction the loan with the
bank had to close escrow. The bank would not close until they had been notified
that the plans were approved by the city.
Through the plan check representative we heard rumblings that the plans should
be finally approved on or before Friday, September 1711, "but don't count on it'.
Because I am an optimist I scheduled the demolition company for Monday,
September 20, 1999 to tear down the existing house. The time was getting very
close now. On September 15, 1999 the plan check department told me that our
plans had been checked completely however some other people within the city
staff wanted to review them one last time. At this point I was on pins and needles
because as I mentioned the existing house was scheduled to be torn down in four
days. On Friday, September 17, 1999 we got the call we had been waiting for.
The Building Department called and told us the plans had been approved for
• construction and to come on down and get your building permits'.
This worked fine because I never called off the demolition for Monday morning the
20th. I notified the bank that based on the phone call from the Building
Department we were ready for permits. There were a lot of smiles around our
household that weekend because the dream was finally inked.
On Monday morning September 20th the demolition took place as scheduled. I
was not able to watch due to an all day business meeting. Tuesday morning the
21st I met with my contractor at the city offices to -help him with the building
permits. It was my responsibility to pay the fees. When I arrived it was very
exciting to see the plans with the city's approval stamps all over them. What
happened next I would call the most frightening moment of my life.
We were at the Public Works counter to pay for the permit to cut the curb for our
new driveway when the gentleman at the counter said, 'Wait a minute, you're not
allowed to cut the curb at this address.' I said, "What are you talking about?
Our plans are all approved by the Building and Planning Departments for all
aspects of construction." This was the beginning of the nightmare to follow.
Please keep in mind that it has now been a full year since my first pre - design
meeting with the Planning Department.
• As you can imagine at this point my emotions were running high and my mind
was racing. After a couple of sleepless nights I started to calm down and think
about my options. These options are far different than the ones my wife and I
3
0 0
were planning a year and a half earlier. I decided it would be best to make an •
appointment with the City Manager, Mr. Homer Bludau. Attending the meeting
with Mr. Bludau were the Department heads of the Building, Planning and Public
Works Departments and the City Attorney.
I had an opportunity to give my side of the story. When I completed my
presentation everyone was speechless. I took this as a positive sign. A few days
later the City Manager called to tell me there was nothing they could do. I was
not satisfied with this outcome. I have appealed the curb cut denial decision and
that is why this matter has been placed on the agenda for the City Council
meeting to beheld on November 81".
Before I continue I would like to mention that the council members have made a
good decision in hiring Mr. Homer Bludau as the new City Manager. He has
handled my challenging situation very gingerly and with remarkable
professionalism. I would also like to say that I appreciate his kind words of
encouragement. Due to his professionalism he has already taken steps to change
some city workflow policies to ensure that an oversight of this magnitude never
happens again.
Where we go from here is the next question. We no longer have a house to rent,
move.into, remodel, or sell. Redesigning the house is not an option for us due to
the fact that we cannot qualify for any additional funds from the bank. For now •
our contractor is standing by us as he is a fellow Newport Beach resident and
future neighbor.
I know this letter has been long but this is a very big moment in our lives.
Knowing that the City Council has the power, we are asking that the ordinance
we are in violation of be overridden and my family be allowed to move on with our
lives. I do not believe that the override will set any precedent. Fifty percent of the
houses on the block already have driveways that face the street. These are the
homes that have set the precedent.
I want you to know that we have the support of our immediate neighbors. They
realize that we are going to increase the value of our property two and a half
times. I don't see how this can harm the other neighbors.
There was a clear mistake made by the city staff that is acknowledged by the
recent policy change that has taken place due to our situation. Please don't
punish my family for the city's mistake. A positive change has taken place to
ensure that this will never happen again. We feel that if all the citizens of Newport
Beach knew about our predicament we would have their support. We are now
asking for yours.
Sincerely,
The Higman Family
•
•
T
ALLEY •
Tz
REDLANDS AVEN UE,
Exhibit B
• •
DRIVEWAY APPROACHES
GENERAL
L -2 •
A. A permit will be required prior to any driveway construction within the street
right -of -way. All construction shall conform with the Standard Plans and
Specifications of the City of Newport Beach. Brick, textured concrete or flat stone
surfacing may be used subject to Public Works Department approval. Such
brick, textured concrete or flat stone surfacing may not be used on Bayside Drive.
B. The number of driveway openings shall be kept to a minimum so as to preserve
on- street parking and to reduce the points of traffic conflict.
C. The term "Curb Opening" shall mean the total width of the approach including
the slope distances on the curb. The term "Approach Bottom" shall mean the
total width of the approach less the slope distances on the curbs.
D. Curb openings shall not be constructed closer than 5 feet to the beginning of the
curvature of a curb return, fire hydrant, traffic signal /pedestrian street light, •
utility pole /anchor /pedestal, trees or vent pipe.
E. The entire curb opening shall be within the prolongation of the property lines
except when cross easements provide for a common driveway along the mutual
property line.
�! No permit shall be issued for driveways on Clubhouse Drive, Glen Drive, Balboa
Island or on the ocean side of Ocean Boulevard without City Council approval.
No curb openings will be permitted on Ocean Boulevard when access is available
from an existing alley, street or improved private roadway.
G. No permit shall be issued if the driveway construction requires the removal of a
street tree until such removal has been approved by the General Services
Director.
H. No permit shall be issued if the driveway encroaches on a crosswalk area.
I. No permit shall be issued if the driveway construction requires the relocation of
any public facility such as fire hydrants utility pole /anchor /pedestal, tree, vault,
vent pipes, or street lights until a deposit has been made to cover the cost of
relocation. •
1
Exhibit 'C'
• L -2
J. No permit shall be issued unless the applicant agrees that at no cost to the City
he will remove any driveway opening that is or will be abandoned, and
reconstruct curb, gutter and sidewalk to City Standards.
K. Where practical, difficulties or hardships may result from the strict application of
this policy, minor dimensional variances may be granted with written approval
of the Public Works Director.
L. Nothing herein shall be construed as preventing any person from appealing to
the City Council for relief from the applications of this policy.
M. No building permit shall be issued on a parcel whose access requires City
Council review for an encroachment permit on public property, until said
encroachment permit has been issued.
RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND RESIDENTIAL USES - SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
• A. The width of the driveway approach bottom shall not exceed 20 feet except when
the driveway is to serve an enclosed three or four car garage, in which case the
driveway approach bottom may be increased to 25 feet or 32 feet, respectively.
B. One additional curb opening will be permitted to a single parcel subject to the
following conditions:
1. The total width for all openings shall not exceed 50% of the total frontage
of the parcel.
2. The openings shall be separated by at least 20 feet to retain maximum
street parking.
OCC• Street curb openings shall not be permitted to residential property which abuts
. an alley.
An exception may be made in the case of comer lots where the street on which
the curb cut is proposed is not an arterial street and street frontage is available
for the full depth of the lot, subject to the following conditions:
40 2
L -2 •
1. Access from the street will be permitted where existing structures prevent
full alley access, or additional covered off - street parking is being
provided.
2. The width of the curb opening shall be limited to one -half of the lot depth.
D. Driveway grades must not exceed the listed applicable maximum slope
depending on application. Driveways to lowered or subterranean parking must
rise above the flood level or a minimum of six inches above the flow line of the
street or alley, whichever is greater, before transitioning to a downward slope.
Slope transitions shall be a minimum of five feet in length and the change of
slope cannot exceed eleven percent.
Driveways providing only parking access - Fifteen- percent maximum slope.
Must have access directly from garage into residence.
Driveways providing vehicle and pedestrian access - Eight- percent maximum
slope.
Driveways providing required parking spaces on the driveway itself - Five- •
percent maximum slope.
Minor variations from the listed maximum slopes and slope changes may be
granted by the Traffic Engineer when unusual site conditions are encountered.
PRIVATE STREETS - SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
A. A grading permit will be required prior to the construction of any driveway
apron, sidewalk, curb, gutter or wall within the private street rights -of -way. The
design parameters shall be in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Design
Criteria and Standards for Public Works Construction.
Also, the Public Works Department shall perform a brief review of plans prior to
permit issuance.
B. A Public Works encroachment permit will be required if improvements are to be
constructed within 5 feet of a fire hydrant, street light or other public utility
system appurtenance (i.e., valve boxes or manholes).
3 0
0
• L -2
C. A Public Works encroachment permit will be required when connecting to or
relocating public utilities.
COMMERCIAL USES
A. The width of the driveway approach bottom shall not exceed 35 feet.
B. The total width of all driveways shall not exceed 50% of the frontage of the
parcel.
C. Commercial driveway approaches may use a curb return design with a
maximum curb radius of 25 feet and a driveway approach bottom of greater than
35 feet if the following conditions are satisfied:
1. The driveway serves as an entrance to a parking area or structure for 200
or more vehicles.
2. The number of driveways serving the parcel are at a minimum.
• D. The curb return commercial driveway approach may incorporate a divided exit
and entrance if the separation structure (median island) is continued on -site in
such a manner as to provide proper traffic design.
CLOSURE OF ABANDONED DRIVEWAY APPROACHES BY CITY
The City may close abandoned driveway approaches at high priority locations where
two or more of the following criteria may exist:
A. The abandoned driveway approach is adjacent to a parcel of property where
redevelopment and possible subsequent closure of the approach is not believed
imminent;
B. The driveway approach is at a location where there is a shortage of available
on- street parking;
C. The removal of the driveway approach is needed for safe pedestrian and /or
bicycle passage;
D. The closure of the abandoned driveway approach benefits not so much to the
• property owner as pedestrian and vehicular traffic in the area.
4