HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 1 RED CURB RECON 12-17-901 ? _1 1-9 o
DATE: DECEMBER 10, 1990
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
PUBLIC HEARING N0. 1
12-17-90
Inter - Com
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON RED CURB RECONSTRUCTION AT MUSIC PLUS
PLAZA DEVELOPMENT
RECOMMENDATION:
Pleasure of the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
At the City Council's two previous meetings, the Council
discussed the need for removal of the red zoning on the westerly
side of Newport Avenue adjacent to the San Remo Market at 13682
Newport Avenue. A decision was made by City Council at their
November 19, 1990 meeting to restore on -street parking to a
segment of the red zoned area adjacent to 13682 Newport Avenue.
This area where on -street parking was restored extended from the
northerly edge of the San Remo Market driveway to a point forty-
one feet northerly, which provided on -street parking space for
two automobiles and forty-one feet of red zone.
When the Music Plus Plaza Development was approved as
Conditional Use Permit No. 89-21 by the City Council, certain
traffic mitigation measures were outlined and approved for the
project. One of these measures was the red zoning adjacent to
13682 Newport Avenue to prohibit on -street parking to provide
adequate visibility to westbound Andrews Street motorists when
proceeding across Newport Avenue at Andrews Street.
The attached letter from Mr. Louis Drapac was received on
December 11, 1990 and is attached for the City Councils
information.
DISCUSSION:
The Community Development Department has indicated that if any
mitigation measures, as outlined in the environmental
documentation of the C.U.P. No. 89-21, are modified that these
modifications must be reconsidered through the Public Hearing
process. A Public Hearing on this matter has been advertised
and scheduled for December 17, 1990 at 7:00 P.M. at the Tustin
City Council Chambers. Community Development staff has prepared
the attached documents pertaining to the amendment of the
condition of approval, which required red curbing on adjacent
and subject properties:
1. Negative declaration.
2. Environment Initial Study Form.
3. Resolution certifying the final negative declaration
as adequate for amendment to Conditional Use Permit
No. 89-21.
4. Resolution approving amendment to Conditional Use
Permit No. 89-21, modification to condition 2.3.3 of
City Council Resolution No. 89-102 related to red
curbing on Newport Avenue.
Suggested procedure for public hearing:
1. Mayor announces the reason for and opens the public
hearing for the consideration of amending C.U.P. No.
89-21 by the modification to Condition 2.3.3 of City
Council Resolution No. 89-102.
2. City Council receives public testimony on the proposed
amendment.
3. Mayor closes the public hearing.
4. City Council makes a determination as to whether
C.U.P. should be amended. In the event City Council
determines that C.U.P. No . 89-21 should be amended then
the attached resolutions, No. 90-156 and 90-157, should
be passed and adopted. If it is determined that no
amendment to C.U.P. No. 89-29 is to be made, then no
further action is necessary.
Bob Ledendecker
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
BL: ccg
L OU15 P. DRAPAC
13636 Estero Circle
Tustin, California 92680
(714) 730-9552
December 11, 1990
City of Tustin
Public Works Dept.
Tustin, CA.
Attn: Mr. Robert Ledendecker
RE: Amendment to C.U.P. 89-21
Dear Mr. Lendendecker,
'J
DEC 1990
I have been advised that the City Council has been requested to consider modifications
to the newly painted red curbing on Newport Blvd. in front of the Italian Deli. As a property owner
and resident on Estero Circle (directly off Andrews Street) I must strongly urge the City Council
not to allow modifications to the red curbing The safety of the residence and general public must
outweigh any other concerns.
An open sight line from Andrews Street is critical to driving safety for entering Newport
Blvd. I can personally attest to the fact that on numerous occasions entering Newport Blvd has
been under conditions where my sight has been blocked by parked vehicles in front of the Deli
and therefore subjecting myself and passengers to risks that can be reduced by simply allowing
better vision. Clear vision is most important, especially with increased traffic expected at the
Andrews Street intersection.
The studies completed by your department are based on standards that should not be
comprised, including the most important 'Sight Distance'. Considering the 80 vehicle trips per
hour expected (City inter -corn memo of July 17, 1989) every possible safety measure must be
implemented.
Mr. Ledendecker, I again urge the City Council not approve the requested red curb
modifications. The safety of the public must rot be comprised.
Yours truly,
Louis P. Drapac
cc: William Huston, City Manager
NEGAi IVE DECLARATiJN
CITY OF TUSTIN
300 CENTENNIAL WAY, TUSTIN, CA. 92680
Project Title: AMEND CUP 89-21 File No.
Project Location: 13662 NEWPORT AVE
Project Description: AMEND CONDITION OF APPROVAL WHICH REQUIRED RED-CURBI
ON ADJACENT AND SUBJECT PROPERTIES
Project Proponent: CITY OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
Contact Person: BOB LEDENDECKER Telephone: 544-8890 Ext. 280
The Community Development Department has conducted an initial study for the
above project in accordance with the City of Tustin's procedures regarding
implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, and on the basis of
that study hereby find:
That there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment.
That potential significant affects were identified, but revisions have
been included in the project plans and agreed to by the applicant that
would avoid or mitigate the affects to a point where clearly no
significant effects would occur. Said revisions are attached to and
hereby made a part of this Negative Declaration.
Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required.
The initial study which provides the basis for this determination is on
file at the Community Development Department, City of Tustin. The public
is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this Negative Declaration
during the review period, which begins with the public notice of a
Negative Declaration and extends for seven calendar days. Upon review by
the Community Development Director, this review period may be extended if
deemed necessary.
REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4:30 p.m. on DECEMBER 17, 1990
DATED: //•2g•`%n
nity Development Director
CITY OF TUSTIN
Community Development Department
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY FORM
I. Background
1. Name of Proponent CITY OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent
300 CENTENNIAL WAY
TUSTIN, CA 92680 (714) 544-8890
3. Date of Checklist Submitted NOVEMBER 29, 1990
4. Agency Requiring Checklist CITY OF TUSTIN COMMUNITY DEV, DEPT,
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable AMEND CUP 89-21
II. Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on
attached sheets.)
Yes
Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
X
b.
Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil?
C.
Change in topography or ground surface
relief features?
d.
The destruction, covering or
modification of any unique geologic
or physical features?
X
e.
Any increase in wind or water erosion
of soils, either on or off the site?
X
f.
Changes in deposition or erosion of
beach sands, or changes in siltation,
deposition or erosion which may modify
the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any ban, inlet or
lake?
X
Exposure of people or property to
geologic hazards such as earthquakes,
landslides, mudslides, ground failure,
or similar hazards?
Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emission or
deterioration of ambient air quality?
The creation of objectionable odors?
Alteration of air movement, moisture,
or temperatures, or any change in
climate, either locally or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
h.
Changes in currents, or the course
of direction of water movements,
in either marine or fresh water?
Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters,
or in any alteration of surface water
quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of ground waters?
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct additions
or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X__
X
X
X
4.
5.
20
VB
Yes Maybe No
i. Exposure of people or property to
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? X
C. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? X
d. Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat? X
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? X
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
levels? X
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light or glare? X
water related hazards such as flooding
or tidal waves?
X
Plant
Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or
number of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic
plants) ?
x
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants?
X
C.
Introduction of new species of plants
into an area, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
X
d.
Reduction in acreage of any
agricultural crop?
X
Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)?
X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? X
C. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? X
d. Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat? X
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? X
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
levels? X
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light or glare? X
Yes Maybe No
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in
a substantial alteration of the present
or planned land use of an area? X
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resources?
X
b. Substantial depletion of any
nonrenewable natural resource?
X
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including, but
not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals
or radiation) in the event of an accident
or upset conditions?
X
b. Possible interference with an
emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan?
X
11. Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
X
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
X
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? X
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking?
X-
C. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems? X
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
X
14.
15.
16.
Yes Maybe No
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
X
f.
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
_X
Public
services. Will the proposal have
an
effect upon, or result in a need for new
or
altered governmental services in any of
the
following areas:
a.
Fire protection?
X
b.
Police protection?
X
C.
Schools?
X
d.
Parks or other recreational facilities?
X
e.
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
X
f.
Other governmental services?
X
Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy?
X
b.*
Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of
energy?
X
Utilities. Will the proposal result in a
need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a.
Power or natural gas?
X
b.
Communications systems?
X
C.
Water?
X
d.
Sewer or septic tanks?
X
e.
Storm water drainage?
X
f.
Solid waste and disposal?
X
17.
i
20.
21.
Yes Maybe No
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)? _X
b. Exposure of people to potential
health hazards? —X
Solid Waste. Will the proposal create
additional solid waste requiring disposal
by the City? __x_
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in
the obstruction of any scenic vista or view
open to the public, or will the proposal
result in the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities? �.
Cultural Resources
a. Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction of
a prehistoric or historic archaeological
site?
b. Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
C. Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? X_
Yes Maybe No
22. Mandatory Findings of significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment
substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory? X
b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-
term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive
period of time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future). X
C. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
siderable? (A project may impact on two
or more separate resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is significant.)
X
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? X
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
IV. Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency) SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a
significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have
a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measure described on an attached sheet have
been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL
BE PREPARED X
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect
on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required.
1--) "1 --- � -4 F
Noll F--' - J L
Date Signature /
EXHIBIT A
INITIAL STUDY RESPONSES FOR
AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-21
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed amendment includes reconsideration of Condition 2.3.3
of City Council Resolution No. 89-102 which required, in part, the
installation of red curbing on Newport Avenue from the second
driveway south of Andrews Street (professional office building
entry) up to the northerly access drive on Main Street (project
entry on Main Street). The proposed amendment would consider to
modify, delete or retain all or portions of said condition.
An Initial Study was conducted and Negative Declaration prepared
and certified by the City Council by adoption of Resolution No. 89-
101 on July 17, 1989 for the entire project which consisted of a
proposed 18,200 square foot retail center located at 13662 Newport
Avenue.
All discussion in this Initial Study relates only to the subject
amendment to Condition No 2.3.3 of City Council Resolution No. 89-
102. Check list items 1 - 12 and 14 - 21 are not affected by the
proposed amendment and the July 17, 1989 Initial Study related to
the original project is hereby incorporated into this Initial Study
by reference.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
13. Transportation/Circulation
a. The proposed amendment would have no impact on the
generation of substantial additional vehicular movement.
The original project Initial Study dated July 17, 1989
identified that the entire project would create
additional vehicular movement in the area. However, the
level of impact, based upon the size and use of the
project would not create significant increases in demand
based upon the City Traffic Engineer's review of the
project. The Traffic Engineer conducted a study of
traffic counts at the Newport Avenue/Main Street and
Newport Avenue/Andrews Street intersections to identify
queuing distances, signalization cycles and stacking.
Counts were made of Newport (northbound) stacking across
the Andrews Street intersection to identify the rate of
compliance with the existing "Keep Clear" pavement
marker. A 50% rate of compliance was observed.
In the July 17, 1989 Initial Study, the Traffic Engineer
also studied the potential trip generation to be expected
by the project including reviewing the Andrews Street
intersection at Newport to identify existing and
potential stacking and left turn movements to southbound
Exhibit A
Initial Study Responses for
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 89-21
Newport Avenue. Standard traffic generation rates were
applied against existing land uses and the square footage
of the proposed project to identify potential impacts.
Based on this analysis, the original project would
generate a maximum of 80 vehicle trips at a.m. and p.m.
peak hours as compared to 15 peak hour vehicle trips for
existing uses on the site. The Andrews left turn
movement would not be expected to exceed four vehicles
stacked at any one time and then only during worse case
conditions. Also, the peak hours of the existing traffic
patterns (7-9 and 4-6) are anticipated to be different
from those of the proposed center. Additionally, special
land use restrictions were applied with the original
project to prohibit auto parts, convenience and other
"peak hour" traffic generating uses. While impacts were
not expected to be significant, certain conditions
related to driveway alignments, pavement markings, red
curbing and signs on Newport Avenue, Main Street and
Andrews Street were applied to reduce potential traffic
hazards (sources: City of Tustin Traffic Engineer's
Report, Site Plan, Field Conditions).
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring - All mitigation
Measures originally stated in the July 17, 1989
Initial Study have been implemented or are in the
process of being implemented, with the exception of
the subject amendment to reinvestigate the actual
limits of the required red curbing along Newport
Avenue and Main Street. As a mitigation measure to
the proposed amendment, the City Traffic Engineer
and City Council shall fully evaluate the extent of
red curbing along Newport Avenue and Main Street
necessary to provide adequate site distance
requirements for movements from Andrews Street.
b. The original July 17, 1989 Initial Study addressed
parking demand and requirements. The proposed amendment
does not affect parking for the project (source: July 17,
1989 Initial Study)
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring - None Required.
C. As previously state in item "a" above, the Traffic
Engineer identified potential impacts related to the
existing circulation system. While impacts were not
expected to be significant, certain conditions related to
Exhibit A
Initial Study Responses for
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 89-21
driveway alignments, pavement markings, red curbing and
signs on Newport Avenue, Main Street and Andrews Street
were incorporated into the project to reduce potential
traffic hazards (sources: City of Tustin Traffic
Engineer's Report, Site Plan, Field Conditions).
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring - As stated in item
"a" above.
d.- f. The original July 17, 1989 Initial Study did not
identify any impacts associated with these items.
The proposed amendment also does not affect these
items (source: July 17, 1989 Initial Study)
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring - None
Required.
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance - As discussed in the items
above, the proposed amendment to CUP 89-21 involves
modification to a previous condition of approval which
required, in part, the installation of red curbing on Newport
Avenue from the second driveway south of Andrews Street
(professional office building entry) up to the northerly
access drive on Main Street (project entry on Main Street).
The proposed mitigation measures to require the City Traffic
Engineer and City Council shall fully evaluate the extent of
red curbing along Newport Avenue and Main Street necessary to
provide adequate site distance requirements for movements from
Andrews Street would reduce the potential impacts to a level
of insignificance (sources: As previously noted).
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring - As previously noted.
DF:kbc\music.mis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24'
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 90-156
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CERTIFYING THE FINAL
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR
AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
89-21, INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDING
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby
resolve as follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. Amendment to conditional Use Permit 89-21 is
considered a "project" pursuant to the terms
of the California Environmental Quality Act.
B. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for
this project and has been distributed for
public review.
C. Whereby, the City Council of the City of
Tustin has considered evidence presented by
the Community Development Director and other
interested parties with respect to the
subject Negative Declaration.
D. The City Council has evaluated the proposed
final Negative Declaration and determined it
to be adequate and complete.
II. A Final Negative Declaration has been completed
in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines.
The City Council, having final approval authority
over Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 89-21,
has received and considered the information
contained in the Negative Declaration prior to
approving the proposed project and found that it
adequately discussed the environmental effects of
the proposed project. On the basis of the
initial study and comments received during the
public review process, the City Council has found
that there is no substantial evidence that there
will be any significant adverse environmental
effects as a result of the approval of the
project because mitigation measures identified
in the Negative Declaration have been
incorporated into the project which mitigates
any potential significant environmental effects
to a point of insignificance identified in
Exhibit A to the attached Negative Declaration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 90-156
Page 2
and initial study are adopted as conditions of
Resolution No. 90-156 incorporated herein by
reference.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Tustin City Council, held on the 17th day of
December, 1990.
RICHARD EDGAR
Mayor
MARY WYNN
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF TUSTIN )
CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 90-156
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the
City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does
hereby certify that the whole number of the members of
the City Council is five; that the above and foregoing
Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted
at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
17th day of December, 1990 by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10'
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 90-157
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING AMENDMENT TO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-21, MODIFICATION
TO CONDITION 2.3.3 OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
NO. 89-102 RELATED TO RED CURBING ON NEWPORT
AVENUE.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby
resolve as follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. That Amendment to Conditional Use Permit
89-21 was initiated by the City Council,
requesting reconsideration of Condition
2.3.3 of City Council Resolution No. 89-
102 related to red curbing on Newport
Avenue from Main Street to the
professional office building driveway
south of Andrews Street.
B. A public hearing was duly called, noticed
and held on December 17, 1990 by the City
Council.
C. That establishment, maintenance and operation
of the use applied for will not, under the
circumstances of this case, be detrimental to
the health, safety, morals, comfort, or
general welfare of the persons residing or
working in the neighborhood of such proposed
use, in that the proposed red curbing would
improve conditions for vehicles exiting
Andrews Street onto Newport Avenue from the
previously existing conditions where no red'
curbing was installed on Newport Avenue. This
treatment in conjunction with other traffic
mitigation conditions identified in City
Council Resolution 89-102, which still
remain in full effect, would address impacts
associated with development of 13662 Newport
(CUP 89-21).
D. That the establishment, maintenance and
operation of the use applied for will not be
injurious or detrimental to the property and
improvements in the neighborhood of the subject
property, nor to the general welfare of the
City of Tustin in that the proposed red curbing
would still provide some on -street parking thus
reducing impacts associated with the loss of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 i
28
Resolution No. 90-157
Page 2
on -street parking for those businesses
immediately adjacent to Newport Avenue.
E. A Negative declaration has been filed in
conformance with the California Environmental
Quality Act.
II. The City Council hereby approves Amendment to
Conditional Use Permit 89-21 modifying Condition
2.3.3 of City Council Resolution 89-102 to read as
follows:
"Red curbs shall be installed along Newport Avenue
from 41 feet south of Andrews Street to the
northerly access drive on Main Street (project
entry on Main Street). A 20 minute parking zone
shall be created on Newport Avenue from the first
driveway south of Andrews Street (San Remo
Market) up to 41 feet south of Andrews Street.
Additionally, red curbing along the north side of
Andrews Street between the easterly project
property line to Newport Avenue shall be
installed. The Traffic Engineer shall determine
whether or not some limited parking will be
provided on the north side of Andrews Street
either for vehicle loading purposes (maximum 20
minute parking) or unlimited parking. All red
curbing shall be installed prior to issuance of
a certificate of occupancy and all costs for the
works shall be paid for by the developer by
filing a cash deposit in the appropriate amount
for such improvements with the City Public Works
Department.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Tustin City Council, held on the 17th day of December,
1990.
MARY WYNN
City Clerk
RICHARD EDGAR
Mayor