The URL can be used to link to this page

SR-402-002 (31) '~":;II'."""""""""" ~.~ ,,~.~-;:~-~~:;:---,~ --~-------'...~..?,:! 71_~..~_" -:.~-;~~~~^-.........~~~ -,. .~; ~ Exhibit 2: Current Parking and Access on 15th St. Court alley . 6 ,.. ~ t; 1I 5 3 As residents, our daily experience may be at odds with traffic count mathematics and zoning requirements, but we believe it is more reliable. Our daily experience is that increased traffic of any size and kind in the 15th Street Court alley would dramatically worsen an already cluttered and congested situation. Please refer also to the memo (Appendix B of the draft EIR and Appendix A of this response) from Maureen E. Hosier for a deeper discussion of the safety issues with respect to the alley, These issues also were not addressed in the body of the report, including safety of people who walk through the alley (mostly middle school children) and the added traffic in the alley from retail establishments on Montana. This does not include the added traffic from the subterranean garage in the new retail space currently under construction at Montana and 15th St. Court alley. We strongly urge that the Santa Monica City requirement that the proposed project utilize the alley for the additional traffic it will generate be altered to have traffic flow in and out from the front of the site on 16th Street. Unlike other streets in the area, 16th Street is very wide while 15th Street Court, as explained above, is overused and exceptionally narrow. 2. Parking Parking is already a very significant problem on 16th Street and the adjacent streets. The report fails to address this issue except to note that two visitor parking spaces 7 ~~ OL54 are included in design of the project. Exhibit 3, page 9 shows the current parking situation on 16th Street on different days and times of the week. Planners note: th~ City of Santa Monica has already informed residents of the 800 block on 16th Street and all other adjacent blocks that they could petition for preferential parking in the area by mailing a Preferential Parking Citizen Handbook and accompanying materials to all residents in the area. These materials provide background and written instructions for petitioning for preferential parking zones on a block by block basis. This action, while not yet taken, is proposed because parking spaces on the street are already at a great premium. Indeed, people who live on adjacent streets must often park their cars on 16th Street and we believe the reverse is true as well. Thus, if all of the cars on the 15th Street Court alley had to park on the street (as they would certainly have to do if the proposed project goes forward), there will be even fewer places to park for those residents the area who do not currently have garage or carport parking, whether they have parking permits or not. 8 \.; 5 5.. ~~ :hi bit Crowded pa k~ Ig 6'h Street '.J The proposed project calls for 22 parking stalls in a subterranean garage that is accessed from the 15th Street Court alley. Two of these places are for visitors. Mysteriously, the draft report states: Although the addition of project traffic results in a significant impact, the project- related volumes are exceedingly low, with 2 new trips per day on Idaho Avenue west of the alley access, 8 new trips per day in Idaho A venue between the alley and 16th Street, and 1 new trip per day projected on Idaho Avenue between 16th and 17th Streets. No reasonable mitigation is available to address this impact. The language of the report obscures two issues: · Any additional traffic impact in and around the alley will very significantly and adversely affect the residents who already need to use the alley. · The proposed project with 22 parking spaces cannot realistically be expected to generate only 11 new round trips per day as claimed in the draft report. This second issue deserves further discussion. The project developer, Norm Salter, states that he expects to offer the proposed condominiums at a price of $750,000 each. We may assume, therefore, that buyers of such units will be very affluent. The size of the condominiums-approximately 1300-1400 square feet with two bedrooms-would likely attract childless couples as buyers because two-incomes would probably be required to support a mortgage of this size and because the space would be less appealing to affluent couples with families. Mathematically, then, 10 units x 2 cars + 2 visitors = 22 cars. Such 10 H'Jil C.057 a demographic suggests not 1+ trip per unit per day, but, rather, at least one trip per person per day or 22 trips minimum per day. Compare this number with the present situation at 834-838 16th Street. There are currently three dwellings, two of which are occupied by people who drive (a woman in her 90s occupies the third). Of the two drivers, one walks to and from work and is away nearly every weekend leaving a net traffic impact of 1 trip per day. We calculate the difference in traffic between 1 (current) and 22 (proposed) to be 22 times greater than at present. Continuing with this line of reasoning, it is claimed in the report that the alternative versions of the project (8 units and 6 units respectively) "would not avoid significant neighborhood traffic impacts." The latter impacts would be less significant," according to the draft EIR. Continuing with the above assumptions, 8 and 6 units would generate between 18 and 14 additional trips per day (if everyone goes and comes only once) and these represent respectively 18 and 14 times of the current state respectively. The draft report fails entirely to take into account the associated need for on-street visitor/delivery parking that will result from any of the possible alternatives. This need will not be fully met by the two required visitor stalls in the subterranean garage, though such may well fulfill the City's zoning laws. Thus, parking on 16th Street and adjacent streets will be seriously and adversely impacted by the proposed project. Finally, the draft seems to imply that the LOS at intersections is not severely impacted by the project and therefore traffic concerns are not a problem. Table 3-1, page 11 ...58 3-5 of the draft EIR indicates that travel through all of the nearby intersections occurs with a few seconds delay. We dispute these findings. The time delays at each of these intersections are typically longer than those stated. Often, one cannot get onto Montana at all until all the signals one and two blocks away have stopped traffic. Thus, delays can sometimes add up to two minutes or more on an ordinary afternoon. As one example of its failure to account for real traffic situations, the draft EIR cites a figure of 0.6-second delay at 16th and Montana (Table 3-1, page 3-5), where there is a stop sign. This delay figure is preposterous at any time of day. It takes longer than 0.6 seconds to come to a full stop and then resume speed even when there is no traffic. The 17th Street intersection discussed on page 3-10 is largely irrelevant to the traffic patterns ofthe residents on 16th Street. We believe additional steps should be taken to slow and redirect traffic on 16th Street including additional stop signs and signs directing traffic from retail parking facilities toward Montana rather than toward 16th Street. Recommendations with respect to Traffic, Circulation and Parking: · Allow variance to zoning requirement on alley (rear) access to permit street (front) access to the subterranean parking area of the proposed development. . Include additional visitor parking in the subterranean garage. . Reduce the number of units in the proposed project. 12 :>1" OG59 · Install stop signs at 15th and Idaho in the north/south direction. Add Right Turn Only signs at the exits to the lots behind retail establishments at Itf' and Montana to slow and divert traffic. AESTHETICS/SHADE AND SHADOW Please refer to pages 2-8 and 1-10 in the draft EIR and to Exhibit 4, page 14-15 below as you read this section of the response, 1. Important areas not depicted or discussed in the draft report lead to false conclusion about the character of the neighborhood and the project impact. Page 2-8 of the draft EIR purports to be an accurate depiction of the 800 block of 16th Street. However, please note that the single family house on the northeast end of the block, the two buildings on the southeast end of the block, and the house on the west comer at 16th and Idaho are not included in the photo montage. Thus, the report leaves the impression that the neighborhood is less dense than it is and that there are only two single family homes in the neighborhood, those to be demolished. In fact, there are five such homes in addition to those to be demolished, though some have additional apartments at the rear of the property, Thus, despite being zoned or multi-family residences, the 13 ~. OliGO Exhibit 4' 800~900 B ockg 16th Street L\ b npp~~Hran('e of th nei~hhforh4)()d presf."nt", Uu~ bwer d/nll.:;:~':Y e1lU'~' of tlmel'ou,," ..ing:lfi' f~mllil~' hnnH~~ and h) FIse, (~.storv >;tt'Ui~tl! mixed" '!vi th some two-Sl() ry .'~P\'II'h11~rlt buildin~~ (Ex.hil1i pa.f2;e 4- n1l :). Thfi llpp'~~m:mce em'll 1:11 tl ae. I n:.:ej res ~f s pac H1usm~:'is th: I' h rall iElnd thHI to prospect! fe~ld(', It h) those 1110 to tai the olJsness fmd pIT Chi:!!. tJ r~s.) CS :!1 ffmd MOo grufi ~hTrd hiltn fheupper page ~fLhe draft EI R (!.lU" to ,,1m thf'; prolleFfy Unl~ he4"m H44 (I'1ll anrl the Jlmpn'l<i.'d project, This ,::trn.ll ,:"> als.~ iscussed in th report, 'et it is i~r thl~ t".'o nlUst l'ii~ni.tkrulUy imlltls::h',,:1 by l,heproposed pmJect 'tll he: ng Ihl": atl:hr:: y ne on Ihc. pn:JICc S1h Hu:, fifth ph ~he upper Pk:1'\;(~ refer In EX.hihi ht~lo' :or an urate thil fUCl1i and lote th: I mr:~ 11H~ : I t pr'f\~(:,T1 fnmfl Ihl'~ Ir~f'.t thl ::~ ppf';~ nm r:,,:, If gl mm lell Twlc.r'd, penp 110 2" Di proporU nate size proposed ndom 1m d'irlfsloprnent ref rn rlu", ::md J ,(.Jt i rll'~ El gllr r~ IhH TIll rele pn')po an ITI'!l th: ha,iH~d till high f'; Ian ~eet. Thl llnd pl. at IJ~el.. :~.n d rh the adJ pl'ope.rty ~44 ~rfli tf:el- Th~ ptojecl Hbut~ qhe prnpert}f Exhibit 5: Property line and garden area at 844 16th Street 17 ,.. w (j v S 4 G 844 16th Street and is both in size and proportion entirely out of keeping with the adjacent structure and the predominant single story/single family home appearance in the neighborhood. Thus, the higher than normal ground plane of the proposed development will exaggerate this problem. Both in appearance and in fact, the proposed development will dwarf the adjacent structure at 844 16th Street as well as the majority of other structures in the neighborhood, Indeed, on page 4-4, the draft EIR acknowledges this problem in its assessments of alternative developments of a smaller size: The [20 percent reduction in size] design would convey a feeling of single- story residences and would be comparable with the surrounding neighborhood character. [page 4-4, paragraph 2, draft EIR] With respect to a 40 percent reduction in project size, the draft report states: This configuration would reduce the size, bulk, and density of the project and would have less of an aesthetic impact than the proposed project. [page 4-4, Draft EIR, Aesthetics/Shade and Shadow]....Residential structures built on the site would be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood character and would not interfere with day-to-day activity of the neighborhood. [page 4-5, Draft EIR, Neighborhood Effects] Thus, the disproportionate size of the proposed oversize project raises serious aesthetic concerns, even among independent experts. 19 ~, OUG6 As residents, we are especially concerned about this disproportionate size of the project. By dwarfing the surrounding structures and by occupying too large a footprint, the proposed project damages the sense of spaciousness and intimacy that currently characterizes the neighborhood and adversely impacts both the sense and fact of privacy at 844 16th Street, as shown in Exhibit 5 above. The design of the proposed project places private spaces facing toward adjacent properties and creates a situation in which the residents at 844 16th Street will be looking directly into the bedrooms of the neighbors or will be unavoidably included in the outside activities of their new neighbors. This is particularly true of unit 6 at 844 16th Street, where the balcony is on the property line [Exhibit 6, page 21 below]. If adjacent development does not observe a 9' -10' setback at all levels, the security and privacy of 844 16th Street, Unit 6 could be seriously jeopardized. 20 ~HI'l C 11 6 1 6' Balcony security and privacy a!tS44 16th Street \) t; ~ .~~ ~_~ ~1 ~~~. 3. Shade and Shadows Please refer to 5, page 17-18 above. Again, these photographs depict the walkway and entrances at 844 16th Street that are immediately adjacent to the proposed project. Notice that the walkways and patios are landscaped with trees, plantings, and flowers. Units 2-6 of this 6-unit building open directly onto this walkway and have their individual patios at this location as well. This area provides the primary exterior light source for these units (the units have much smaller windows on the south side of the building). Thus, if units 2-6 were to be deprived of any light either through shadow or the construction of a 6' -8' wall as described in the draft report, there would be a significant reduction in the attractiveness, vallle, and,qllality of life in these units. Jncieed, the construction of such a wall would convert a quiet garden area into a prison yard. This is a serious aesthetic defect and one to which We stronglyobjecCPlease note that these considerations are not addressed in the text of the draft report or the shadow diagrams on pages 3-19 and 3-20. Please note that we do not object to taller plantings, but rather to the effects of a very high wall. 4. Privacy Please refer to the elevation drawings on pages 2-12 and 2-13 of the draft EIR. As described above, the patios and balconies of the proposed project abut the neighboring property at 844 16th Street making a once quiet, private area subject to unwanted noise 22 ~." 0\.;69 and other intrusions. Indeed, the proposed design virtually guarantees that non-ambient noise and other intrusions from the proposed units will directly impact both the public and private areas at 844 16th Street. Were the front entrances of the proposed units to face outward instead of inward, this problem could be solved. Another multi-lot property on the street at number 812 uses this model successfully. 5. Glare We strongly concur in the report finding that any and all lighting and any reflective surface should be treated in such a way that the adjacent properties are not subject to their effects either directly or indirectly. 6. Landscaping adjacent to the project Residents on both sides of the proposed project have mature trees and other foliage located at the property line. We wish to keep these landscape features intact and are very concerned that root systems will be damaged leading to the death of the trees [Exhibit 7, page 24]. Obviously, we do not want this to happen, We are not aware of any provision for the care of and/or replacement of these important environmental features and want to assure that such provision is made. 23 0'-'70 7' Trees property Une at 828. a.nd 844 161h Street .... ( Recommendations with respect to Aesthetics/Shade and Shadow · Mandate that average ground level be based on the lowest rather than the highest point on the property thereby further reducing the height of the proposed project by several feet. · Mandate a 40 percent size reduction for the project (6 units) and a low-rise design consistent with the overall appearance and character of the existing neighborhood. · Approve a design that has entrances to the units in the new development facing outward toward adjacent properties rather than inward so that private outdoor spaces face toward the center area of the proposed development rather than outward toward adjacent neighbors. · Assure a minimum setback of 9 feet from public walkways and private patios at 828 and 844 1~ Street (adjacent properties) to minimize impact of proposed project to the quality of living at these locations. · Require that wall height between the development and the adjacent property at 844 16th Street be kept to 5 feet. Mandate that any and all necessary measures be taken to assure that glare and lighting at 834-838 is strictly limited to that site. Require protection of adjacent landscape features at 828 and 844 16th Street. 25 ,*- OlJ72 HISTORIC RESOURCES In assessing the historic relevance of the two properties in question, the draft report appears to rely entirely on a letter from Christy Johnson McAvoy, Managing Principal, Historical Resources Group. Ms. McAvoy suggests that on the basis of existing surveys, the property at 838 16th Street does not appear to qualify as an historic site. However, McAvoy notes in paragraph 4 of her letter that her conclusions rely on a site visit an existing documents, the most recent of which is dated six years ago. McAvoy states: Since Phase 3 [of the Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory] survey was conducted six years ago, it is appropriate to reevaluate the subject properties both as individual resources and as contributors to a potential historic district. [Appendix E, draft EIR] Recommendation with respect to Historic Resources · We request that the Landmarks Commission be asked to evaluate the site and provide the residents in the area with a written statement of its views regarding the historic value of the structure at 838 16th Street. 26 .... C1173 ;~~f~_~;~~_'_~_,~~_ -'::;;'- -,,~. ~,,->~~ -~~; CONSTRUCTION The draft EIR acknowledges that the proposed project will create noise, obstruction, pollution, traffic and parking interference. This kind of interference presents significant problems for the residents of the neighborhood, particularly those who live at 844 16th Street. Four of the six units at this address alone have residents whose work is based in their homes. Their livelihoods will be adversely impacted by the conditions created during construction. Two other residents are profoundly allergic to dust, and the construction project will create health problems for them. Needless to say, we do not look forward to a large and very intrusive project. That said, we do understand that tile developer is within his rights build. Regrettably, the developer on this project has earned a very poor reputation in this neighborhood as well as a lawsuit for his cavalier treatIl1efifof residents and for the overwhelming size of his recent project on 17th Street. In that instance, he failed to maintain the construction site, ignored the needs of residents during the construction, gave residents false information regarding the size and scope of the project, and caused many difficulties for neighbors. We do not intend to repeat this experience on 16th Street. We understand that the developer doesn't wish to incur expenses for a landscape he intends to obliterate, but meanwhile he has not demonstrated any concern for neighbors or the appearance of an otherwise well-tended neighborhood. Since taking 27 "'" ~ (J I.i 7 4 . possession of the properties under consideration, the developer has failed to maintain their attractiveness. Lawns and plantings have not been watered since the developer closed escrow over two years ago presenting a sere, weed-filled landscape. Though gardeners do come weekly to mow the brown grass, the current tenant at 834 had the yard and flower beds cleaned at her own expense-a major task. A derelict car, which belonged to the previous owner, continues to litter the backyard at 838 16th Street in violation of city codes [Exhibit 8, page 29]. 28 ~w f)l.'75 Exhibit 8: Maintenance is a consistent problem. . 29 "1"1 CLJ76 Recommendations with respect to Construction: In addition to the mitigation measures defined in the draft report, we request the following measures be taken should this project go forward. · An ombudsman on site with the authority and ability to take remedial measures be employed to deal with problems that arise in the course of the project. This may include, but not be limited to, noise abatement, cleanup, obstruction, and damage to adjacent property. This person should be available by phone at all times including weekends. · Workers should be shuttled to the site so that they do not use up available parking spaces on the street. Their hours must be strictly limited to weekdays, 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Workers will will not sit, stand, or litter on adjacent properties at any time. They will not play radios, electronic devices, or vehicle radios at any time on or around the construction site. . No construction work will be permitted on Saturday or Sunday so that residents can enjoy the peaceful use of their property. . Professionals will handle asbestos abatement and no demolition will be undertaken unless they are present. We would like written certification from the city that this matter has been handled with every possible precaution. We are very concerned for the long term health of those who live in the neighborhood. 30 ~* 1.7i · Adjacent property including sidewalks, streets, alley, and buildings will be cleaned at the developer's expense. Any damages resulting from the construction project will be repaired at the developer's expense. · The developer will maintain the site in a clean and orderly manner and will clean up mud, dirt, and debris promptly and on a daily basis. No debris, mud, dirt or any other materials associated with the construction project will at any time be moved to adjacent properties or public access ways. · The developer will be liable for any damage caused to adjacent sites or property or individuals by the construction project or its workers and will compensate them promptly, including landscaping and trees on adjacent properties. · Residents will have access to their garages, carports, and property at all times. NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECTS We believe the construction plan that would reduce the size of the development by 40 percent would have the least negative impact on the neighborhood and its residents for the reasons discussed above. Recommendation with respect to Neighborhood Effects: . We urge decision-makers to support the 40 percent size reduction alternative for the proposed project. 31 ~. 0\..78 APPENDIX A :":~~~:,,~~"h-:.-__A~._-~ ;:j;~ -.~~;-:-"'-~~ ;....~ Memo from Maureen E. Hosier, Ph.D. 32 ~ ,,-79 TO: City of Santa Monica RE: 834-838 16th St Santa Monica. CA 90403 Date: Feb. 9.2002 Environmental Factor. NeighborhoOd Effects My unders1anding is that the entry to the garages of these 10 new units WDuld be through the alley between 15'" and 16" streets. I also understand that the City of Santa Monica has mandated this specitic entry on the previous Proposal of the builders. My unders1anding too Is that the reason for this mandate Is that the City Is eonSidaring the safety of children walking to school and the dlffieulties at driveway entrances of Seeing pedestrians. I would like to address this issue with several thoughts. These are the facts: Currently, eve~ residence on the west side of 16" street has a driveway on 16" street. There are nine driveway entrances on the west side of 16" street (8 driveways InclUding the two residences to be tom down, and one retail entrance). These InclUde 2 eondo entrances. There apprOlClmately 25 or more cars exiting and entering these condos driveways. Therefore there are approximately 35 oars exiting and entering from the residential driveways and many more from the retail dilveway (Montana Cafe . bloel<). We are talkIng apprOximately 70 exits and entrances (of cara) on this aide of 16th str&e~ There are 5 driveways on the east side of 16" street (4 driveways, one retail entrance) !with those 4 driveways being multi resident units or apartments. I am unsure as to the ~urnber of apartment buildings in thesa units, but lets say there are 20 cars entering land exiting these driveways. Therefore there are approxinjately 21 cars entering and exiling this side of the street with many more from the retab driveway at the "Room With a \i1ew". Again we are talking aPProximately 42 entrances and exita on the east si@ of 1eU! street. 1!here are apprOximately 20 cars Or less elliting and enteririg the aney </ail! for a total 0'40 or less. There will be Possibly a 15-20 car (1 0 units, 2 cars) times 2 daily exits and entries, therefore, approximately a 30 to 40 car increase of traffic or more (60 cars has even been mentioned) on either the street or the alley WI1ichever is determined to be the safest. . ,~. iIllt Concerns: To mandate entry to the garages for the new project at B~4 and 836 1SlJl street to be on the alley would absolutely disregard the safety objective that the City is trying to meet. A forty to sixty increase in cars traveling through the alley diminishes the children's safety on the alley. And there are children walking to school in our alley. Currently, if the entry to the new project of 10 condos were to be on 16'" street. the alley would continue to be very safe to walk down going to and from school. The children would have their safe place to walk to and from school. If entry was to be on the alle~. the allev now would have 80 to 100 cars travelina back and forth on the allev. Now, not such a safe place to walk. Currently, the west aide of 16th street is the most dangerous side of the street, with the east side less 80, and the alley.the aaf8$t, unless the new condo project funnels their geoDle onto the allev. There are other issues: There are two entrances to this alley. The most dangerous exit or entrance would be the Montana entrance be~ause the cars would have to cross a pedestrian sidewalk there between 15th and 16" street, a highly trafficked walkway area and an area that is not easily viewed by drivers because of the building that is right on the southeast comer (with a new building being built as we speak on the southwest corner). This situation makes this a highly dangerous area because of the pedestrians that will be walking across the alley without too much awareness that this alley has now become a street This is an extremely dangerous proposition to increase traffic across this sidewalk. This is a critical but similar safety issue to the one that has made the City mandate that entrances to garages must now be on the alley because of their concern for children walking to school. The chances of an accident at this sidewalk at Montana Ave. have been increased by 35 to 40 to 60 cars a day, In addition, the noise pollution from the alley would cause a significant increase and detrimental impact upon the alley neighbors as well. If tl1e parking entrances stay on 16th street, the noise pollution would not be impacted because 16!tl street is the expected entrance to these residences and already carries the brunt of the noise pollution and norma! street traffic. Another issue is that tne alley, at this time, is already not easily traversed by cars with the garbage cans being le~ in the alley by the garbage trucks and by the cars that are parked, and will be made even more difficult when several cars are passing one another going different directions. This is already a problem and will become more of a problem when we add 40 or more cars to the alley traffic pattern. Finally: ~. 0'-'81 '-- I WOuld like to think that these issues will be considered by the City cf Santa Monica rather than be disregarded just because the City Wanta ~ demand a blanket apProach. rather than a thoUghtful approach, to each SituatIon. eaCh situation is unique and our situation demands very Serious consideration cf very serious safety factors and Potential liability issues, as well as impact of the noIse ~lIution to more than 20 families. : Please do not disregard these concerns in favor of a mandated approach to making the entrances on the alley to these new condOminium projects. The safety issues have been addressed by this letter and have been solved in favor of the City's developmental and safety objectives. The liabliity issues, the noise Pollution, and limited space for maneuverability are Very critical factors as well. Please consider my concerns and.thoughts. The City wants the children who walk to and from school to be safe. They are the safest by having the entrance to the garage for 834 and 838 16~ street to be on the street side, not!/'.e alley. I think most residents invoived here have given up on thl~ issue with the City, not UnderstandIng why the City has decided to go ahead with:!he garages on the alley and feeling hopeless about your thoughtftJl consideration about the Impact on OUr specific neighborhood, Please do not disaPPoint us. I have addressed and Salved your safety concerns, and met your objectiVes. I have also met and solved OUr safety concerns, OUr llnvironmental COncerns, and OUr noise pollution concerns; thank you In adVance. If you have any qUestions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 310--479-0901. Maureen E. Hosier, Ph.D. 8~4 1611) Street #8, Santa Monica 904Q3 ~~--.. ~ ffi ~/;9J./) 3/0 v.r; 7.r-/c; i'.\. 81,.82 APPENDIX B CITY OF SANTA MONICA PREFERENTIAL PARKING CITIZEN HANDBOOK 33 '''' ~ 'I V 8 3 ""'" ...~~ . e Transportation Management Division 1685 Main Street - Room 115 PO Box 2200 Santa Monica, California 90407-2200 Phone: 310/458-8291 Sa... !tl..l...' Preferential Parking Citizen Handbook Preferential Parking Zones are parking zones in residential areas that specifically limit on-street parking to area residents with a permit. The Preferential Parking Zone may be a total or partial restriction with various times the particular zone is in effect. The c1~,sign,~tion proCElss is initiated by a petition si9ned~Y..J~~identslivi(\9intwo...th\f(\s of the dwellin~niB"eomprising not less than 50 percent of the developed frontage of the area proposed for designation to the City Parking and Traffic Engineer. Upon receipt of the pet\t\on the City Parking and Traffic Engineer shall verify the petition and undertake surveys or studies as deemed necessary_to determine whether a street or area should be designed a Preferential Parking Zone. ' The surveys and studies shall determine that: 1. Non-resident vehicles substantially and regularly interfere with the use of the majorit~ of available public street, 2. Non-resident' vehicles' interference occurs at regular and significant daily or weekly intervals, 3, Non-resident vehicles parked in the area of the proposed zone cause or are the source of unreasonable noise, traffic hazards, environmental pollution, or devaluation of real property in the area of the proposed zone, 4, No unreasonable displacement of non-resident vehicles will result into surrounding neighborhoods, 5. A shortage of reasonably available and convenient residential related parking spaces exists in the area of the proposed zone, and 6. A.ltemative solutions are not feasible or practical, " , ;.' ~.: ',...t...:-.;.~~+.;... =).::..i.~ ......~.::: ~..~...) If the proposed Preferential Parking Zone meets the criteria. the City Staff will recommend to the City Council adoption of the Preferential Parking Zone. The Ci~y Council must adopt a resolution to establish a Preferential Parking Zone. The cost of the Preferential Parking Permits shall cover the cost of establishing, maintaining and enforcing the requested Preferential Parking Zone. The permit fees will be set by the City Council at the time of the parking zone designation. The ,time required to complete all surveys or studies takes about six (6) month~ after a completed petition is submitted. Upon completion, if favorable, the Preferential Parking Zone recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for their approval. C'SOOhandbook,doc ~. 0\184 . 3.DLOI0 State Vebide Code prorisioas. The prorisicms of tbis 0Japter ~ czprasIy ~ UDder the Comtitution of the State, Article XI, Section 11 together with pmvisioDs of the Vehicle Code of the State, as azDt!t'd~ 'The pnJ'risiaDs set forth in the Vehicle CoQc sba11 gcm::m whenever this Cbapterfails to setfortb a:ay specific provision. (Prior code f 3230; added by Oni No. 11S6CCS. adoJrted 4122180) 3.08.020 Ddiaitioa.s. For the purpose of this c::bapter, the certain words and phrases arc dcfiaed and certain pro'risioDs shall be COD- st:rUeCl as herein ct forth, l1D1ess it is appareDt from the CODteSt that a different fQtI!llftn.g is inteDdcd. . (a) DftIliDg Ullit. "'Dwelling Unit'" shall m~.auy self-contained bousc, apartment, srock c:oopcratiVc, or amdomiDium occupied solely fcJr residential purposeL (b) PrefereatWl'arfdDa Zoae. "'Prefmmtial Pad:iDa Zone" sbaIl mean a ra:ide:DU1_ with s&reeU aad bouad- ario$. d...,,,.-ted by the City CoUllC'lJ wherein vehicles displaying a permit sball be exempt from parkiDg resaic. tiom established pumw1t to this 0Iapter. (c) ResideD!. ""Resident" sball mean my penon who lives in a dwelling UDit located in a plefeteDtiaJ paxting zone. (d) VISitor. "'V1SiIor" sbaJl mean a person 'risitiDg n::si- dents living in a preferential parJd:D.g zone. (Prior code f 3231; added by Ord. No. 1156CCS, adopted 4I22J8O) 3.08.030 Desipatioll of prdereadal paridDg ZODC. (a) Upon the recommendation of the Parmg and Traffic Engineer. the City Council shaD coDSider areas far d~groAtiOD as prefc:R:Dtial parking 2ODeS. If the Cotmcil finds that an area satisfies the aiteria set forth in this Chapter for pref~ential parkiDg ZODe designation. the Council may adopt a RSOlutiOD d-;p~tjng an area as a preferential parking zone and authorize the ParkiDg and Traf6c EDgineer to cstablisb ~"'}1Iiarc: parii11g ~ for $e zone; or . (b) The City Council may, at its discretion. adopt a resolution desigDatiDg an area as a preferential parking zone and authorize the: Parking and Traffic F-ngjoen' to .establish appropriate pari:iag rcst:rictiODS for the zone. (Prior code f 3232; added by Ord. No. 1156CCS. adopted 4122J80; amended by Ord. No. 1914CCS i 1, adopted 5/26198) 3.08.040 o-'l"'-tiOD criteria. The findings referred to in this Section shall be based upon the following criteria established to the satisfaction of the Counc:il: (1) 'That uon-t1:Sidcat \'l:hidcs, dcfiDcd as those vdUdes operated by persons whose d....m...ritoom are to JlOJJR:Siden.. tial areas, do or may substantially and regularly interfere with .the use of the majority of available public meet or alley parking spaces by adjacent residents; . (2) That the interference by the non-resident vehicles referred to in subsection (1) of this Scdion occurs at regular and significant daily or weekly interVals; (3) 1'bat the :non-raic1ent vehicles pubd in the area oftbe JIf~ ZODC cause or are me source ofumason. able noise., traffic hazards, asvironmc:ntal pollution, or deYaluadaD of real }lIV~ in the area of the proposed ZDDC; (4) . 'l'bal DO ~1,1", displlt~ afDCllH'CSidem vehicles will msult into sunoundiDg resiclc:ntial areas; (5) nw I sbartaae of I""~,hly available and c:cmve- nieDt~nM'lti_l n=latcd parkiDsspact:S =islSin the area of the ptupAed mnc; and . (6) 'I'bat I1tmI.ativc solutions are Dot feasible or prac- tical. (?rior code f 3232A; adcicd by Ord. No. 1156CCS, adopted 4122180) 3_050 Desipatiou process. Upon receipt ad ~tiOD of a petition sipcd by raidcDts JmDa in twO-thirds of the dweUina UIliIS com- p:isbJg DOt_ tlum tifty pc:rcc:nt of the ~opcd fnmtap of the Il.tU J>lO~ far d-'I"'-tiOll. or upon adoption of a UIOtiOiloy the Oty Council, the PariiD8 and Traffic 'J:;~ IbaIl u:adc:r1ak:e such SU1'\"eyS or smdie:s IS deemed ,.,.... 'IiI'Y to .w-ifte whether an area sbould be dc:aiipat. ed a p:efcreDtia1 partiDgzonc. If an area is deaigDated u a preferential puJciDa .zone by thc resident petition pI'OCl:II, 1be RIIidc:ats ~ tbc ft..qg,._t:j(m shall DOtify aD affected residcDIs aDd prescDt verification of such noti1ication to the PukiDg and Traffic E.ngjll~. (Prior code f 3232B; added by Ord. No. llS6Ca, adopted 4122180) 3.08.060 Dissolution process. Proc:eenn,p to dissolve a preferential parkiDg district s.baIl be j.,itj"Md upon receipt and veri:fic:ation of a petition signed by resideuts IMDg in twO thirds of tile cIftUmg units comprising not less than fifty percent of the developed fnmtIF of the prefm:mia1 paIidDg zone or upon adoption of an ordiDance by the City Council. (Prior code ~ 3232C; added by ora. No. 11S~. adopted 4/'22J80) 3.-.070 Permits. (a) J.ssauee aDd Fees. The Director of Finance shall issue permits for preferential parking and collect all fees. No permit will be issued.to any applicant until that appli- cant has paid an of his or her ou~..n'l\g parking citatiom, inc:lud.ing a1l c:ivil pc.'na1ties and reJated fees. AppIicaD1s sb.aU be required to present proof of residen- cy in the proposed permit zone. Each qualified applicant is eutitled to purchase one or more permits per year. The address of vehicle reJistratioD and driver's 1icc:nse must coiuci<<h: with the ~CDCC address of applicant. ~!S requestmg more than three pexmits for their ~ umt may be ~ted additional permits by the ParkiDg ud TnIfIic ~eer UpoD sbowiugthat there are more than ~ vehicles registered at the clwelliug UDit, and that suffiCIent off-street parking is not BYailable to the applicant, and that to deuy additional permits would constitute a hardship. Permit fees shaJl.cover tbe cost of c:stablishiag and main- taining thc preferential parking district. These fees shall be set by City Council Resolution at the time of parking 63 (Suu. MCIIiIa uP) :~iJrl "U85 SaDta Manica MUXI;~ Code ~~oa AttJl:ult t6(d,-,. ~t1IliDJ1 be rcdw::cd by mlC lWf fut Ada permit ~ &ftm'that be ~ for = ~bnnt'!t of the ~. )JllmlI1lt lD bl QIp., (IW _ ~236j ~ lr(Oni No. 11S6CCS. adopted 4fJ2I8JJ) YAM"" ,..-..- r- _n--v ~-- - .. the address of the penDit holder imprinted. (d) A'f'IDaJlUit1 of ParkiDg. A prc:fcr=Ual parkiD& permit shaD not guar;mtee or reserve to the holde:r thereof an on.creet paIkiDg IiJ:NI= wilbm the desigDated prefen:D- tia1 parkiDg zone. ( e) Restridioasud CoDditioDs. Each pertnit issued pursuant to .tbis Section shall be subject to each and every condition and n:stricticm set forth in tIl:is Cbapter and as provided for the prefenmtial parkiDg zone far whkh it was issued includiDg coa.ditiODs Of rcsaidicms wbicb may be altered or amCJlded from time to time. The issuam:c of such permit shaD not be CODStrtled 10 be a permit for. ar approval of, aDyviola1ion of any ~1ision of this Code or any other law or regula1ion. (Prior code f 3233; added by Ord. No. 11S6CCS. adopted 4I22J8O; amended by Ord. No. l680CCS , 3. adoptee! 313O~3) 3.08.080 ~ 3.08.090 EumptioDs. The following vehicles shall be c:ICD1pt from parking rcm:ictiODS punuant to this Chapter: (1) A vehicle own$i or operated by a utility whether priVately or publicly 0'frDed. when used in the course of business. (2) A vehicle OWD~ or operated by a governmental agency when used iD. the course of official government business. . (3) A ~ forwbD an autbori:::d ~s-,;.nc.yvcbic1e permit bas been issued bytbe Commissioner oftbe Califor- nia Highway Patrol when used in the oourse of business. (4) A vehicle displaying an authorized exception card issued by tbe City of SmtaMonica. (Prior c:ode f 3235; added by Orci No. U56CCS, adopted 4I22J8O) 3.08.100 ADtboriey or City stalL (a) The Parking and Traf!ic Engineer shall bave the authority to promulple rules and pm....miEtCr policies designed to implement Ibis program. 1lbe1e rules shall be submitted to and approved by the Oty Council. (b) Director of Finance. 'Ib.e Din:.ctar ofFiuaDce shall have authority to promulptc rules and admiDistcr poJ.iQc:s d"~p'ated to implement the preferential parJdng permit system set forth hcrciD. These rules shaD be SlIbmittcd to and approved by the aty Council , (c) Police Cbief.1be Police Chie:f sball have the au- thority to enforce the rules and ICgulations established (Sul:il MOllICa 3-99) efL...ti~ July 1, 1993. . (b) It sbaU be 1III1awfuJ for any person to seD. reDt, or lease. or CIJI.SC to be sold, ft:D1I:d, or leased {or myvalue or coNideratkm any pr&fcrential partiDa permit. Upon the COD9icIion of a 'riolatioQ of this subsection... all permits issued to, or for the benefit of, the dwelliDg UDit for which the sold, rented, ,Q.'C leased permit was autborizccl sba1l be wid. AIry penoD'lO c:xmviCiIld sball.be subject to a fine of five hwtdred do1laD. (c:) It sbaD be UDlawfu1 for P:Zf.'J person to buy or other- wise acquire for value or use my preferential parkmg permit, accpt as provided for in this attic1c. amd UJ'fpc:nan so c:onvictcd sbaJ1 be subject to a fine of fiye hundred dollm. (Prior code i 3237; added by Oni No. 11S6CCS, adopted 4I22J8O; amP.fl~ by Ord. No, l68OCX:S f 4, adopted 300m) ,.,.!Il* OU86 .... r r' .1 I -"'~ 1 : .' - -- I , I I ] ATTACHMENT E Resolution Certifying the Final EIR v088 RESOLUTION NO.9787 (CCS) (City Council Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON THE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 834-838 16TH STREET WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report was issued on January 14, 2002; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Report was published on May 24, 2002 in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City of Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for a 30-day period which ended on June 24,2002; and WHEREAS, on July 1, 2002, the Final Environmental Impact Report was published; and WHEREAS, on July 9, 2002, the City Council conducted a public hearing, reviewed and considered the contents of the Final EIR in its decision-making process; and I.... 8' t'~ J..... b WHEREAS, on July 9, 2002, the City Council, as Lead City Agency. reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS SECTION The City Council has reviewed and considered information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report on condominium project located at 834-838 16th Street prior to acting on the project. SECTION 2. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR for the project was presented to the City Council, that the Final EIR for the project was completed in full compliance with State law and City CEQA Guidelines, that there was adequate public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, that it has considered all comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report and responses to comments, that the Final Environmental Impact Report adequately discusses all significant environmental issues, that the Final Environmental Impact Report reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City, and that the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report in its decision-making process prior to acting on the project. ~ ~, SECTION 3 The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Adopted and approved this day of .2002 I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. _ was duly adopted at a meeting of the City Council on the day of ,2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk F:\ppd\share\834 16th\cceirreso16thStreet.do ,. f Q , \r.'*' UVoJl ATTACHMENT F Resolution Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations Partial attachment is not available in electronic version. Complete document is available for review at the City Clerk's Office and the Libraries. \., fl // v ._ Adopted and approved this 23rd day of July, 2002. L// / - ~ /1 ~... .' , . i ,.. / ~ I, Maria M. Stewart, City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 9787 (CCS) was duly adopted at a meeting of the Santa Monica City Council held on the 23rd of July, 2002, by the following vote: Ayes: Council members: Holbrook, O'Connor, Bloom, Genser, Katz, Mayor Feinstein Noes: Council members: None Abstain: Council members None Absent: Council members: Mayor Pro T em McKeown ~EST: '- ~..,::t.u 'F-"~ Maria Stewart, City Cler RESOLUTION NO.9788 (CCS) (City Council Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA MAKING FINDINGS NECESSARY TO APPROVE THE 834-838 SIXTEENTH STREET CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared which analyzes the environmental effects of the 834-838 Sixteenth Street Condominium Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council, as Lead City Agency, reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report in full compliance with State law and City CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, on July 9, 2002 the City Council certified that the Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared in full compliance with State law and City CEQA Guidelines, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1 Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City of Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines and Sections 15128 of the State of California CEQA < . ("J .~. ~;~~ \:I,.;;:;j ideHnes the nili:.11 ;::;twlyil',lotic:e of Preparation rlAt.=>rmined that the fnllnvvinq An\lIriJF rn [I;;l r:t<;:; rmt (~'Jlls:id"m~d oott:'!nti::lUy siqnrf~cant rid wen? nnt ddr furlhM in the F~nal R: qeo~oqv and SQi~s b,~(}loql(:8l resources I1npQJI.:.1finn and hQu~inQl 11az;::mi nd ht'liZ2:rdou hy-::Jr:Jlogy and water qu ity land ::Jnd planning rnin"'JrAI resDurr.AS :::'lgticlJlltural reSOUff:RS,. public Air qualit.y e-::;':mQ:fl~C; and imp8cts< noi~~ and lJtilitte~ nnrl't;;PFVtr:esystem'3, CTION C(mS;iRfRnd with A..rtlde VI SecHon 1 of H 18 Ci.v of Santf'l GEQA idelines and 5091 nd 5092 of the State of California C OA. Gin and as rh:~lailF.1d the in~ll R at Sections 3"2 1'lrlrl 3 tile City Counci finds ahat S~~18dOI/IJ othflr thf'li I Iqht and th;;lfl Tr8ffic no sijqniflcan t nlpads for !\esthelir;s/Shade, Brill Hislr1.ric rCAs :=Inri Ne~ghbmhood Effects iECTION Cons~stent 'Mt&'l l\rlieJ?=! VI. S~dinn of the City of S;;;!nt8 Monica CEQA uidr"llinf!r:l and 8p.r.tions Clnd5092 of U1H Slatp. of Ca~ G QA IJldelines, the Giliy eml dl finrl~ th;4t mJst irnpi3ds resl..lItinQ fram pm~ed can bH re1j'JQed to I'AVAI that is less than significant. More spec:ilc8:lly "19 ificant er I\lirownentad effects IdA flltifi ed In '1.ArJi(m can fe8siblv be iminated or RubO::;~Anti~lly In oe10'11 a hwp.1 nf i91 Thf! Fin <'1 I f~ rl8tf'HTi1ined that ',J,ji1hQut rnilig::41inn thA rmjed would res,ult in u 4 significant iWPBds on P.as~1l8{ic;s/S''1ed'3 ,~nrl hadow :Artificial Light G~are). Cnns[fiffmt vvith /l,r~~c1g VI, Sedion of thA Ci~y nf Santa Monica CEDA G~JlrlRlin8-s nd S9c:tiont 508' and 5092 of the State of Caliromia CEQA Gllidel nes amJ r1At;;'liled in Fin2J.f R at Section 3.2,lhR City CQ13ij~il fim:J that the fo~lowinq mitlg::3ti011 mfl~asmes n.,3'v heen rPHlllirAd of the project, VI/hich will rrlltlgate the rnrmct nf thR project on Ae'3;rI91iCs., nd h:-'!rlnw Artificial Ught and G~ re: to level of ignif1r:n rli!':' project lit hall r:lqs~gn e>':teri'Jf huiltling lightinq that sr,.g'JS ight only InA pro Jied :s ile, i III co rpmatinq flh ip.frls as PI' r I) p f ia~eto IHal 5e::;. /'3f It an lighUng fJl: adracent nd n+:!Arhy Landisr::Cipinq Ilumrnatio aml. ex~e~ior Slg lighting shall be ~ccmrmll~h@rjLfJlth IO\,IJ-level u'1'Jbtrw3ij'/B fixtures Such ligll:tinq ~h 11I:hf"i slllelded to dirF!rt pools awav from .off-site 'b: The Final R dAIE!rmin1f'l.n thrit 'wlthQut mltigat~on the rmi~ct could havSo lJotenti;:1lhl sig ificant em Construdion Effects (Tmffic nd GirculF=l~lfln) Consistent V'Oh VI Sectim1 of the City of SanlFl I'v1nnlGr:! GEOA Gu ide! nes nd 5092 of th State o~ Cal:ifomia C OA Guide:Hnes, R aL Sr.c:tinn A. the City CQuncil find thrH the nd 509- the "-nitiQation mei3S res have been required of the proj~ct. 'iNhich rr:iilig,gte or rt:3duce the impact of the project on Construction Effects (Traffic and Circulation) to below a level of significance: (1) The applicant shall prepare and implement a Construction Impact Mitigation Plan to include the plan for traffic management during construction This plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City and, at a minimum, shall include the following: public information program to advise motorists of impending construction activities (e.g. media coverage, portable message signs, and information signs at the construction site) · Approval from the Department of Environmental and Public Works Management and Transportation Management Division and all other affected agencies for any construction detours or construction work requiring encroachment into public rights-of-way, or any other street use activity (e.g. haul routes) · Timely notification of construction schedules to all affected agencies (e.g. Police Department, Fire Department, Department of Environmental Public Works Management, Department of Planning and Community Development, and Transportation Management Division) · Coordination of construction work with affected agencies five to ten days prior to start of work · A traffic control plan for the streets surrounding the work area, which includes specific information regarding the project's construction and activities that will disrupt normal traffic flow · Prohibition of dirt and demolition material hauling and construction material delivery during the morning and afternoon peak traffic periods and cleaning of streets and equipment as necessary · Scheduling and expediting of work to cause the least amount of disruption and interference to the adjacent vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow. It is recommended that all weekday daytime work on City streets be performed between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM · Limiting of queuing of trucks to on-site and prohibition of truck queuing on area roadways · Scheduling of pre-construction meetings with affected agencies to properly plan methods of controlling traffic through work areas . Storage of construction material and equipment within the designated (lLG' :) note t~ally Aliic; '" ~n9 Fi ml SU nlpaGt rg ce Irk rea Sf indufJ n'!1 I JSF: ptC!rrrl n~d 1 hi R lific8 A f;tjf) 509: of imitntin eq men nd m~4fed,8 irllnq ff~.str et pa rki to con tl1.l1r::t C tn.! r:1 lily ~mpioyees s:n",rt to the itf7 if pmJ rJ co ity). Co Sed 4 tht City Cm nC11 findc; h~ hF: owilr1Q hi hAen ed of th p:--oject, -hie: wil rniti ate (' ) o d thff rnliect SAri tn mOIl'f nr.~ wi :h ;hutUe Iry th City of ta Mnmr.,q ed h~ wi rlnllt mi r.:: "ifruction Effects Ail hR City Sa LR Monica CEQA Gu r.; itbrnii CQA id no FffF':-ds .AI Ou lity to he gra ng lrtl mo 'in! xcaVfj material [lOt truc~'" te wi nd le!rl flh ttO fh of tm po rtatiio Ikll ystem: frnm leav ng thfl ifF: and to r'e.a d~C1 y'. 8:cfiv it i (: ~) Verl[ h;lr he mad to Ind m1~1 rUI )ff fr le"R ng the tn hp-: fie te ng of hp te to (3) During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. During construction, the streets and sidewalks within 150 feet of the site perimeter shall be swept. Based on inspections, additional sweeping shall be performed as determined by the City. (5) Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. (d) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the project could have a potentially significant effect on Construction Effects (Noise and Construction Worker Parking). Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City of Santa Monica CEOA Guidelines and Sections 15091 and 15092 of the State of California CEOA Guidelines, and as detailed in the Final EIR at Section 3.4, the City Council finds that the following mitigation measures have been required of the project, which will mitigate or reduce the impact of the project on Construction Effects (Noise and Parking) to below a level of significance: All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with factory-recommended mufflers. (2) Whenever feasible, electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar power tools. For all noise-generating construction activity on the project site, additional noise attenuation techniques shall be employed, as needed and feasible, to reduce noise levels to City of Santa Monica noise standards. Such techniques may include, but are not limited to, the use of sound blankets on noise generating equipment and the construction of temporary sound barriers, including walls or other sound attenuating features, between construction sites and nearby sensitive receptors. All construction activities, which generate noise levels above those allowed by the City Noise Ordinance, shall be limited to between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.rn. (4) The applicant shall provide a telephone number for local residents to call to submit complaints associated with construction noise. The number shall be posted facing 16th Street and 15th Court alley and shall be easily viewed from adjacent public areas. The project applicant shall submit a Construction Management Plan, which will include a measure to provide for an area for the constn.:r!'.tkm 'i'taging and park.in~, If the off-sitelocatin more thr1n 110n fee frf'Jrfli orojed site, s h utlJe se rvke fo co n~tn ,cHon workers sh~lq hA prO\tided SECTION 4 Cm'Lslstl'7nf with A.rtkl~ VI, Sedlarl the Cily S.::3nta ica CEQA GuideHm;'!s S~rJifJfl5 509' 1 nd 5093 nf H 18 S~ate of Caljfornl~ CEQ,A, Guidel thA City Council finds that Ignifkant ad tHwirnnrTent~l effer:ls thFf area of projP.r:t r8~a.:ed neighborhood 'lrafnc:Jcircul~tion Call1not feasibhl a~'oi.d8rJ rnlligated to b9!CiN level of Ignif1cance Nevertheless, Impacts are found to hFf dLlP. In oVf:mirling Gons idem'iollS in Se.ctinn 7 heIQv" The R identified 111 BeLlon 4A, d8terrn nerl with 0 ut ~ :Hgatron tf1f! ."'~r::t r~0uld result ignifir:.t:lnt traftk impact segme.nts of Idaho ^venue between ann 7tt. Stre'3'~s. Based lJ nnn th an COHe :opcmding l.h"8Shdd s of siqnificanr:p.: f-1.r neighborhood traffic: irrlip3:;ts established in lhp. City'c US(~ nri Girr::ul:Atirm Element, th additinn of :A rill dRil:y trips to loca f~l".d'Ar street consld rfirl ignificant lxistlnq riaily trafflcvolurnp.s On Ihp. s~ree~ are greater tha percelll of cap, eity ki:Ahn A' nue currenUy 90% of pacity for local strf-lAt, U: inq thi inal R r~nnr.llude6 tl1at the prOjl8c: wil genRf8te potenti:-1lily Iglllfif':;1nt voidClble traffic impact on thus s:tIE'et. The R concluded that in ADT VOI'JTle of vehicles would {)(~(:Ur '1 .L