The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About21 - Superior Avenue Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project - HandoutERRATA — Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project The following errata is intended to correct minor errors and respond to additional comments received after the drafting of the Final MND. Revisions are shown in strikeeat text and additional are emboldened and underlined. Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Section 4.4 Biological Resources (c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less than Significant Impact. There are no riparian/riverine areas, vernal pools, or waters of the United States or State are present within the proposed Project footprint. Within the survey area conducted for the jurisdictional delineation surveys, wetlands, as defined by the Coastal Act and the City's LCP were identified both on and off the Project site. Superior Avenue Wetlands There is one distinct wetland area located off site within relatively close proximity to the Proposed Project site, along the slope on the north side of Superior Avenue. The Superior Avenue wetland area is approximately 115 feet from its closest point to the permanent structures of the proposed bridge; and this wetland area impactbouR ary is approximately 0.15 -acre in size. Staging, worker access, and vehicle movement would occur within the 100 -foot Abuff er of the wetland area; however, this activity would be similar to existing vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the Project area. Per Title 21, Section 21.30B.040.0 of the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP) Implementation Plan: C. Wetland Buffers. A protective open space buffer shall be required to horizontally separate wetlands from development areas. Wetland buffers shall be of a sufficient size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the wetland. Wetlands shall have a minimum buffer width of one hundred (100) feet wherever possible. 1. Exception: Smaller wetland buffers may be allowed only where it can be demonstrated that: a. A one hundred (100) foot wide buffer is not possible due to site- specific constraints; and b. The proposed narrower buffer would be amply protective of the biological integrity of the wetland given the site-specific characteristics of the resource and of the type and intensity of disturbance." The proposed bridge's permanent structures are outside of the 100 foot buffer from theThe Superior Avenue wetlands is outside of the 190 feet bwf fe sem the r,4dge!5 „eFMGReM 5..,.Gt Further, the existing wetlands are already surrounded by a variety of on-going disturbances, primarily attributed to recreational and maintenance activities associated with the Sunset Ridge Park above and immediately adjacent to the wetlands, as well as the pedestrian and vehicle traffic adjoining the wetlands below. These on-going urban activities are less than 20 feet (and in some cases only a few feet away) from the wetlands. In addition, the wetlands are upslope from the proposed impact area, and moreover, the intensity of the bFidge nstr ctio., impbridge's permanent structures would be strictly confined to the identified impact area, which would be 2 Superior Avenue Pedestrion and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beoch, California approximately 115 feet from the nearest point to the wetlands. Staging, worker access, and vehicle movement would occur within the 100 -foot houn Gr-ypu er of the wetland area; however, this activity would be similar to existing vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the Project area. To further obviate concerns regarding any unforeseen impacts to the wetlands, the limits of the wetlands will be clearly demarcated in the field prior to the commencement of construction activities, and a biologist shall monitor the construction work to ensure that encroachment into the wetlands does not occur. Also, the construction contractor should install a suitable barrier (e.g., snow fencing) that is clearly visible to construction personnel, particularly any construction equipment operators, to prevent any incidental construction impacts to these jurisdictional wetland areas. Therefore, given the information above, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed bridge construction activities would not temporarily or permanently impact those wetlands nor jeopardize the biological integrity or preservation of the wetlands. Following its completion, the pedestrian and bicycle bridge over Superior Avenue is not expected to create any adverse shading impacts to the existing wetlands identified upslope along the north side of Superior Avenue because of the distance the bridge will be from the nearest point to the wetlands (i.e., 115+ feet). 3 Si-q)eriorAvenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parkinci Lot Project Newport Beach, California SECTION 7.0 — MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION This document, along with the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and the Notice of Determination, constitute the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project in the City of Newport Beach. Pursuant to Section 21082.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act, the City has independently reviewed and analyzed the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Project and finds that these documents reflect the independent judgment of the City. The City of Newport Beach, as lead agency, also confirms that the project mitigation measures detailed in these documents are feasible and will be implemented as stated in the MND and MMRP. Signature Printed Name Date Title 4 SoperiorAvenoe Pedestrian cnnd Bicycle Bridge incl Perking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Additional Response to Comments information In response to comments received after the public comment period closed, we are providing supplemental explanations below. Burrowing Owls For questions regarding the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) comment letter, in our Final MND and Response to Comments, we provided the CDFW with additional information regarding why burrowing owl mitigation was determined to not be required. The CDFW was under the assumption that the City did not include burrowing owl mitigation measures simply due to the fact that there was a high level of disturbance in the area of the proposed Project. However, as noted in Response to Comment 23-1, "The low -quality habitat located within the proposed Project site is composed primarily of hard and compact soils and lacked the soft soils preferred by burrowing owl. No burrows were observed, which are typically utilized by this species." In addition, during a habitat assessment and vegetation mapping, delineation surveys, and focused surveys for California gnatcatcher, when biologists were onsite for over 20 hours in total, no burrowing owl or signs of burrowing owl were observed. It is for these reasons that additional protocol -level surveys for burrowing owl are not required in order to assess site suitability for the species. Coastal Sage Scrub The proposed project will include ground disturbance and indirect impacts within the 5.15 -acre CSS planting area within Sunset Ridge Park. The CSS planting was required as a special condition of the Sunset Ridge Park CDP (Special Condition 2.1.a). The special condition included in the CDP is not considered mitigation, nor was this area previously used as a mitigation site. Special conditions associated with the CDP are not equivalent to mitigation lands and requirements associated with mitigation lands do not apply to these areas. California Department of Transportation Conditions The California Department of Transportation (DOT) submitted a comment letter that outlined Caltrans requirements. Since these will be conditions of approval as part of the Caltrans permit approval process, it is not required that these be included as mitigation measures in the Final MND. Additionally, since mitigation measures are only required for significant impacts per CECI.A, mitigation is not required for transportation impacts. 5