The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014-104 - Adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2014-002 (SCH No. 2014101015) for the Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Project (PA2014-135)RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -104 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. ND2014 -002 (SCH NO. 2014101015) FOR THE PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (PA2014 -135) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. Park Avenue and the Park Avenue Bridge are designated as Local Roadways in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The bridge provides resident and visitor access between Little Balboa Island and Balboa Island. 2. City and State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Engineers identified structural and functional deficiencies with the existing eighty plus year -old bridge and have concluded that the bridge should be replaced. 3. The City's Capital Improvement Program calls for the replacement of the bridge. The new bridge will comply or exceed seismic and structural standards, ADA requirements, and provide improved overall functional use and safety for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles. 4. The architecture of the new bridge is generally consistent with the existing bridge and will maintain the character of the area. 5. To ensure no impact to public access, the project will temporarily relocate vehicular and pedestrian access to and from Little Balboa Island via a temporary bridge at Balboa Avenue. Upon project completion, the temporary bridge will be removed. 6. The installation and use of the temporary bridge will decrease the estimated construction time from one (1) year to ten (10) months. 7. A public meeting was held by the City Council on November 25, 2014, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this hearing. City Council Resolution No. 2014 -104 Page 2 SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq., the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.), and City Council Policy K -3, the proposed amendments ( "Project') are defined as a project and as such subject to environmental review. 2. The City caused to be prepared an Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "MND ") in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K -3. 3. Notice of the availability of the draft MND was provided and the draft MND was made available for public review for a 30 -day comment period beginning on October 5, 2014 and ending November 6, 2014. Notice of the Availability of the draft MND was given in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K -3. Six (6) comment letters were received during the 30 -day public review period. 4. Although not required pursuant to CEQA, written responses to all six (6) comment letters received were prepared. The comments and responses were considered by the City Council while considering the approval of the proposed project. The comments and responses to comments do not represent significant new information to warrant recirculation of the MND. 5. The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (including Responses to Comments and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) are attached as Exhibits "A" and "B," respectively. The documents and all related materials, which constitute the record upon which this decision was based, are on file with the Public Works Department, City Hall, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. 6. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project, with mitigation measures, will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified by the Mitigated Negative Declaration and incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are feasible and will reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. City Council Resolution No. 2014 -104 Page 3 SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, hereby resolves as follows: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2014 -002 (SCH# 2014101015) attached as Exhibits "A " and "B," which is incorporated by reference. 2. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach directs the Public Works Director to incorporate the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program included in the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration included in Exhibit "B" in the plans and specifications for the project to be implemented. Passed and adopted by the City Council of Newport Beach at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of November, 2014. F-AiM-11111 Leilani I. Brown City Clerk Q a Rush N. Hill, II Mayor Exhibit "A" Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2014 -002 State Clearinghouse Number 2014101015 Public Review Draft • October 2014 P - q�rF��yN� -- Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Project INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - A - `} N � #k � 440 Prepared 6y: RBF Consulting A Michael Baker. International Company,_ r�........... PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Project 14TV01 «A.LWA City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Contact: Mr. Fong Tse, P.E. 949.644.3321 PREPARED BY: RBF Consulting 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, California 92618 Contact: Mr. Alan Ashimine 949.472.3505 October 2014 JN 130307 This document is designed for double -sided printing to conserve natural resources. a�Fwrrq H PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 1.1 1.1 Statutory Authority and Requirements ................................................................ ............................1 -1 1.2 Purpose .............................................................................................................. ............................1 -1 1.3 Consultation ....................................................................................................... ............................1 -2 1.4 Incorporation by Reference ............ ............................... .......... ................. ....... ............................... 1 -2 2.0 Project Description ......................................................................................................... ............................2.1 2.1 Project Location ................................................ .............................................................................. 2 -1 2.2 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................ ............................2 -1 2.3 Existing General Plan and Zoning .................................................... .......... .................................... 2 -1 2.4 Project Background ........................................................................................... .............................2-4 ..........................4.6 -1 2.5 Project Characteristics ....................................................................................... .............................2-4 Greenhouse Gases ........................................................................................... 2.6 Permits and Approvals ....................................................................................... ............................2 -9 3.0 Initial Study Checklist .................................................................................................... ............................3.1 3.1 Background ........................................................................................................ ............................3 -1 3.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ................. ................................................................... 3 -3 3.3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ...................................... ....................................................... 3 -3 4.0 Environmental Analysis ................................................................. ............................... ..........................4.1.1 4.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................... ..........................4.1 -1 4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................. ........................................................... 4.2 -1 4.3 Air Quality .......................................................................................................... ..........................4.3 -1 4.4 Biological Resources ......................................................................................... ..........................4.4 -1 4.5 Cultural Resources ............ : ........................................ .............................. ................................... 4.5 -1 4.6 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................. ..........................4.6 -1 4.7 Greenhouse Gases ........................................................................................... ..........................4.7 -1 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................... ..........................4.8 -1 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ...................... ................................................................................. 4.9 -1 4.10 Land Use and Planning ..................................................... ............................... .........................4.10 -1 4.11 Mineral Resources ............................................................. ............................... .........................4.11 -1 4.12 Noise ............ ............................................. . ............................................................................... 4.12 -1 4.13 Population and Housing ..................... ....................................................................................... 4.13 -1 4.14 Public Services .................................................................. ............................... .........................4.14 -1 4.15 Recreation ......................................................................... ............................... .........................4.15 -1 4.16 Transportation / Traffic ........................................................ ............................... .........................4.16 -1 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................ ............................... .........................4.17 -1 4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance ......... .................................................................................. 4.18 -1 4.19 References ........................................................................ ............................... .........................4.19 -1 4.20 Report Preparation Personnel ........................................... ............................... .........................4.20 -1 OCTOBER 2014 i TABLE OF CONTENTS µpWYf �� kt PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT x' Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration TABLE OF CONTENTS 5.0 Inventory of Mitigation Measures .... ............................... 6.0 Consultant Recommendation 7.0 Lead Agency Determination APPENDICES (PROVIDED ON ENCLOSED CD) A. Visual Impact Assessment B. Air Quality /Greenhouse Gas Data C. Natural Environment Study D. Historic Property Survey Report E. Phase I Initial Site Assessment F. Water Quality Technical Memorandum G. Location Hydraulic Study H. Traffic Analysis ... I ... I ................. 5.1 ............6.1 7.1 OCTOBER 2014 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Mxwvu r C4 F PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration LIST OF EXHIBITS 1 Regional Vicinity ............................................................................................................... ............................2 -2 2 Site Vicinity ............................ ....................................................................................................................... 2 -3 3 Site Plan ................................... ......................... ............................... ............................................................ 2 -5 4 Temporary Bridge Location .............................................................................................. ............................2 -7 5 Temporary Bridge Site Plan ...........................::................................................................ ............................2 -8 OCTOBER 2014 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS {�gaPreg7 w PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration °,°" 0 LIST OF TABLES 4.3 -1 Construction Air Emissions ........................................ ............................... 4.3 -2 Localized Significance of Emissions .......................... ............................... 4.6 -1 Principal Faults Affecting the Project Area ................. ............................... 4.12 -1 City of Newport Beach Exterior Noise Standards ...... ............................... 4.12 -2 City of Newport Beach Interior Noise Standards ....... ............................... 4.12 -3 Maximum Noise Levels Generated By Construction Equipment ............. 4.12-4 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment ............................... 4.16 -1 LOS and Delay Ranges ............................................. ............................... 4.16 -2 Existing Conditions Study Intersections AM & PM Peak Hour LOS.......... 4.16 -3 Temporary Bridge Conditions AM & PM Peak Hour LOS ......................... OCTOBER 2014 iv, TABLE OF CONTENTS �VpP4 Cy �� PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT b Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration IS /MND AND APPENDICES ON CD 9� /FORN� Public Review Draft October 2014 'e Prepared by RBF Consulting P Michael Baker International Company Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Project INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OCTOBER 2014 v TABLE OF CONTENTS gvtwl? P PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT v Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. OCTOBER 2014 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS 4NtsRa�*,r PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 4[T19F� 1.0 INTRODUCTION The proposed Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Project (herein referenced as the "project ") involves the replacement of the existing Park Avenue Bridge over Grand Canal with an improved bridge structure within the City of Newport Beach (City). Following a preliminary review of the proposed project, the City has determined that it is subject to the guidelines and regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Initial Study addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of the project, as proposed. 1.1 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS In accordance with Sections 15051 and 15367 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the City is identified as the Lead Agency for the proposed project. Under the CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 - 21177) and pursuant to Section 15063 of the CCR, the City is required to undertake the preparation of an Initial Study to determine if the proposed project would have a significant environmental impact. If, as a result of the Initial Study, the Lead Agency finds that there is evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a significant environmental effect, the Lead Agency shall further find that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is warranted to analyze project - related and cumulative environmental impacts. Alternatively, if the Lead Agency finds that there is no evidence that the project, either as proposed or as modified to include the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, may cause a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall find that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and shall prepare a Negative Declaration. Such determination can be made only if "there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Lead Agency" that such impacts may occur (Section 21060(c), Public Resources Code). The environmental documentation, which is ultimately selected by the City in accordance with CEQA, is intended as an informational document undertaken to provide an environmental basis for subsequent discretionary actions upon the project. The resulting documentation is not, however, a policy document and its approval and/or certification neither presupposes nor mandates any actions on the part of those agencies from whom permits and other discretionary approvals would be required. The environmental documentation and supporting analysis is subject to a public review period. During this review, public agency comments on the document relative to environmental issues should be addressed to the City. Following review of any comments received, the City will consider these comments as a part of the project's environmental review and include them with the Initial Study documentation for consideration by the City. 1.2 PURPOSE Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines identifies specific disclosure requirements for inclusion in an Initial Study. Pursuant to those requirements, an Initial Study shall include: • A description of the project, including the location of the project; • Identification of the environmental setting; • Identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method, provided that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries; • Discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified, if any; OCTOBER 2014 1 -1 INTRODUCTION PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls; and The name(s) of the person(s) who prepared or participated in the preparation of the Initial Study. 1.3 CONSULTATION As soon as the Lead Agency (in this case, the City) has determined that an Initial Study would be required for the project, the Lead Agency is directed to consult informally with all Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies that are responsible for resources affected by the project, in order to obtain the recommendations of those agencies as to whether an EIR or Negative Declaration should be prepared for the project. Following receipt of any written comments from those agencies, the Lead Agency considers any recommendations of those agencies in the formulation of the preliminary findings. Following completion of this Initial Study, the Lead Agency initiates formal consultation with these and other governmental agencies as required under CEQA and its implementing guidelines. 1.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE The following documents were utilized during preparation of this Initial Study, and are incorporated into this document by reference. These documents are available for review at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, 92660. City of Newport Beach General Plan (adopted on July 25, 2006). The City of Newport Beach General Plan (General Plan) provides a general long -term approach for maintaining and improving the quality of life in the community and the resources of the community, whether man -made or natural. It serves as a tool and frame of reference for use by City officials and citizens. Other public agencies use the General Plan in determining the required capacity and location of public facilities and services needed to serve the City's population. The General Plan includes a total of 10 different elements that incorporate specific goals and policies to guide growth and preserve the qualities within the City that define the natural and built environment. These 10 elements consist of: - Land Use Element- - Harbor and Bay Element; - Housing Element; - Historical Resources Element; - Circulation Element; Recreation Element; - Arts and Cultural Element; - Natural Resources Element; Safety Element; and Noise Element. Since original adoption of the General Plan in 2006, the City has amended or updated elements to further refine the City's vision for its own long -term physical development. The elements contained in the General Plan are those required by the California Government Code Section 65302, in addition to four optional elements (Harbor and Bay, Historical Resources, Recreation, and Arts and Cultural) as permitted by California Government Code Section 65303. OCTOBER 2014 1 -2 INTRODUCTION C4�tW e� Qr F PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (July 2006). The City of Newport Beach General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (General Plan EIR) reviews the existing conditions of the City, analyzes potential environmental impacts from implementation of the General Plan, identifies policies from the proposed General Plan that serve to reduce and minimize impacts, and identifies additional mitigation measures, if necessary, to reduce potentially significant impacts of the General Plan. Based on analysis provided within the General Plan EIR, buildout of the General Plan was found to result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics and visual quality, air quality, cultural resources, noise, population and housing, and transportation/traffic. City of Newport Beach Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance, The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code provides regulations for governmental operations, development, infrastructure, public safety, and business operations within the City. Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code represents the City's Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance is intended to promote the growth of the City in an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare within the City. It is also intended to protect the character and social and economic vitality of all districts within the City, and to assure the orderly and beneficial development of such areas. OCTOBER 2014 1 -3 INTRODUCTION SRN rsFJ PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. OCTOBER 2014 1 -4 INTRODUCTION co�w- 2.0 PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION Regionally, the project site is located in the southern portion of the City of Newport Beach (City), within the County of Orange; refer to Exhibit 1, Regional Vicinity. Locally, the project site is located along Park Avenue, between Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island, approximately 0.5 -mile south of the East Coast Highway (State Route 1), and 0.4 -mile north of the Balboa Peninsula area. The proposed bridge would extend in an east -west direction and span over the Grand Canal from Balboa Island to Little Balboa Island; refer to Exhibit 2, Site Vicin' . 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The proposed project would consist of the demolition of the existing bridge structure, and the construction of a roadway bridge structure along Park Avenue that would connect Balboa Island to Little Balboa Island. Park Avenue is a local two -lane roadway (one vehicle lane and sidewalk in each direction) trending in an east -west direction across Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island. The existing Park Avenue Bridge is approximately 100 feet long and 30 feet wide, and provides two 10 -foot vehicle lanes with 5 -foot raised sidewalks on each side. The bridge extends over the Grand Canal with a vertical curve profile; the vertical profile provides variable freeboard between the high water surface of the canal and allows for boat navigation beneath the bridge. Currently, the existing bridge structure consists of five 20 -foot spans supported by precast concrete pile extensions at the piers and abutments. Each end of the bridge includes Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)- accessible ramps extending from the adjacent at -grade sidewalks to the bridge - mounted sidewalks. An existing 12 -inch thick seawall consisting of interlocking reinforced concrete sheet pile is located beneath the existing bridge and along the entire length of the Grand Canal. The bridge is illuminated by pole- mounted luminaires on both sides of each bridge approach. Wet and dry utility conduits /pipelines extend across the Grand Canal and are attached to the underside of the existing bridge. Surrounding uses along include: • The Grand Canal, and residential uses are located to the north and south; • Park Avenue, and residential uses are located to the east and west; • A fire station is located to the west at the corner of Park Avenue and Marine Avenue; and • Commercial, retail, and office uses are located to the west/northwest along Park Avenue and Marine Avenue. 2.3 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING As roadway facilities, Park Avenue and Balboa Avenue (location of the proposed temporary bridge structure, see Section 2.5, Proiect Characteristics, below) do not have land use designations under the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. However, areas surrounding the project site along Park Avenue, Marine Avenue, and Balboa Avenue are designated °Two-Unit Residential," "Public Facilities,' and 'Mixed-Use" by the General Plan and Zoning Code. OCTOBER 2014 2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION LOS ANGELES COUNTY i at \ -h e -nti ,ton E _ash NOTTO SCALE SAN BERNARDINO / COUNTY i refit Linda helm m park \ Park Orange t w ORANGE SnsNe ° c,M COUNTY Santa Ana j 1 Project Site Laguna Niguel RiVERSIDEI COUNTY �. L San Juan �� ' • Capistrana i� C qq Laguna Niguel RiVERSIDEI COUNTY �. L San Juan �� ' • Capistrana i� !/a Oar. a ;"/}_'_ Point C'H:rcr''" ;� SAN DIEGO / COUNTY PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Regional Vicinity Exhibit 1 t >.a o: ate, �W/y�-�,{ c a• "� `�1> ^^' I 7,,u,} it k flaw, ®Mfji P'fl� • 1 r.. � P a y f .' .0 1 e W^. d vv w '4 44k Ipp L S^b yam. � v.4 ♦, v }.� �wlSl \{T , 1 NeW� fNh• .�A L \ /, �. ,yfj. • ti.:: - �F ✓ad'. S. � � ®�N M1SI�i � � 4� 'QO e4� R .� ��.�\• C. SPED". ><. �� 4y e Ns w - laalrv[CbtiS t ¢h1` Haibov l X IM •. L COON TRY Eli; PaM1 a ftS w pv�� _ � a 9 - ben PDrWnB Pea , � I k URN �T BEACH @ea °h ^•.a c` ,.. ,. .. ✓u .w -0tfl:AA der go 4 a LeM1I t. aMxBal)wa i 13"b Do All °n & 9 I y )� '.9 y °.. Project Site Area s Y D Project Site T z m I♦ Temporary Bridge Option ° Le� Lghr Source: USGS Topo Map, Newport Beach, CA Quadrangle, deed 1985, photo revised 1981. NOT TO SCALE PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT 0 Q INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Site Vicinity w. J � �i � 5 4 � � S irP S - / .d• � MUD P �Y"a t >.a o: ate, �W/y�-�,{ c a• "� `�1> ^^' I 7,,u,} it k flaw, ®Mfji P'fl� • 1 r.. � P a y f .' .0 1 e W^. d vv w '4 44k Ipp L S^b yam. � v.4 ♦, v }.� �wlSl \{T , 1 NeW� fNh• .�A L \ /, �. ,yfj. • ti.:: - �F ✓ad'. S. � � ®�N M1SI�i � � 4� 'QO e4� R .� ��.�\• C. SPED". ><. �� 4y e Ns w - laalrv[CbtiS t ¢h1` Haibov l X IM •. L COON TRY Eli; PaM1 a ftS w pv�� _ � a 9 - ben PDrWnB Pea , � I k URN �T BEACH @ea °h ^•.a c` ,.. ,. .. ✓u .w -0tfl:AA der go 4 a LeM1I t. aMxBal)wa i 13"b Do All °n & 9 I y )� '.9 y °.. Project Site Area s Y D Project Site T z m I♦ Temporary Bridge Option ° Le� Lghr Source: USGS Topo Map, Newport Beach, CA Quadrangle, deed 1985, photo revised 1981. NOT TO SCALE PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT 0 Q INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Site Vicinity rwu •JN IM07 Exhibit 2 aa-�� SWP'24 PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT i Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.4 PROJECT BACKGROUND The City of Newport Beach has proposed the Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Project in order to meet current bridge design and seismic safety standards, and improve the safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicle users in the project area. The existing Park Avenue Bridge structure is over 80 years old and does not meet current bridge design and seismic safety standards. The City has identified structural and functional deficiencies with the bridge, such as severely deteriorated concrete in girders, pile caps, and piles. The proposed project would construct a new bridge meeting current engineering standards in order to improve safety for all users of the bridge in the area. Continued access would be provided from Balboa Island to Little Balboa Island. For the reasons cited above, the City has determined that the proposed project is needed to upgrade the Park Avenue Bridge and improve the safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicle users in the Balboa Island /Little Balboa Island area. 2.5 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The proposed project would consist of the demolition of the existing Park Avenue Bridge and construction of an improved seismically- reinforced bridge over the Grand Canal. The primary components of the project are as follows: Precast Post - Tensioned Bridge Structure. The proposed project would implement a precast post- tensioned bridge structure at the project site. The new bridge would remain 100 feet long and would include 11 -foot vehicle lanes and 6 -foot raised sidewalks; refer to Exhibit 3, Site Plan. The proposed bridge would be slightly wider than the existing bridge, with a width of approximately 36 feet (compared to the existing width of approximately 30 feet). The bridge would be supported by abutments at each bank of the canal and two bents comprised of 24- inch diameter piles within the canal. The number of spans associated with the bridge would be reduced from the current five to the proposed three. The improved bridge structure would be positioned within existing City right -of -way (ROW), and does not include nor require any ROW acquisition. All utilities attached to the existing bridge structure would be relocated during construction, and would be concealed and protected within utility openings in the new bridge. It should be noted that the City of Newport Beach proposes to rebuild the deteriorating seawalls under the proposed Park Avenue Bridge abutments as part of final design and construction. The existing seawalls would be replaced with a 60 -foot length of secant pile wall with 24 -inch diameter piles, and six inch concrete wall facing. All adjacent seawall areas would be protected -in -place. Vertical Curve. The profile of the existing bridge is on a vertical curve, which provides sufficient freeboard between the bridge and the high water surface of the canal. The vertical curve also accommodates boat navigation. The existing vertical curve provides a design speed of 24 miles per hour (MPH), which does not meet the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ( AASHTO) criteria of 25 MPH for this classification of roadway. In order to meet the AASHTO criteria, the bridge would need to be lowered by six inches at the crest of the vertical curve, which would not provide adequate freeboard between the bridge and the high water surface of the canal. The lowering of the bridge profile would also not provide adequate freeboard for boat navigation. Because the travel speeds on Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island are relatively low, it was decided that the proposed bridge structure would maintain the existing vertical curve profile and match the existing freeboard. OCTOBER 2014 2 -4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION w .e .rte M .xYli6x+ WC W MiLL ACXCfx* CORYewLLL Gx➢lf'I.NAACE iWh."i W RASE 1 en .a I I fSfi 1'f1CA Du LEGE)?E�: Q, V x4r� s.mr T ra W r HMIL W/H9PP4Mi WAG11Y:IV tli yt �yy px�yxyTi5 i4M04V.`Ll }5ry �6W9bx4� � ApJA`[x} CWR'Rt Mat +iM:t,} CpY: Sta sYt � MpY,CyN[y 4WfL1+pN4 � TYPiCAI. SECTION PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Site Plan Exhibit 3 `y4.WP 4J PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT e Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ADA Switchback Ramps. ADA- compliant switchback ramps are currently provided from the at -grade sidewalks to the bridge- mounted sidewalks to the east and west of the existing Park Avenue Bridge. Both existing switchback ramps on the east side of the Grand Canal have a two -foot landscape strip that would be eliminated to accommodate the proposed bridge structure. The switchback ramps on the west side of the existing bridge are currently five feet, six inches wide; the project would reduce the width of each switchback ramp by one foot, resulting in four feet, six inch -wide switchback ramps. Reducing the switchback ramps by two feet on all sides of the bridge to accommodate the wider traffic lanes and sidewalks. The new switchback ramps would be ADA - compliant. Bridge Architecture. The proposed bridge architecture would generally be consistent with the existing bridge to maintain the character of the project area. Entry monumentation would be given special attention in the design, providing a combination of landscaping and appropriate signage as an entrance to Little Balboa Island. Bridge lighting would be provided for both pedestrian safety and architectural character. The existing style of concrete light poles and lamps would replicate the existing luminaires and would line both sidewalks. As noted above, all improvements would occur within existing City ROW and no ROW acquisition would be required. Temporary construction easements (TCEs) may be required at two residential driveway locations (i.e., the two dwelling units nearest the project site on Little Balboa Island, adjacent to Grand Canal). No construction activities would occur on these residential properties; however, the TCEs would be required since access to these two driveways would be temporarily restricted during a portion of the construction process. Access to the two nearest alleys parallel to the Grand Canal (one on Balboa Island and one on Little Balboa Island) may require a temporary detour during a portion of the construction process; however, these alleys would remain accessible at all times via alternative access points further north and south. 2.5.1 CONSTRUCTION /PHASING Construction Methodology Because the Park Avenue Bridge is the only connection between Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island, access over the Grand Canal must be maintained at all times. As such, the proposed project would consist of the installation of a temporary bridge over the Grand Canal at Balboa Avenue, which would allow for demolition of the entire Park Avenue Bridge at one time and reconstruction in a single phase; refer to Exhibit 4, Temporary Bridge Location. Balboa Avenue is a local two -lane roadway (one vehicle lane and sidewalk in each direction) trending in an east -west direction across Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island. There is no bridge crossing over the Grand Canal along Balboa Avenue, and the roadway currently terminates at each end of the canal. This location is immediately surrounded by single - family residential uses on all sides. Retail /commercial uses are situated to the west along Marine Avenue. The temporary bridge would maintain access to Little Balboa Island with two 10 -foot lanes of traffic. Bicycle and pedestrian access would also be provided via a five -foot wide walkway to be located to the north of the vehicle travel lanes; refer to Exhibit 5, Temporary Bridge Site Plan. Two pedestrian /ADA- compliant access ramps would be provided on each side of the Grand Canal to allow for access from at -grade elevations up to the five -foot walkway on the temporary bridge structure. Construction of the temporary bridge would not require removal /replacement of existing improvements on Balboa Avenue; however, temporary piles would be placed within the Grand Canal in order to lower the temporary bridge structure, shorten the ramp lengths on both sides of the canal, and eliminate any potential conflicts with surrounding residential driveways. Approximately eight temporary piles would be located OCTOBER 2014 2.6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION � z a o¢. a m ¢ y+ K z w ca ° O U � d U W w w zm p Z w p • � U W m ~ w ° � L Z } Y� O �� O. U � oa � a¢d Z W CD W v?y r a� CD ¢z Qo�f7 m� � g L � L J :L of E z � lfJ n r W .QQw v i r J OL ! I ® L� I-I i� DJ m I_I I1 •\ N �U W r �� • I-' N VI � li�l i •, OF sum- of -gxn� .ez ow t m s U � oa � a¢d Z W CD W v?y r a� CD ¢z Qo�f7 m� � g L � L J :L of E z � lfJ n r W 4X,p PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 4inna in the channel (four piles on each side of Grand Canal), and would be positioned approximately five feet away from the existing seawall; the piles would be spaced approximately three to four feet apart from one another. The proposed temporary piles would be vibrated into place in lieu of driving to minimize noise /vibration impacts to adjacent receptors. Bridge construction activities would be facilitated from the adjacent approaches on Park Avenue and Balboa Avenue for the replaced bridge and temporary bridge, respectively. Construction activities within the Grand Canal would be limited to geotechnical investigations, reconstruction of the sea wall within the project limits, and the removal and reconstruction of the bridge piles. Utilities would remain in full service throughout the construction period and the relocations would be coordinated as part of the bridge removal and reconstruction. Construction of the temporary bridge at Balboa Avenue would occur within existing City ROW and no ROW acquisition would be required. Three TCEs may be required at residential driveway locations surrounding the temporary bridge site (i.e., two dwelling units nearest the temporary bridge site on Balboa Island, and one dwelling unit nearest the temporary bridge site on Little Balboa Island). No construction activities would occur on these residential properties; however, the TCEs would be required since access to these three driveways would be temporarily restricted during a portion of the construction process. Access to the two nearest alleys parallel to the Grand Canal (one on Balboa Island and one on Little Balboa Island) may require a temporary detour during a portion of the construction process; however, these alleys would remain accessible at all times via alternative access points further north and south. Construction of the proposed project would take approximately 10 months to complete. 2.6 PERMITS AND APPROVALS The proposed project would require permits and approvals from the City of Newport Beach and other agencies prior to construction. These permits and approvals are described below, and may change as the project entitlement process proceeds. City of Newport Beach: California Environmental Quality Act Clearance Grading /Building Permits California Department of Transportation: • National Environmental Policy Act Clearance (for Federal funding) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: • Section 404 Nationwide Permit Regional Water Quality Control Board Section 401 Water Quality Certification California Coastal Commission: Coastal Development Permit OCTOBER 2014 2.9 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. OCTOBER 2014 2 -10 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT - --virki Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration RIBS s 3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 3.1 BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Fong Tse, P.E. Civil Engineer, Principal 949.644.3321 4. Project Location: The project site is located in the southern portion of the City of Newport Beach, within the County of Orange. Locally, the project site is located along Park Avenue, between Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island, approximately 0.6 -mile south of the East Coast Highway (State Route 1), and 0.4 -mile north of the Balboa Peninsula area. The proposed bridge would extend in an east -west direction and span over the Grand Canal from Balboa Island to Little Balboa Island. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 6. General Plan Designation: As roadway facilities, Park Avenue and Balboa Avenue do not have a designation under the City of Newport Beach General Plan (General Plan). However, areas surrounding the Park Avenue and Balboa Avenue sites are designated "Two -Unit Residential," "Public Facilities," and "Mixed -Use" by the General Plan and Zoning Code. 7. Zoning: As roadway facilities, Park Avenue and Balboa Avenue do not have a designation under the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code. However, areas surrounding the Park Avenue and Balboa Avenue sites are designated "Two -Unit Residential," "Public Facilities," and "Mixed -Use" by the Zoning Code. 8. Description of the Project: The proposed project would consist of the demolition of the existing Park Avenue Bridge, and construction of an improved seismically - reinforced bridge over the Grand Canal. The primary components of the project are as follows: • Precast Post- Tensioned Bridge Structure. The proposed project would implement a precast post - tensioned bridge structure at the project site. The new bridge would remain 100 feet long and would include 11 -foot vehicle lanes and 6 -foot raised sidewalks. The proposed bridge would be slightly wider than the existing bridge, with a width of approximately 36 feet (compared to the existing width of approximately 30 feet). The bridge would be supported by abutments at each bank of the canal and two bents comprised of 24 -inch diameter piles within the canal. The number OCTOBER 2014 3.1 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST y *4wPo4> PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ��».,«�` of spans associated with the bridge would be reduced from the current five to the proposed three. The improved bridge structure would be positioned within existing City right -of -way (ROW), and does not include nor require any ROW acquisition. All utilities attached to the existing bridge structure would be relocated during construction, and will be concealed and protected within utility openings in the new bridge. It should be noted that the City of Newport Beach proposes to rebuild the deteriorating seawalls under the proposed Park Avenue Bridge abutments as part of final design and construction. The existing seawalls would be replaced with a 60 -foot secant pile wall with 24 -inch diameter piles, and six inch concrete wall facing. All adjacent seawall areas would be protected -in- place. Vertical Curve. The profile of the existing bridge is on a vertical curve, which provides sufficient freeboard between the bridge and the high water surface of the canal. The vertical curve also accommodates boat navigation. The existing vertical curve provides a design speed of 24 miles per hour (MPH), which does not meet the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ( AASHTO) criteria of 25 MPH for this classification of roadway. In order to meet the AASHTO criteria, the bridge would need to be lowered by six inches at the crest of the vertical curve, which would not provide adequate freeboard between the bridge and the high water surface of the canal. The lowering of the bridge profile would also not provide adequate freeboard for boat navigation. Because the travel speeds on Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island are relatively low, it was decided that the proposed bridge structure would maintain the existing vertical curve profile and match the existing freeboard. ADA Switchback Ramps. ADA- compliant switchback ramps are currently provided from the at- grade sidewalks to the bridge- mounted sidewalks to the east and west of the existing Park Avenue Bridge. Both existing switchback ramps on the east side of the Grand Canal have a two -foot landscape strip that would be eliminated to accommodate the proposed bridge structure. The switchback ramps on the west side of the existing bridge are currently five feet, six inches wide; the project would reduce the width of each switchback ramp by one foot, resulting in four feet, six inch - wide switchback ramps. Reducing the switchback ramps by two feet on all sides of the bridge to accommodate the wider traffic lanes and sidewalks. The new switchback ramps would be ADA- compliant. Bridge Architecture. The proposed bridge architecture would generally be consistent with the existing bridge to maintain the character of the project area. Entry monumentation would be given special attention in the design, providing a combination of landscaping and appropriate signage as an entrance to Little Balboa Island. Bridge lighting would be provided for both pedestrian safety and architectural character. The existing style of concrete light poles and lamps would replicate the existing luminaires and would line both sidewalks. Because the Park Avenue Bridge is the only connection between Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island, access over the Grand Canal must be maintained at all times. As such, the proposed project would consist of the installation of a temporary bridge over the Grand Canal at Balboa Avenue, which would allow for demolition of the entire Park Avenue Bridge at one time and reconstruction in a single phase; refer to Exhibit 4, Temporary Bridge Location. Balboa Avenue is a local two -lane roadway (one vehicle lane and sidewalk in each direction) trending in an east -west direction across Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island. There is no bridge crossing over the Grand Canal along Balboa Avenue, and the roadway currently terminates at each end of the canal. This location is immediately surrounded by single - family residential uses on all sides. Retail /commercial uses are situated to the west along Marine Avenue. Additional details regarding the project are provided in Section 2.5, Project Characteristics. OCTOBER 2014 3.2 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST C4 �Y-wPI Q G r PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT m' Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 9. 10. 3.2 KXKI Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Surrounding uses along Park Avenue include: • The Grand Canal, and residential uses are located to the north and south; Park Avenue, and residential uses are located to the east and west; • A fire station is located to the west at the corner of Park Avenue and Marine Avenue; and Commercial, retail, and office uses are located to the west/northwest along Park Avenue and Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement). Refer to Section 2.6 Permits and Approvals, for a description of the range of local, regional, and State approvals anticipated to be required for the project. Additional approvals may be required as the project entitlement process moves forward. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact° or "Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ✓ Aesthetics Land Use and Planning Agriculture and Forestry Resources Mineral Resources ✓ Air Quality ✓ Noise ✓ Biological Resources Population and Housing ✓ Cultural Resources Public Services ✓ Geology and Soils Recreation Greenhouse Gas Emissions Transportation/Traffic ✓ Hazards & Hazardous Materials Utilities & Service Systems Hydrology & Water Quality ✓ Mandatory Findings of Significance EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The issue areas evaluated in this Initial Study include: Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality - Land Use and Planning - Mineral Resources - Noise - Population and Housing - Public Services - Recreation - Transportation/Traffic - Utilities and Service Systems OCTOBER 2014 3.3 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 6�g•p,�T PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration The environmental analysis in this section is patterned after the Initial Study Checklist recommended by the CEQA Guidelines and used by the City of Newport Beach in its environmental review process. For the preliminary environmental assessment undertaken as part of this Initial Study's preparation, a determination that there is a potential for significant effects indicates the need to more fully analyze the development's impacts and to identify mitigation. For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated and an answer is provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis considers the long -term, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the development. To each question, there are four possible responses: • No Impact. The development will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment. • Less Than Significant Impact. The development will have the potential for impacting the environment, although this impact will be below established thresholds that are considered to be significant. • Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The development will have the potential to generate impacts which may be considered as a significant effect on the environment, although mitigation measures or changes to the development's physical or operational characteristics can reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant. • Potentially Significant Impact. The development will have impacts which are considered significant, and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Where potential impacts are anticipated to be significant, mitigation measures will be required, so that impacts may be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels. OCTOBER 2014 3.4 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST aFRO(41 >y PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The following is a discussion of potential project impacts as identified in the Initial Study /Environmental Checklist. Explanations are provided for each item. 4.1 AESTHETICS a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact The City of Newport Beach General Plan (General Plan) identifies the conservation of sensitive lands and natural resources, and enhancement of the City's visual resources as important goals. The General Plan designates visual resources, scenic corridors, public view points, ocean views, cliffs, and hillsides as important scenic resources with the City of Newport Beach. The Park Avenue and Balboa Avenue bridge sites are located within a developed residential and commercial area on Balboa/Little Balboa Island. The Park Avenue Bridge site is designated as a 'public view point" in the General Plan, as views from the project site to visual resources such as the Newport Bay and Grand Canal are afforded. The proposed project would replace the existing Park Avenue Bridge with a new bridge structure and implement a temporary bridge at Balboa Avenue. A Usual Impact Assessment (VIA) was prepared for the proposed project, dated May 13, 2014. The VIA analyzed the potential for the project's visual impacts to surrounding sensitive viewers and visual resources in the project area; refer to Appendix A, Visual Impact Assessment. According to the VIA, the project would have moderate short -term visual impacts due to temporary construction activities (i.e., construction equipment, signage, staging areas, and construction equipment in the Grand Canal), and low long -term visual impacts, as the proposed bridge structure would be similar in color, texture, height, mass, and scale as the existing Park Avenue Bridge, and would not obstruct views to the Grand Canal and /or Newport Bay. As such, project implementation would not substantially alter the appearance of the landscape in the project area, and would not obstruct or visually impact any scenic vistas or resources. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? OCTOBER 2014 4.1 -1 AESTHETICS Less Than Would the project: Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ✓ b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings ✓ within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality ✓ of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would ✓ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact The City of Newport Beach General Plan (General Plan) identifies the conservation of sensitive lands and natural resources, and enhancement of the City's visual resources as important goals. The General Plan designates visual resources, scenic corridors, public view points, ocean views, cliffs, and hillsides as important scenic resources with the City of Newport Beach. The Park Avenue and Balboa Avenue bridge sites are located within a developed residential and commercial area on Balboa/Little Balboa Island. The Park Avenue Bridge site is designated as a 'public view point" in the General Plan, as views from the project site to visual resources such as the Newport Bay and Grand Canal are afforded. The proposed project would replace the existing Park Avenue Bridge with a new bridge structure and implement a temporary bridge at Balboa Avenue. A Usual Impact Assessment (VIA) was prepared for the proposed project, dated May 13, 2014. The VIA analyzed the potential for the project's visual impacts to surrounding sensitive viewers and visual resources in the project area; refer to Appendix A, Visual Impact Assessment. According to the VIA, the project would have moderate short -term visual impacts due to temporary construction activities (i.e., construction equipment, signage, staging areas, and construction equipment in the Grand Canal), and low long -term visual impacts, as the proposed bridge structure would be similar in color, texture, height, mass, and scale as the existing Park Avenue Bridge, and would not obstruct views to the Grand Canal and /or Newport Bay. As such, project implementation would not substantially alter the appearance of the landscape in the project area, and would not obstruct or visually impact any scenic vistas or resources. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? OCTOBER 2014 4.1 -1 AESTHETICS F PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration No Impact State Route 1 (SR -1) is the nearest Officially State Designated State Scenic Highway, located approximately 0.5 -mile to the north of the project site? Views to the project area from SR -1, however, are not afforded due to topographic conditions and intervening structures. As such, the proposed project would not affect scenic resources along SR -1. Thus, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Short-Term Impacts Because the Park Avenue Bridge is the only connection between Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island, access over the Grand Canal must be maintained at all times. Thus, the proposed project would include the installation of a temporary bridge at Balboa Avenue, which would allow for the demolition of the entire Park Avenue Bridge at one time and reconstruction of the new bridge in one phase. Construction of the proposed project would take approximately 10 months to complete. Improvements associated with the proposed project would expose sensitive viewers to construction activities (approximately 10 months) at the project site and along Balboa Avenue at the Grand Canal. Balboa Avenue is a local two -lane roadway (one vehicle lane and sidewalk in each direction) trending in an east -west direction across Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island. Currently, there is no bridge crossing over Grand Canal along Balboa Avenue, and the roadway currently terminates at each end of the canal. This location is immediately surrounded by residential uses on all sides. Retail /commercial uses are situated to the west along Marine Avenue. Construction of the temporary bridge at Balboa Avenue would occur within existing City ROW and no ROW acquisition would be required. The temporary bridge would maintain access to Little Balboa Island via two 10 -foot lanes of traffic. Bicycle and pedestrian access will also be provided via a five -foot wide walkway to be located to the north of the travel lanes. Two pedestrian /ADA- compliant access ramps would be provided on each side of the Grand Canal to allow for access from at -grade elevations up to the five -foot walkway on the temporary bridge structure. Construction of the temporary bridge requires no removal /replacement of existing improvements on Balboa Avenue; however, temporary piles would be placed within the Grand Canal in order to lower the temporary bridge structure, shorten the ramp lengths on both sides of the canal, and eliminate any potential conflicts with surrounding residential driveways. Approximately eight temporary piles would be located within the channel (four piles on each side of Grand Canal). Construction of the project would result in construction debris, equipment, and truck traffic to nearby sensitive viewers (in the vicinity of Park Avenue Bridge and Balboa Avenue). Installation and removal of the temporary bridge structure and permanent bridge at Park Avenue would be visible from motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and residents located in the project vicinity. A construction staging area temporarily located at a nearby vacant lot within the project area, the location of which would be determined during the final design process. To minimize impacts related at the Park Avenue site, Balboa Avenue site, and temporary staging area, implementation of Mitigation Measure AES -1 would require temporary construction fencing to minimize public views, and would also require that any equipment/materials storage and vehicle parking is sited such that visibility from adjacent receptors is reduced to the greatest extent feasible. Trucks hauling materials to the construction site would be required to comply with the City's Municipal Code to minimize impacts to sensitive uses, and therefore, would not result in significant visual impacts. These impacts are short -term and would cease upon California Department of Transportation website, http: / /www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ LandArch /scenic_highwaystindex.htm, accessed June 16, 2014. OCTOBER 2014 4.1 -2 AESTHETICS ow%� (--7i PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Ini ial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration project completion of construction activities. As these impacts would be temporary, and would cease upon completion, the potential impacts to the visual character and quality in the surrounding area are considered to be less than significant. Long -Term Impacts The proposed project would result in a new bridge structure along Park Avenue, connecting Balboa Island to Little Balboa Island. Public views of the new bridge structure (including slightly wider travel lanes and sidewalks, and a reduction in the number of spans in the Grand Canal from five to the proposed three), entry monumentation (including landscaping and signage), and bridge lighting fixtures would be afforded. Proposed project changes would result in a beneficial increase in visual character /quality, as the new, wider bridge structure would increase the pedestrian scale environment (compared to the more narrow, existing structure), and improvements over the existing Park Avenue Bridge (i.e., severely deteriorated concrete in girders, pile caps, and piles) would increase visual intactness for nearby viewers. Stationary viewers (i.e., residents in the project vicinity) would have long-term views to the new bridge structure; however, the new bridge structure would be constructed of similar height as the existing Park Avenue Bridge, and existing views of the Newport Harbor and Grand Canal would remain similar to existing conditions. The proposed streetscape and monument signage is anticipated to result in an overall increase in the quality of the landscape in the project area. Existing views of Newport Bay and the Grand Canal would remain upon implementation of the proposed project. Further, based on public input received from community residents, the project proposes a widened bridge with a similar profile, architecture, and lighting elements compared to existing conditions. Thus, long -term operational visual character /quality impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: AES -1 Prior to final plan approval, the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall ensure that project specifications require that all construction and construction staging areas are sited and /or screened with temporary fencing in order to minimize impacts to public views to the maximum extent feasible. The fencing shall be comprised of opaque material to shield views from surrounding sensitive viewers. In addition, equipment/materials storage and any vehicle parking shall be sited such that their visibility from adjacent receptors is reduced to the greatest extent feasible. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Short-Term Impacts Operation of the temporary bridge along Balboa Avenue would require the use of nighttime lighting for security and traffic safety during the nighttime hours. This lighting could expose surrounding sensitive viewers to an increase in light and glare in the area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES -2 would minimize impacts in this regard by requiring use of the minimum amount of lighting required for safety, and through shielding and directing light away from surrounding uses. This measure would require the minimum amount of light required to allow for the safe travel of vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists across the bridge. Compliance with Mitigation Measure AES -2 would result in a less than significant impact. OCTOBER 2014 4.1 -3 AESTHETICS �µWPp F� r PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration b) Would the project cause or contribute to new air quality violations? As discussed in Response 4.3(b), the proposed project would result in emissions that would be below the SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to cause or affect a violation of the ambient air quality standards. c) Would the project delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP? The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with regard to localized concentrations during project construction and operations. As such, the proposed project would not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or AQMP emissions reductions. CrRerion 2: With respect to the second criterion for determining consistency with SCAQMD and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) air quality policies, it is important to recognize that air quality planning within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) focuses on attainment of ambient air quality standards at the earliest feasible date. Projections for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions regarding population, housing, and growth trends. Thus, the SCAQMD's second criterion for determining project consistency focuses on whether or not the proposed project exceeds the assumptions utilized in preparing the forecasts presented in the 2012 AQMP. Determining whether or not a project exceeds the assumptions reflected in the 2012 AQMP involves the evaluation of the three criteria outlined below. The following discussion provides an analysis of each of these criteria. a) Would the project be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projections utilized in the preparation of the AQMP? In the case of the 2012 AQMP, three sources of data form the basis for the projections of air pollutant emissions: the City of Newport Beach General Plan, SCAG's Growth Management Chapter of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), and SCAG's 2012 -2035 Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP /SCS). The RTP /SCS also . provides socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population growth. As the project site is comprised of a bridge structure and Park Avenue, there is no land use designation for the site. Park Avenue is a local roadway located on Balboa /Little Balboa Island. The project proposes to demolish the existing Park Avenue Bridge, and construct a new bridge structure at the same location. Thus, the proposed project would not induce any population growth, and would be consistent with the types, intensity, and patterns of land use envisioned for the site vicinity in the RCP /SCS. The population, housing, and employment forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG's Regional Council are based on the local plans and policies applicable to the City; these are used by SCAG in all phases of implementation and review. Additionally, as the SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections into the 2012 AQMP, it can be concluded that the proposed project would be consistent with the projections. b) Would the project implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures? The proposed project would not generate a significant amount of air quality emissions nor exceed SCAQMD thresholds. During construction activities, the project would also be required to comply with standard SCAQMD regulations, such as Rule 403 (Dust Control). As such, the proposed project meets this AQMP consistency criterion. OCTOBER 2014 4.3 -2 AIR QUALITY y�iRwP�41 Hj(A�f PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration c) Would the project be consistent with the land use planning strategies set forth in the AQMP? The proposed project would result in less than significant air quality impacts. Compliance with emission reduction measures identified by the SCAQMD would be required as identified in Response 4.3(b) and 4.3(c). In addition, the proposed project is located within a developed portion of the City, and would relieve traffic congestion in the area and allow for more efficient mobility. As such, the proposed project meets this AQMP consistency criterion. In conclusion, the determination of 2012 AQMP consistency is primarily concerned with the long -term influence of a project on air quality in the Basin. The proposed project would not result in a long -term impact on the region's ability to meet State and Federal air quality standards. Also, the proposed project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the 2012 AQMP for control of fugitive dust. As discussed above, the proposed project's long -term influence would also be consistent with the goals and policies of the AQMP and is, therefore, considered consistent with the SCAQMD's 2012 AQMP. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Sfgnffrcant Impact with Mitigation. SHORT -TERM (CONSTRUCTION) EMISSIONS Construction Emissions As discussed in Section 2.0, Proiect Description, the proposed project would take approximately 10 months to complete. Construction of the project would include a temporary bridge connection over the Grand Canal along Balboa Avenue while the existing Park Avenue Bridge is being demolished and constructed. The project's construction air emissions for the have been modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2013.2.2 Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to commence in early 2016 and be completed by late 2016. Construction activities would require the import and export of approximately 27 cubic yards of soil, and hauling of 600 tons of demolished material from demolition of the existing Park Avenue Bridge. Table 4.3 -1, Construction Air Emissions, depicts the construction emissions associated with the project. Emitted pollutants would include ROG, CO, NOx, PM1o, and PM2.5. ROG emissions would be the greatest during construction of the new bridge structure. The largest amount of ROG, CO and NOx emissions would occur during construction of the new bridge structure. PM10 and PM25 emissions would occur from fugitive dust (due to earthwork and excavation) and from construction equipment exhaust. Exhaust emissions from construction activities include emissions associated with the transport of machinery and supplies to and from the project site, emissions produced on -site as the equipment is used, and emissions from trucks transporting materials to and from the site. As depicted in Table 4.3 -1, construction - related emissions would not exceed the established SCAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, short -term construction impacts would be less than significant. During construction activities, the project would also be required to comply with standard SCAQMD regulations, such as Rule 403 (Dust Control); refer to Mitigation Measure AQ -1. No mitigation measures are required. OCTOBER 2014 4.3 -3 AIR QUALITY ERRWYr�p PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT a.aF, Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Naturally Occurring Asbestos Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally occurring fibrous minerals that are a human health hazard when airborne. The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types such as tremolite and actinolite are also found in California. Asbestos is classified as a known human carcinogen by State, Federal, and international agencies and was identified as a toxic air contaminant by the California Air Resources Board in 1986. Table 4.3.1 Construction Air Emissions Construction Emissions i Source ROG NOx Pollutant (poundslday)1.2 CO S02 PM1e PMzs 2016 Unmitigated Emissions 4.00 40.66 27.17 0.04 3.14 2.26 Mitigated Emissions 4.00 40.66 27.17 0.04 2.71 2.19 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No 2017 Unmitigated Emissions 1.10 9.91 8.10 0.01 0.80 0.61 Mitigated Emissions 1.10 9.91 8.10 0.01 0.76 0.60 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; S02= sulfurdioxide; PMro = particulate matter up to 10 microns; PM2.s = particulate matter up to 2.5 microns Notes: 1. Emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model, as recommended by the SCAQMD. 2. Refer to Appendix B, Air QualihOreenhouse Gas Data, for assumptions used in this analysis. Asbestos can be released from serpentinite and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed. At the point of release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality and human health hazards. These rocks have been commonly used for unpaved gravel roads, landscaping, fill projects, and other improvement projects in some localities. Asbestos may be released to the atmosphere due to vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, during grading for development projects, and at quarry operations. All of these activities may have the effect of releasing potentially harmful asbestos into the air. Natural weathering and erosion processes can act on asbestos bearing rock and make it easier for asbestos fibers to become airborne if such rock is disturbed. According to the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, A General Location Guide for Ultramahc Rocks in California — Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report (August 2000), serpentinite and ultramafic rocks are not known to occur within the project area. Thus, there would be no impact in this regard. LONG -TERM (OPERATIONAL) EMISSIONS Long -term air quality impacts would consist of mobile source emissions generated from project - related traffic and from stationary source emissions. Long -term air quality impacts typically consist of mobile source emissions generated from project - related traffic and from stationary source emissions generated directly from natural gas. However, the project involves the demolition of the existing Park Avenue Bridge, and construction of a new bridge structure at the same location. The project would not OCTOBER 2014 4.3-4 AIR QUALITY 4PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration generate any new traffic trips, as the project is intended to relieve traffic congestion, increase mobility, and accommodate existing traffic conditions in the area. Additionally, the proposed bridge would not generate any stationary source emissions. Therefore, the project would not result in any new operational emissions and impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: AQ -1 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the City shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that, in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust prevention measures, as specified in the SCAQMD's Rules and Regulations. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 402 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off -site. Implementation of the following measures (among others required by Rules 402 and 403) would reduce short -term fugitive dust impacts on nearby sensitive receptors: • All active portions of the construction site shall be watered every three hours during daily construction activities and when dust is observed migrating from the project site to prevent excessive amounts of dust; • Pave or apply water every three hours during daily construction activities or apply non -toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas. More frequent watering shall occur if dust is observed migrating from the site during site disturbance; • Any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or other dusty material shall be enclosed, covered, or watered twice daily, or non -toxic soil binders shall be applied; • All grading and excavation operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour; • Disturbed areas shall be replaced with ground cover or paved immediately after construction is completed in the affected area; • Visible dust beyond the property line which emanates from the project shall be prevented to the maximum extent feasible; • All material transported off -site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust prior to departing the job site; and • Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas. C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) ? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. CUMULATIVE CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS With respect to the proposed project's construction related air quality emissions and cumulative Basin - wide conditions, the SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the 2012 AQMP pursuant to Federal Clean Air Act mandates. As stated above in Response 4.3(b), the project would result in construction emissions that would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds and would not contribute to a cumulative net increase in air quality levels. Other cumulative projects in the Basin would be required to undergo environmental review, and comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 OCTOBER 2014 4.3 -5 AIR QUALITY ` �bWP(16,J PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT # Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration P requirements, adopted 2012 AQMP emissions control measures, and implement all feasible mitigation measures, which would reduce cumulative project contribution of emissions. Therefore, as the project I would not result in project -level air quality impacts with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -1, the project would not contribute to cumulative air quality levels in the Basin. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. CUMULATIVE LONG -TERM IMPACTS As discussed previously, the proposed project would not result in long -term air quality impacts. Additionally, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations would alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions on a project -by- project basis. Emission reduction technology, strategies, and plans are constantly being developed. As a result, the proposed project would not contribute a cumulatively considerable net increase of any nonattainment criteria pollutant. Therefore, cumulative operational impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure AQ -1. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis. Sensitive receptors closest to the project site include residents adjoining the site to the northeast, southeast, southwest, and northwest. In order to identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing localized significance thresholds for construction and operations impacts (area sources only). A carbon monoxide hot -spot analysis is recommended for the analysis of localized mobile source impacts. However, a carbon monoxide hot -spot analysis was not prepared as the project would not increase the volume of traffic. Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I -4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with project - speck level proposed projects. The SCAQMD provides the LST lookup tables for one, two, and five acre projects emitting CO, NOx, PM2.5, or PMio. The LST methodology and associated mass rates are not designed to evaluate localized impacts from mobile sources traveling over the roadways. The SCAQMD recommends that any project over five acres should perform air quality dispersion modeling to assess impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. The project is located within Sensitive Receptor Area (SRA) 18, North Coastal Orange County. The project would disturb no more than one acre of land per day; therefore, the LST thresholds for the smallest acreage (one acre) was utilized for the construction LST analysis. It is noted that an operational LST analysis was not prepared, as the project would not result in operational emissions. The closest sensitive receptors are residential uses that adjoin the project site to the northeast, OCTOBER 2014 4.3 -6 AIR QUALITY O4'I H PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT ao Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration southeast, southwest, and northwest. These sensitive land uses may be potentially affected by air pollutant emissions generated during on -site construction activities. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. As the nearest sensitive uses adjoin the project site, the LST value for 25 meters was used. Table 4.3 -2 Localized Significance of Emissions, shows the construction- related emissions for NOx, CO, PM1o, and PMzs compared to the LSTs for SRA 18, North Coastal Orange County. As shown in Table 4.3 -2, construction and operational emissions would not exceed the LSTs for SRA 18. Therefore, localized significance impacts would be less than significant. Table 4.3.2 Localized Significance of Emissions Source Pollutant (Poundsiday)1•2 NOx - -- --- CO - - --- PMio PMzs Construction 2016 Total Mitigated Emissions3 40.66 27.17 2.71 2.19 Localized Significance Threshold4 92 647 4 3 Thresholds Exceeded? No No No No 2017 Total Mitigated Emissions3 9.91 8.10 0.76 0.60 Localized Significance Threshold4 92 647 4 3 Thresholds Exceeded? No No No No Note: 1. Emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model, as recommended by the SCAQMD. 2. Refer to Avoendix B, Air Quality /Greenhouse Gas Data, for assumptions used in this analysis. 3. Construction emissions include the worst-case on -site emissions. 4. The Localized Significance Threshold was determined using Appendix C of the SCAQMD Final Localized Significant Threshold Methodology guidance document for pollutants NOx, CO, PM1o, and PMzs. The Localized Significance Threshold was based on the anticipated daily acreage disturbance for construction, the total acreage for operational, the distance to sensitive receptors, and the source receptor area (SRA 18). Mitigation Measures., Refer to Mitigation Measure AQ-1. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors. Construction activities associated with the project may generate detectable odors from heavy -duty equipment exhaust. Construction- related odors would be short -term in nature and cease upon project completion. Any impacts to existing adjacent land uses would be short -term and are less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. OCTOBER 2014 4.3 -7 AIR QUALITY a PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. OCTOBER 2014 4.3 -8 AIR QUALITY Fn�p PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. Special status plant and wildlife species have been given recognition by federal and/or State agencies and private conservation organizations because of a perceived or documented decline in the population size or geographic range of the species. Several special status plant and wildlife species are known to occur in the project area. Based on the Park Avenue Bridge Natural Environment Study (NES) prepared for the proposed project by RBF Consulting, 38 sensitive animal species, 29 sensitive plant species, and seven sensitive habitats have potential to occur in the project area; refer to Appendix C, Natural Environmental Study of this document for a list of these species and habitats. As part of the NES, a habitat assessment was conducted to determine which sensitive biological species have the potential to occur in the project vicinity. The habitat assessment included a literature review, and a field survey of the project area. The literature review included a records search for sensitive biological resources with potential to occur on or within the vicinity of the project site. The OCTOBER 2014 4.4-1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Less Than Would the project Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or ✓ regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California ✓ Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) ✓ through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with ✓ established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ✓ ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or ✓ other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation Ian? a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. Special status plant and wildlife species have been given recognition by federal and/or State agencies and private conservation organizations because of a perceived or documented decline in the population size or geographic range of the species. Several special status plant and wildlife species are known to occur in the project area. Based on the Park Avenue Bridge Natural Environment Study (NES) prepared for the proposed project by RBF Consulting, 38 sensitive animal species, 29 sensitive plant species, and seven sensitive habitats have potential to occur in the project area; refer to Appendix C, Natural Environmental Study of this document for a list of these species and habitats. As part of the NES, a habitat assessment was conducted to determine which sensitive biological species have the potential to occur in the project vicinity. The habitat assessment included a literature review, and a field survey of the project area. The literature review included a records search for sensitive biological resources with potential to occur on or within the vicinity of the project site. The OCTOBER 2014 4.4-1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OD PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration resources used for the literature reviewed included, but were not limited to, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey, California Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rarefind 5, and the California Native Plant Society (CNPSs) Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Literature detailing biological resources previously observed on or near the project site and historical land uses of the project site were reviewed to understand the extent of disturbances to the habitats on -site. This information provided background information needed for inventorying the biological resources potentially occurring on the project site. The field survey provided information of the existing conditions within the project vicinity and potential for sensitive biological resources to occur. A field survey of the project site and surrounding area was conducted on May 2, 2014 by RBF Consulting. Plant communities in the vicinity of the project site, particularly within the Grand Canal, were evaluated for their potential to provide suitable habitat for sensitive plant and animal species, as well as the identification of corridors and linkages that may support the movement of animal through the area and fish passage. The majority of the project vicinity contains no natural plant communities, as the project area is developed with residential and commercial uses, paved surfaces, and landscaped areas consisting of non - native /ornamental vegetation. Based on the NES, the Grand Canal is the only area within the project vicinity that has potential to provide suitable habitat for sensitive aquatic plant and animal species. Eelgrass within the Grand Canal was identified as the only plant community able to provide suitable habitat for sensitive plant and animal species in the project area. Animal species observed during the habitat assessment included avian species, fish, crustaceans, and mollusks. Avian species observed included rock pigeon (Columba livia), Caspian tern (Hydroprogne caspia), snowy egret (Egretta thula), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), western gull (Lanus occidentalis), Forster's tern (Stema forsten), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), Allen's hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin), double- crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), and European starling (Stumus vulgaris). Several small fish were observed within the low tide channel of the Grand Canal; however, these fish species were observed in the eel grass and could not be identified to species. Several fiddler crabs (Uca spp.) were observed on the un- vegetated mudflat during the habitat assessment. Barnacles (Balanus spp.) were also observed during the habitat assessment on the existing support pillars for Park Avenue Bridge, the concrete seawalls of the Grand Canal, and the wooden boat docks. The only mollusks observed during the habitat assessment included mussel (Mytilus califomianus), which were observed on the existing support pillars for Park Avenue Bridge. The concrete seawalls and wooden boat docks also provide suitable habitat for mollusks to attach within the project area. None of the species observed during the field survey are considered sensitive species based on Federal, State, or local criteria. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT AND EELGRASS As discussed in the NES (Appendix C , the project site is not located within a federally designated Critical Habitat for any federally listed species. The Grand Canal, however, is designated as an Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), or waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. Within the project area, EFH extends north up the Grand Canal from Newport Bay approximately 400 feet, and south within the Grand Canal from Newport Bay approximately 800 feet. The existing Park Avenue Bridge is not located within EFH; however, the proposed location of the temporary bridge, located along Balboa Avenue, would be located within EFH. As noted above, eelgrass is the only native plant community in the project area with potential to provide habitat for sensitive biological species. Eelgrass is a flowering, marine vascular plant that is considered a sensitive marine resource due to its nursery function for invertebrates and fishes, and because it is OCTOBER 2014 4.4-2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES �BWP� y F PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT ° W_l Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration considered critical foraging habitat for California least tern (Sternula antillarum brown), a federal and state endangered species. Eelgrass is protected by the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy, which requires impacts to this species be avoided, minimized, or compensated. Within the middle of the low tide channel of the Grand Canal, eelgrass is found for the entire extent of the Canal, except immediately under the existing Park Avenue Bridge. A pre - construction eelgrass survey/EFH assessment was conducted as part of the NES to identify existing sensitive habitats (eelgrass) within the Grand Canal, and evaluate potential impacts to fish species and marine biological resources from construction related activities; refer to Appendix C. Based on the results of the pre - construction eelgrass survey /EFH assessment, a dense assemblage of eelgrass is found throughout the Grand Canal, except under the existing Park Avenue Bridge. The areas north and south of Park Avenue Bridge are populated with eelgrass, which slowly become less abundant as the Grand Canal terminates into the main channel of Newport Bay. A high coverage of eelgrass was found in the area of the proposed location of the temporary bridge during the eelgrass survey /EFH assessment. The proposed project would not result in direct impacts to eelgrass at either the Park Avenue Bridge site or temporary bridge site at Balboa Avenue. As noted above, eelgrass is not located beneath the existing Park Avenue Bridge, and the sheet piles proposed within the canal at the temporary bridge would occur in areas uninhabited by eelgrass. However, the project would result in indirect eelgrass impacts through the following activities: 1) construction activities in the canal that increase turbidity that could adversely affect eelgrass; and 2) the installation of a temporary bridge at Balboa Avenue that would cast a shadow that may adversely affect eelgrass. As such, Mitigation Measures BIO -1 and 1310- 2 would be implemented to minimize impacts to eelgrass. Mitigation Measure BI0 -1 would require pre - and post- construction surveys to ensure that significant impacts to eelgrass do not occur. Mitigation Measure BI0-2 would require mitigation for temporary eelgrass impacts in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy to ensure short -term impacts are reduced to a level below significance. k,1 *31Rlei AIR No sensitive animal species were detected within the project are during the habitat assessment. Based on habitat requirements for specific species, availability and quality of habitats needed by each sensitive animal species, it was determined that the project site does not provide suitable habitat that would support any of these sensitive animal species known to occur in the general area. However, it was determined that Cooper's hawk (Accipder cooperir), white - tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), and osprey (Pandion haliaetus) have a low potential to occur within the project area. The project area does not provide suitable nesting habitat for these avian species, but they can be observed foraging in or around Newport Bay. Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.3, 3511, and 3513 of the Fish and Game Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs). In order to protect migratory bird species, Mitigation Measure 13I0-3 would be implemented. This measure requires nesting bird clearance surveys prior to any vegetation removal or development that may disrupt migratory birds during the nesting season. Consequently, if avian nesting behaviors are disrupted, such as nest abandonment and /or loss of reproductive effort, it is considered 'take" and is potentially punishable by fines and /or imprisonment. The ornamental trees and shrubs associated with the developed areas within the project area have the potential to provide limited nesting opportunities for "crevice - dwelling" avian species. No nesting birds, active nests, or birds displaying nesting behaviors were observed during the habitat assessment. The habitat assessment was conducted during the breeding season and no nesting birds were observed. In OCTOBER 2014 4.4-3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3 ` ls.*Qr PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT �a� Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration al p, n' I particular, no remnant or active swallow nests were observed under the existing Park Avenue Bridge during the habitat assessment. Several rock pigeons were observed roosting under the bridge, but no active nests were observed. Rock pigeons are not protected under the MBTA, therefore, if nesting, no avoidance and minimizations measures would need to be implemented. However, in compliance with the MBTA, the proposed project shall comply with Mitigation Measure BIO -3 to ensure impacts to special- status bird species would not occur. Upon implementation of recommended mitigation measures, impacts to sensitive biological resources would be less than significant. Mitiaation Measures 6I0 -1 Prior to project implementation, the City of Newport Beach shall thoroughly map the area, distribution, density and relationship to depth contours of any eelgrass beds that have the potential to be directly or indirectly impacted by project construction. Factors to be considered in delineating potential habitat areas include appropriate circulation, light, sediment, slope, salinity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, depth, proximity to eelgrass, history of eelgrass coverage, etc. All mapping efforts should be completed during the active growth phase for the vegetation (generally March through October) and shall be valid for a period of 60 days with the exception of surveys completed in August - October. Surveys completed in August - October shall be valid until the resumption of active growth (i.e., in most instances, March 1). After project construction, the City of Newport Beach shall conduct a post - project survey within 30 days and the results shall be sent to the resource agencies. The actual area of impact shall be determined from the post - project survey. An additional survey shall be completed after 12 months to ensure that the project or impacts attributable to the project have not exceeded the allowed limits. If the post- project or 12 month survey demonstrates a loss of eelgrass greater than the allowed limit, then mitigation pursuant to Sections 1 -11 of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy shall be required. BIO -2 The City of Newport Beach shall ensure that compensatory mitigation is provided in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS, 1991 as amended, Revision 11) for temporary impacts to eelgrass. Such mitigation may include planting eelgrass within the temporarily affected area and throughout the Grand Canal to offset impacts to eelgrass and increase the amount of eelgrass within the Grand Canal. The City of Newport Beach shall develop the compensatory mitigation program in consultation with the resource agencies prior to any construction activities that have the capacity to result in adverse impacts to eelgrass. Per the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy, the ultimate mitigation ratio shall be dependent on the results of the pre - and post - construction eelgrass surveys, but shall be no less than a 1:1 mitigation ratio unless otherwise agreed upon by the resource agencies. BIO -3 If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31st, the follow shall be implemented: A pre - construction survey shall be conducted prior to construction activities to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds within the BSA. A qualified biologist shall conduct the survey. • If an active nest is found, the bird shall be identified to species and the approximate distance from the closest work site to the nest is estimated. No additional measures OCTOBER 2014 4.4-4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ca�.ewrr,4r` PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration need to be implemented if active nests are more than the following distances from the nearest work site: a) 500 feet for raptors or listed species; or b) 250 feet for non - listed passerines. Nests within these distances from the project site shall have a no- disturbance buffer implemented around them. The buffer shall be a minimum 250 feet for non - listed passerines and a minimum 500 feet for raptors or listed species. This distance may be increased according to the judgment of the qualified biologist, and may be decreased only with approval from the CDFW. A qualified biologist shall periodically monitor any confirmed nest sites (with no- disturbance buffers) during construction to determine if grading activities occurring outside the buffer zone disturb the birds and if the buffer zone should be increased to prevent nest abandonment. The nest trees shall be monitored until all nests have been abandoned (for non - project related reasons) or the young have fledged. If no nesting birds are found on -site during this time period, construction activities may continue as planned. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Shaniffcant Impact With Mitigation. The NES prepared for the project examined potential impacts to riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities. The only sensitive natural community located within the impact area would be EFH located within the Grand Canal; refer to Response 4.4(a), above. All other areas that would be impacted are developed, disturbed, or occupied by ornamental vegetation. The EFH offers high biological value (i.e., eelgrass) to fish species in the Grand Canal. As noted above, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures BIO -1 and BIO -2 to minimize impacts to EFH in the Grand Canal during construction. The NES prepared for the proposed project included the preparation of a Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) to determine potential project - related impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or State. Based on the JD, the Grand Canal is considered "Waters of the U.S." and would be subject to regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The proposed project would result in 0.004 acres of permanent impacts and no temporary impacts at the Park Avenue Bridge site. The project would result in 0.004 acres of permanent impacts and 0.0006 acres of temporary impacts at the Balboa Avenue temporary bridge site. As such, Mitigation Measure BI0-4 would be implemented. This measure would require that the City of Newport Beach coordinate with the USACE, RWQCB, and California Coastal Commission at the time the Corps Letter of Permission (LOP), Section 401 Water Quality Certification, and CCC Coastal Development Permit (CDP) applications are submitted to the agencies. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -1, BIO-2, and BI0-4, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures BIO -1, BIO -2, and the following Mitigation Measure BIO -4. BI04 Prior to any construction activity within the Grand Canal, the City of Newport Beach shall consult with the appropriate responsible resource agency (i.e., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Coastal Commission) to verify delineation results, determine permanent losses and temporary impact areas, and identify compensatory mitigation, as applicable. Prior to undertaking ground - disturbing activities on or immediately adjacent to any aquatic resource areas, the City of Newport OCTOBER 2014 4.4-5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Q�tw+v�yn K PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Beach and /or their consultant shall obtain all obligatory discretionary permitslauthorizations. C) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact Based on the NES for the proposed project, no jurisdictional wetlands occur within the boundaries of the project site. No impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Sign cant Imoact. Habitat linkages provide links between larger undeveloped habitat areas that are separated by development. Wildlife corridors are similar to linkages, but provide specific opportunities for animals to disperse or migrate between areas. A corridor can be defined as a linear landscape feature of sufficient width to allow animal movement between two comparatively undisturbed habitat fragments. Adequate cover is essential for a corridor to function as a wildlife movement area. It is possible for a habitat corridor to be adequate for one species but inadequate for others. Wildlife corridors are significant features for dispersal, seasonal migration, breeding, and foraging. Additionally, open space can provide a buffer against both human disturbance and natural fluctuations in resources. The project area does not support any migratory corridors or linkages. However, Newport Bay may provide a migration corridor for fish species migrating into the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, located approximately 1.5 miles north of the project site. The Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve is also located within the Pacific Flyway for migratory avian species. However, according to the NES, the proposed project would be limited to the Grand Canal and would not impact potential fish migration within Newport Bay or avian migration in the area. Additionally, the Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) do not identify any proposed Core or Linkage Areas on the project site. The nearest Core areas are found at Upper Newport Bay to the north, the Santa Ana River Mouth to the northwest, and the San Joaquin Hills to the southeast. As such, the project would not have the capability to interfere with wildlife movement, nor would it impede the use of wildlife nursery sites. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The primary documents applicable to the proposed project are the Natural Resources Element of the City's General Plan and the City's Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP). Both of these documents contain policies regarding the preservation of natural and biological resources that apply to the proposed project. Table 4.4 -1, General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis, provides a consistency analysis of the applicable Natural Resources Element and CLUP policies and the proposed project. OCTOBER 2014 4.4-6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study/Mfiigated Negative Declaration ° V!P1' As seen below in Table 4.4 -1, the proposed project would be consistent with all policies regarding biological resources within the City's Natural Resources Element, and the CLUP with implementation of Mitigation Measures BI0-1 through BI04. Table 4.4.1 General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Policy Consistency Analysis Policy ! Consistency of Proposed Project with Current Policy GENERALPLAN NR 10.1 Terrestrial and Marine Resource Consistent. As discussed above, Mitigation Measure 8104 would Protection: Cooperate with the state and require the project to consult with the appropriate responsible federal resource protection agencies and resource agency (i.e., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional private organizations to protect terrestrial and Water Quality Control Board, and California Coastal Commission) marine resources. to verify delineation results, determine permanent losses and temporary impact areas, and identify compensatory mitigation, as applicable. In addition, in support of the Federal funding process for the project, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has requested EFH consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service NMFS for impacts to eelgrass. NR 10.2 Orange County Natural Consistent. As discussed below in Response 4.4(f), the proposed Communities Conservation Plan: Comply project would not result in significant impacts to biological with the policies contained within the Orange resources, and would not conflict with the provisions of the NCCP County Natural Communities Conservation with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -1 through BIO-4. Plan. NR 10.3 Analysis of Environmental Study Consistent. As discussed above, the City has conducted a Areas: Require a site - specific survey and detailed NES and EFH Assessment to determine project impacts analysis prepared by a qualified biologist as a to sensitive environmental resources. The City of Newport Beach filing requirement for any development permit would be required to complete pre- and post - construction surveys applications where development would occur to ensure that project impacts have not exceeded the allowed within or contiguous to areas identified as limits (Mitigation Measure BIO-1) for loss of eelgrass in the Grand ESAs. Canal. If the post - project surveys demonstrate a loss of eelgrass greater than the allowed limit, mitigation pursuant to Sections 1 -11 of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy shall be required as noted under Mitigation Measure BIO-2. NR 10.4 New Development Siting and Consistent. Compliance with Mitigation Measures BI0-1 through Design: Require that the siting and design of BIO-4 would ensure that sensitive and /or rare species and other new development, including landscaping and biological resources are not significantly affected as a result of public access, protect sensitive or rare construction and operation of the proposed project. resources against any significant disruption of habitat values. NR 10.7 Exterior Lighting: Shield and direct Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, the project exterior lighting away from significant or rare would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure AES -2, biological resources to minimize impacts to which requires the City of Newport Beach Public Works wildlife. Department to ensure that the contract documents require the construction contractor and /or bridge contractor to use the minimum amount and intensity of lighting required for safety purposes. The lighting shall be shielded and directed towards the specific area of construction, and away from surrounding sensitive uses to the extent practicable. During long -term operations, the proposed lighting would be similar in intensity and nature to what currently exists at the Park Avenue Bridge, and would not have the potential to adversely affect biological resources. OCTOBER 2014 4.4-7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1 �RRY�Qr PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT ° Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 4.4.1 [continued] General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Policy Consistency Analysis Policy Consistency of Proposed Project with Current Policy NR 11.3 Eelgrass Protection: Avoid impacts Consistent. As discussed above, the project would be required to to eelgrass (Zosters marina) to the extent comply with Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Mitigation Measure BIO -1 feasible. Mitigate losses of eelgrass in requires a pre- and post - construction survey of the Grand Canal to accordance with the Southern California ensure that the project or impacts attributable to the project have not Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. Encourage the exceeded the allowed limits for loss of eelgrass. Mitigation Measure restoration of eelgrass in Newport Harbor at BIO-2 requires compensatory mitigation for the loss of eelgrass in appropriate sites, where feasible. accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. Such mitigation may include planting eelgrass within the temporarily affected area and throughout the Grand Canal to offset impacts to eelgrass and increase the amount of eelgrass within the Grand Canal. NR 11.4 Interagency Coordination on Consistent. As discussed above, Mitigation Measure BIO -4 would Establishing Eelgrass Restoration Sites. require the project to consult with the appropriate responsible Cooperate with the County of Orange, the resource agency (i.e., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and resource Quality Control Board, and California Coastal Commission) to verify agencies to establish eelgrass restoration delineation results, determine permanent losses and temporary sites. impact areas, and identify compensatory mitigation, as applicable. In addition, compliance with Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would reduce any potential impacts to eelgrass to a less than significant level. In addition, in support of the Federal funding process for the project, Caltrans has requested EFH consultation with the NMFS for impacts to eelgrass. NR 11.5 Eelgrass Mitigation: Allow Consistent. As discussed above, the project may be required to successful eelgrass restoration sites to serve implement compensatory mitigation for the loss of eelgrass, which as mitigation sites for City projects and as a may include planting eelgrass within the temporarily affected area and mitigation bank from which eelgrass throughout the Grand Canal to offset impacts to eelgrass and mitigation credits will be issued to private increase the amount of eelgrass within the Grand Canal. property owners for eelgrass removal resulting from dock and channel dredging projects. COASTAL LAND USE PLAN 4.1.1 -2: Require a site- specific survey and Consistent. As noted above, the City has conducted a detailed NES analysis prepared by a qualified biologist as a and EFH Assessment to determine project impacts to sensitive filing requirement for coastal development environmental resources. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO -1 permit applications where development would would require the City to complete a pre- and post - construction occur within or adjacent to areas identified as survey of the project area, including the Grand Canal. The survey a potential ESHA. Identify ESHA as habitats would a through mapping of the area, distribution, density and or natural communities listed in Section 4.1.1 relationship to depth contours of any eelgrass beds that have the that possess any of the attributes listed in potential to be directly or indirectly impacted by project construction. Policy 4.1.1 -1. The ESA's depicted on Map 4- An additional survey would be conducted 12 months after project 1 shall represent a preliminary mapping of completion to ensure that that the project or impacts attributable to areas containing potential ESHA. the project have not exceeded the allowed limits. If the post - project or 12 month survey demonstrates a loss of eelgrass greater than the allowed limit, then mitigation pursuant to Sections 1 -11 of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy shall be required as noted under Mitigation Measure BIO-2. Per the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy, the ultimate mitigation ratio shall be dependent on the results of the pre- and post - construction eelgrass surveys, but shall be no less than a 1:1 mitigation ratio unless otherwise agreed upon by the resource agencies. OCTOBER 2014 4.4-8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration q�mnm� Table 4.4.1 [continued] General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Policy Consistency Analysis Policy Consistency of Proposed Project with Current Policy 4.1.4 -1: Continue to protect eelgrass Consistent. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -1 BIO -2, meadows for their important ecological and BIO -4 would ensure that eelgrass within the Grand Canal would function as a nursery and foraging habitat not be impacted by the proposed project. within the Newport Bay ecosystem. 4.1.4 -3: Site and design boardwalks, docks, Consistent. Although the project would include a temporary bridge piers, and other structures that extend over structure along Balboa Avenue (including temporary piles in the the water to avoid impacts to eelgrass Grand Canal), this would be short -term in nature and would not result meadows. Encourage the use of materials in long -term impacts to eelgrass. The new bridge structure along that allow sunlight penetration and the growth Park Avenue would include permanent piles in the Grand Canal; of eelgrass. however, as discussed above and in the NES, eelgrass and EFH do not exist in the immediate vicinity of the existing Park Avenue Bridge structure. Further, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -1, BIO-2, and BI04 would ensure that impacts to eelgrass within the Grand Canal would be mitigated to the furthest extent possible. 4.1.4 -5: Where applicable require eelgrass Consistent. The City has conducted a detailed NES and EFH and Caulerpa taxifofia surveys to be Assessment to determine project impacts to sensitive environmental conducted as a condition of City approval for resources. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires the City to projects in Newport Bay in accordance with conduct pre- and post - construction eelgrass surveys within the operative protocols of the Southern California Grand Canal, in compliance with the Southern California Eelgrass Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and Caulerpa Mitigation Policy, to ensure that the project or impacts attributable to taxifolia Survey protocols. the project have not exceeded the allowed limits. If the post- project or 12 month survey demonstrates a loss of eelgrass greater than the allowed limit, then mitigation pursuant to Sections 1 -11 of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy shall be required as noted under Mitigation Measure BIO-2. 4.2.5 -1: Avoid impacts to eelgrass (Zostera Consistent. As discussed above, the City of Newport Beach would be marina) to the greatest extent possible. required to complete a pre- and post - construction survey to Mitigate losses of eelgrass at a 1.2 to 1 determine to ensure that the project or impacts attributable to the mitigation ratio and in accordance with the project have not exceeded the allowed limits (Mitigation Measure Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation BIO.1). If any of the post- project surveys demonstrate a loss of Policy. Encourage the restoration of eelgrass eelgrass greater than the allowed limit, mitigation pursuant to throughout Newport Harbor where feasible. Sections 1 -11 of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy shall be required as noted under Mitigation Measure BIO -2.. In addition, the only local tree ordinance that would apply to the project would be Local Council Policy G -1 (Retention or Removal of City Trees), and Chapter 7.26 (Protection of Natural Habitat for Migratory and Other Waterfowl) of the Municipal Code also provides guidance for tree maintenance and preservation. Nominal vegetation removal would be required for the proposed project. Vegetation removal would be limited to minor ornamental landscape removal, and would not require the permanent removal of any trees. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with the City's Local Council Policy G -1 (Retention or Removal of City Trees), and Chapter 7.26 (Protection of Natural Habitat for Migratory and Other Waterfowl) of the Municipal Code. As described above, the project would not result in conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant upon implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -1 through BIO-4. Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures BIO -1 through BI04. OCTOBER 2014 4.4-9 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES H PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration t) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's California Regional Conservation Plans map, the proposed project is located within the Orange County Central /Coastal Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP).' However, as discussed above within Responses 4.4(a) through 4.4(e), the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to biological resources, and would not result in conflicts with provisions of the NCCP. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. I California Department of Fish and Wildlife, HCP/NCCP California Regional Conservation Plans, October 2013. OCTOBER 2014 4.4-10 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT o Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? No Impact As part of the Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) prepared for the proposed project (refer to Appendix D, Historic Property Survey Report, of this document), a cultural resources records search was performed at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) in order to obtain information regarding any potential historical resources within a one -mile radius surrounding the project site. According to the HPSR, there are no known historical resources located within the boundaries of the project site. The records search did indicate, however, that that there are eight previously - recorded historic -era resources located within a one -mile radius of the project site. Only one of these eight resources (Wilma's Patio restaurant, formerly the Jolly Roger restaurant) is located on Balboa/Little Balboa Island. Wiilma's Patio is located over 200 feet northwest of the Park Avenue Bridge project site, and would not be affected by construction activities. Given the localized nature of project improvements and the fact that these eight historic -era resources are located outside of the project footprint, none of these resources would be affected by the proposed project. According to the HPSR, the existing Park Avenue Bridge was built in 1930 and lacks historical integrity due to several bridge rehabilitations in the past. As such, the Park Avenue Bridge is not eligible for inclusion in the NHRP, or California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), per the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Historic Bridge Inventory.' As such, the demolition and replacement of the Park Avenue Bridge would not represent an impact to a historic resource. Based on the analysis provided above, there are no historical resources that would be affected by the project, and no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The HPSR prepared for the project also included a detailed analysis of potential impacts to archaeological resources. Based on the archaeological records search performed at the SCCIC, a total of 25 archaeological sites have been I Cogstone Resource Management, Historic Property Survey Report, August 2014. OCTOBER 2014 4.5 -1 CULTURAL RESOURCES Less Than Would the project: Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant Impact With Significant Impact Mdigation Impact Incorporated a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ✓ historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines ✓ 15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource ✓ or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ✓ formal cemeteries? a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? No Impact As part of the Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) prepared for the proposed project (refer to Appendix D, Historic Property Survey Report, of this document), a cultural resources records search was performed at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) in order to obtain information regarding any potential historical resources within a one -mile radius surrounding the project site. According to the HPSR, there are no known historical resources located within the boundaries of the project site. The records search did indicate, however, that that there are eight previously - recorded historic -era resources located within a one -mile radius of the project site. Only one of these eight resources (Wilma's Patio restaurant, formerly the Jolly Roger restaurant) is located on Balboa/Little Balboa Island. Wiilma's Patio is located over 200 feet northwest of the Park Avenue Bridge project site, and would not be affected by construction activities. Given the localized nature of project improvements and the fact that these eight historic -era resources are located outside of the project footprint, none of these resources would be affected by the proposed project. According to the HPSR, the existing Park Avenue Bridge was built in 1930 and lacks historical integrity due to several bridge rehabilitations in the past. As such, the Park Avenue Bridge is not eligible for inclusion in the NHRP, or California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), per the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Historic Bridge Inventory.' As such, the demolition and replacement of the Park Avenue Bridge would not represent an impact to a historic resource. Based on the analysis provided above, there are no historical resources that would be affected by the project, and no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The HPSR prepared for the project also included a detailed analysis of potential impacts to archaeological resources. Based on the archaeological records search performed at the SCCIC, a total of 25 archaeological sites have been I Cogstone Resource Management, Historic Property Survey Report, August 2014. OCTOBER 2014 4.5 -1 CULTURAL RESOURCES <HY.WPr1t,J F PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration formally recorded within a one -mile radius of the site. However, no archaeological resources have been recorded within or immediately adjacent to the project site. In addition, the HPSR included an intense -level pedestrian survey of the project site (including the proposed temporary bridge location) and immediately surrounding areas that was conducted on June 17, 2014. Based on the Feld survey, no archaeological resources were identified within or immediately adjacent to the project site. A review of the Native American Heritage Commission's (NAHC) Sacred Lands database did not find any Native American sacred sites or resources within 0.5 -mile radius of the project site. Additionally, none of the Native American representatives contacted during preparation of the HPSR had any specific knowledge of any sacred site within the project area. The project site is located on a man -made island that was created in the early 2011, century piling dredged sand and silt from the harbor onto a standing mudflat. The Grand Canal was constructed in 1913 to create another island adjacent to Balboa Island (Little Balboa Island). New bridge piling at both the Park Avenue Bridge and temporary bridge would be vibrated into place, and not excavated, and the majority of ground disturbance would occur within and immediately adjacent to the canal. Thus, the potential for discovery of archaeological deposits is considered very low. However, if previously unidentified cultural archaeological materials are discovered during construction, all work would be halted in the area of discovery until a qualified archaeologist has the opportunity to evaluate the nature and significance of the find (Mitigation Measure CUL -1). Compliance with Mitigation Measure CULA would result in a less than significant impact in this regard. Mitigation Measure. CUL -1 If evidence of subsurface archaeological resources is found during construction, excavation and other construction activity in that area shall cease and the construction contractor shall contact the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director. With direction from the Community Development Director, an archaeologist certified by the County of Orange shall be retained to evaluate the discovery prior to resuming grading in the immediate vicinity of the find. If warranted, the archaeologist shall collect the resource and prepare a technical report describing the results of the investigation. The test -level report shall evaluate the site including discussion of significance (depth, nature, condition and extent of the resources), final mitigation recommendations, and cost estimates. cJ Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As noted above, the project site is located on a man -made island that was created in the early 2Dh century piling dredged sand and silt from the harbor onto a standing mudflat. The Grand Canal was constructed in 1913 to create another island adjacent to Balboa Island (Little Balboa Island). The project site and surrounding area have been impacted by existing development (adjacent residential /commercial uses, Park Avenue Bridge, and local roadways). Moreover, according to the City of Newport Beach General Plan, the project site is not located within an area known for paleontological resources. Although paleontological resources are not expected to be encountered during ground - disturbing activities, Mitigation Measure CUL -2 has been included in order to minimize impacts in the event an unexpected discovery occurs. Upon implementation of recommended mitigation, impacts would be less than significant in this regard. OCTOBER 2014 4.5 -2 CULTURAL RESOURCES PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT oc, Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitiaation Measures CUL -2 If evidence of subsurface paleontological resources is found during construction, excavation and other construction activity in that area shall cease and the construction contractor shall contact the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director. With direction from the Community Development Director, a paleontologist certified by the County of Orange shall evaluate the find. If warranted, the paleontologist shall prepare and complete a standard Paleontological Resources Mitigation Program for the salvage and curation of identified resources. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Sianiricant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Given the developed and disturbed nature of the project site, no known human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, are expected to be encountered during earth removal or disturbance activities. If human remains are found, those remains would require proper treatment, in accordance with applicable laws. State of California Public Resources Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 -7055 describe the general provisions for human remains. Specifically, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 describes the requirements if any human remains are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site. As required by State law, the requirements and procedures set forth in Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code would be implemented, including notification of the County Coroner, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission and consultation with the individual identified by the Native American Heritage Commission to be the "most likely descendant." If human remains are found during excavation, excavation must stop in the vicinity of the find and any area that is reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains until the County coroner has been called out, and the remains have been investigated and appropriate recommendations have been made for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Following compliance with existing State regulations, which detail the appropriate actions necessary in the event human remains are encountered, impacts in this regard would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. OCTOBER 2014 4.5 -3 CULTURAL RESOURCES `p4.Wry�6, PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 441nT'�1 This page intentionally left blank. OCTOBER 2014 4.5 -4 CULTURAL RESOURCES �^ Mawr,, ?`:. PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent A/quist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact. Southern California, including the project area, is subject to the effects of seismic activity due to the active faults that traverse the area. Active faults are defined as those that have experienced surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately the last 11,000 years) and/or are in a State - designated Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. According to the California Department of Conservation Alquist- Priolo Fault Zones Earthquake Map, no Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones traverse the project area.' Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. ' California Department of Conservation, Regional Geologic Hazards and Mapping Program, accessed June 9, 2014 at http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htn. OCTOBER 2014 4.6 -1 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Less Than Would the project: Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant Nnpac#With Significant b Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based ✓ on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 2) Strong seismic ground shaking? ✓ 3) Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction? ✓ 4) Landslides? ✓ b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ✓ c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and ✓ potentially result in on -or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1 8-1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks ✓ to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems ✓ where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent A/quist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact. Southern California, including the project area, is subject to the effects of seismic activity due to the active faults that traverse the area. Active faults are defined as those that have experienced surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately the last 11,000 years) and/or are in a State - designated Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. According to the California Department of Conservation Alquist- Priolo Fault Zones Earthquake Map, no Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones traverse the project area.' Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. ' California Department of Conservation, Regional Geologic Hazards and Mapping Program, accessed June 9, 2014 at http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htn. OCTOBER 2014 4.6 -1 GEOLOGY AND SOILS +�Uwtuq r F PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT ° Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 2) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Southern California has numerous active seismic faults subjecting residents to potential earthquake and seismic - related hazards. Seismic activity poses two types of potential hazards for residents and structures, categorized either as primary or secondary hazards. Primary hazards include ground rupture, ground shaking, ground displacement, subsidence, and uplift from earth movement. Primary hazards can also induce secondary hazards such as ground failure (lurch cracking, lateral spreading, and slope failure), liquefaction, water waves (seiches), movement on nearby faults (sympathetic fault movement), dam failure, and fires. Although no active faults are known to be present within the project vicinity, there are four major fault zones in the surrounding area that have the highest potential to impact the project 2 These faults are listed in Table 4.6-1, Principal Faults Affecting the Project Area. Table 4.6-1 Principal Faults Affecting the Project Area Given the proximity of these earthquake faults to the project area, the proposed project could be subjected to seismic shaking. The proposed project would include the installation of a temporary bridge at Balboa Avenue, demolition of the existing Park Avenue Bridge, and the construction of a new bridge structure connecting Balboa Island to Little Balboa Island. As noted above, the existing Park Avenue Bridge is over 80 years old and does not meet current bridge design and seismic safety standards. The proposed project would result in the construction of a new bridge meeting current engineering standards. Both the temporary and permanent bridges would be required to adhere to existing parameters for seismic safety as described within the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria and Caltrans Bridge Design Aids. The Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria and Caltrans Bridge Design Aids provide a detailed outline of seismic demands placed upon structural components, required capacities for structural components, and detailed design recommendations for bridge components, including foundation, columns, and abutments. Thus, upon implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO -1, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. 2 City of Newport Beach, City of Newport Beach Safety Element, July 2006. OCTOBER 2014 4.6 -2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Approximate Maximum Credible Fault Name Distance From Site Earthquake Magnitudez (Miles) Newport- Inglewood 16 7.4 Fault Zone San Joaquin Hills Blind 5.7 NIA Thrust Whittier Fault Zone 25 6.0 -7.2 Elysian Park Fault 36 N/A Zone Notes: 1. Distances were measured using Google Earth, 2014. 2. Per the Southern California Earthquakes Center, accessed on June 9, 2014 at http:/hvww.scec.org/ Given the proximity of these earthquake faults to the project area, the proposed project could be subjected to seismic shaking. The proposed project would include the installation of a temporary bridge at Balboa Avenue, demolition of the existing Park Avenue Bridge, and the construction of a new bridge structure connecting Balboa Island to Little Balboa Island. As noted above, the existing Park Avenue Bridge is over 80 years old and does not meet current bridge design and seismic safety standards. The proposed project would result in the construction of a new bridge meeting current engineering standards. Both the temporary and permanent bridges would be required to adhere to existing parameters for seismic safety as described within the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria and Caltrans Bridge Design Aids. The Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria and Caltrans Bridge Design Aids provide a detailed outline of seismic demands placed upon structural components, required capacities for structural components, and detailed design recommendations for bridge components, including foundation, columns, and abutments. Thus, upon implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO -1, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. 2 City of Newport Beach, City of Newport Beach Safety Element, July 2006. OCTOBER 2014 4.6 -2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT �PF�B"4 ° Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Measure: GEO -1 Prior to the approval of design plans for the proposed project, the City of Newport Beach Department of Public Works shall ensure that the proposed project meets the design parameters identified in the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria and Caltrans Bridge Design Aids. 3) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incomorated. Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Liquefaction is characterized by a loss of shear strength in the affected soil layers, thereby causing the soils to behave as a viscous liquid. Susceptibility to liquefaction is based on geologic and geotechnical data. River channels and floodplains are considered most susceptible to liquefaction, while alluvial fans have a lower susceptibility. Depth to groundwater is another important element in the susceptibility to liquefaction. Groundwater shallower than 30 feet results in high to very high susceptibility to liquefaction, while deeper water results in low and very low susceptibility. Based upon the City of Newport Beach General Plan Safety Element, the project area is subject to the potential for liquefaction. However, as stated within Response 4.6(a)(2), above, the project would incorporate all Calrans Seismic Design Criteria and Caltrans Bridge Design Aids, which account for potential stability concerns such as liquefaction. Thus, upon adherence to Mitigation Measure GEO -1, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO -1. 4) Landslides? Less Than Significant Impact. Landslides are a serious geologic hazard, with some moving slowly. and causing damage gradually, and others moving rapidly and causing unexpected damage. Gravity is the force driving landslide movement. Factors that commonly allow the force of gravity to overcome the resistance of earth material to landslide movement include saturation by water, steepening of slopes by erosion or construction, alternate freezing or thawing, and seismic shaking. The proposed project area and surrounding areas are fully developed. No steep hillsides or unvegetated slopes exist within the site vicinity. According to the Newport Beach General Plan Safety Element, the project site and surrounding area are not designated as areas with landslide potential. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact Refer to Response 4.9(a) for a detailed response regarding the potential for water quality impacts (including soil erosion and the loss of topsoil) during the short -term construction process and long -term operations. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. OCTOBER 2014 4.6 -3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS aw, PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in an on -site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant lmoact With Mitigation Incorporated. Based on analysis provided in Response 4.6(a)(4), the project would not result in significant impacts related to on -site or off -site landslides. In addition, Response 4.6(a)(3) provides that Mitigation Measure GEO -1 would mitigate impacts related to liquefaction to a less than significant level. Based on United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, the project area (including the Balboa Avenue temporary bridge location) is underlain by sandy, gravelly, or oobbly coastal shores that are washed and rewashed by tidal and wave action. These soils have slow runoff and a high erosion hazard. As such, although the project may be subject to hazards related to lateral spreading, subsidence, and collapse, the project would be designed in accordance with the Caltrans Seismic Design Crderia and Catrans Bridge Design Aids, which account for potential stability concerns. Thus, upon adherence to Mitigation Measure GEO-1, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure: Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO -1 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Response 4.6(c), above. The project area is underlain by sandy, gravelly, or cobbly coastal shores. These soils could be subject to settlement and /or instability. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO -1, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO -1. all Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact No septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems would be constructed as part of the project, and no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. OCTOBER 2014 4.6-4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 94=_01 PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.7 GREENHOUSE GASES a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Sfaniffcantlmnact. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE California is a substantial contributor of global greenhouse gases (GHGs), emitting over 400 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year.' Climate studies indicate that California is likely to see an increase of three to four degrees Fahrenheit (°F) over the next century. Methane is also an important GHG that potentially contributes to global climate change. GHGs are global in their effect, which is to increase the earth's ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. As primary GHGs have a long lifetime in the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and are generally well - mixed, their impact on the atmosphere is mostly independent of the point of emission. The impact of human activities on global climate change is apparent in the observational record. Air trapped by ice has been extracted from core samples taken from polar ice sheets to determine the global atmospheric variation of CO2, methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (1120) from before the start of industrialization (approximately 1750), to over 650,000 years ago. For that period, it was found that CO2 concentrations ranged from 180 parts per million (ppm) to 300 ppm. For the period from approximately 1750 to the present, global CO2 concentrations increased from a pre - industrialization period concentration of 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005, with the 2005 value far exceeding the upper end of the pre- industrial period range. REGULATIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) developed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. It concluded that a stabilization of GHGs at 400 to 450 ppm carbon dioxide - equivalent (CO2eq)2 concentration is required to keep global mean warming below 2 degrees Celsius ( °C), which in turn is assumed to be necessary to avoid dangerous climate change. Executive Order S -3 -05 was issued in June 2005, which established the following GHG emission reduction targets: California Energy Commission, California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000 -2012, May 13, 2014. 2 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2eq) — A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global warming potential. OCTOBER 2014 4.7 -1 GREENHOUSE GASES Less Than I Would the project Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the ✓ environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for ✓ the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Sfaniffcantlmnact. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE California is a substantial contributor of global greenhouse gases (GHGs), emitting over 400 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year.' Climate studies indicate that California is likely to see an increase of three to four degrees Fahrenheit (°F) over the next century. Methane is also an important GHG that potentially contributes to global climate change. GHGs are global in their effect, which is to increase the earth's ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. As primary GHGs have a long lifetime in the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and are generally well - mixed, their impact on the atmosphere is mostly independent of the point of emission. The impact of human activities on global climate change is apparent in the observational record. Air trapped by ice has been extracted from core samples taken from polar ice sheets to determine the global atmospheric variation of CO2, methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (1120) from before the start of industrialization (approximately 1750), to over 650,000 years ago. For that period, it was found that CO2 concentrations ranged from 180 parts per million (ppm) to 300 ppm. For the period from approximately 1750 to the present, global CO2 concentrations increased from a pre - industrialization period concentration of 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005, with the 2005 value far exceeding the upper end of the pre- industrial period range. REGULATIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) developed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. It concluded that a stabilization of GHGs at 400 to 450 ppm carbon dioxide - equivalent (CO2eq)2 concentration is required to keep global mean warming below 2 degrees Celsius ( °C), which in turn is assumed to be necessary to avoid dangerous climate change. Executive Order S -3 -05 was issued in June 2005, which established the following GHG emission reduction targets: California Energy Commission, California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000 -2012, May 13, 2014. 2 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2eq) — A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global warming potential. OCTOBER 2014 4.7 -1 GREENHOUSE GASES I PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 2010: Reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; 2020: Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and 2050: Reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. Assembly Bill (AB) 32 requires that the California Air Resources Board (GARB) determine what the statewide GHG emissions level was in 1990, and approve a statewide GHG emissions limit that is equivalent to that level, to be achieved by 2020. CARB has approved a 2020 emissions limit of 427 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2eq. Due to the nature of global climate change, it is not anticipated that any single development project would have a substantial effect on global climate change. In actuality, GHG emissions from the proposed project would combine with emissions emitted across California, the United States, and the world to cumulatively contribute to global climate change. In June 2008, the California Govemor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) published a Technical Advisory, which provides informal guidance for public agencies as they address the issue of climate change in CEQA documents.3 This is assessed by determining whether a proposed project is consistent with or obstructs the 39 Recommended Actions identified by CARB in its Climate Change Sooping Plan which includes nine Early Action Measures (qualitative approach). The Attorney General's Mitigation Measures identify areas were GHG emissions reductions can be achieved in order to achieve the goals of AB 32. As set forth in the OPR Technical Advisory and in the proposed amendments to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4, this analysis examines whether the project's GHG emissions are significant based on a qualitative and performance based standard (Proposed CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a)(1) and (2)). PROJECT - RELATED SOURCES OF GREENHOUSE GASES Project - related GHG emissions would include direct emissions from construction activities only. Other direct source emissions (area source and mobile source) would not occur, as the project does not propose any new land uses and would not generate any new vehicle trips. No indirect GHG emissions would occur, as the project would not require electricity or water. The proposed project would result in direct emissions of CO2, N20, and CH4 from construction activities. Construction related GHG emissions include those produced as a result of: material processing, on -site construction equipment, and traffic delays due to construction. These emissions would be produced at different levels throughout the construction phase; their frequency and occurrence can be reduced through innovations in plans and specifications and by implementing better traffic management during construction phases. Project construction would result in minimal GHG emissions (approximately 421.08 MTCO2eq /yr, see Appendix B , which are short -term and would terminate upon completion of construction. Additionally, the SCAQMD has not adopted quantitative GHG emissions thresholds of significance for construction related activities. Therefore, project - related construction GHG emissions are considered to be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Sfgniricant Impact The City does not currently have an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. However, the City prepared an 3 Govemor's Office of Planning and Research, CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental QualdyAct (CEQA) Review, 2008. OCTOBER 2014 4.7 -2 GREENHOUSE GASES grtwwwsF F PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Energy Action Plan, created in partnership with Southern California Edison (SCE) and Southern California Gas Company (SCG). The Plan provides the City guidance in reducing greenhouse emissions by lowering municipal and community wide energy use. The Plan assists in identifying a clear path to successfully implementing goals, policies, and actions that will achieve the City's reduction targets. Additionally, the City entered into the Orange County Cities Energy Leadership Partnership Program (OCCELP), a joint partnership with Southern California Edison (SCE), Southern California Gas Company and neighboring cities Fountain Valley, Westminster and Costa Mesa to improve long term energy and sustainability throughout the local area. The proposed project would result in minimal construction- related GHG emissions, and would not generate any operational GHG emissions. Thus, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Impacts are less than significant in this regard, Mitioation Measures: No mitigation is required. OCTOBER 2014 4.7 -3 GREENHOUSE GASES 0,'0 , PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. OCTOBER 2014 4.7 -4 GREENHOUSE GASES H4�n PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RBF Consulting prepared a Phase I Initial Site Assessment (Phase I ISA) dated July 2014 for the project site (refer to Appendix E, Phase I Initial Site Assessment). The intent of the Phase I ISA is to identify conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances as defined in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) section 101, and petroleum products at the project site. The Phase I ISA included a search for recorded environmental cleanup liens; review of Federal, tribal, State, and local government records; visual inspection of the property and of adjoining properties; and interviews with current owners, operators, and occupants. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact The short-term construction process for the proposed project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. With the exception of utilizing gasoline, diesel fuel, and lubricants for construction equipment, no other hazardous materials would be transported to or from the project site, or used in the construction process. Fuels and solvents for construction would be stored and utilized pursuant to existing regulatory requirements. Therefore, short-ten construction impacts would be less than significant in this regard. OCTOBER 2014 4.8 -1 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Less Than Would the project: Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous ✓ materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions ✓ involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter ✓ mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code ✓ Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public ✓ airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working ✓ in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation ✓ Ian? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are ✓ adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? RBF Consulting prepared a Phase I Initial Site Assessment (Phase I ISA) dated July 2014 for the project site (refer to Appendix E, Phase I Initial Site Assessment). The intent of the Phase I ISA is to identify conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances as defined in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) section 101, and petroleum products at the project site. The Phase I ISA included a search for recorded environmental cleanup liens; review of Federal, tribal, State, and local government records; visual inspection of the property and of adjoining properties; and interviews with current owners, operators, and occupants. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact The short-term construction process for the proposed project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. With the exception of utilizing gasoline, diesel fuel, and lubricants for construction equipment, no other hazardous materials would be transported to or from the project site, or used in the construction process. Fuels and solvents for construction would be stored and utilized pursuant to existing regulatory requirements. Therefore, short-ten construction impacts would be less than significant in this regard. OCTOBER 2014 4.8 -1 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (L PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Long -term operation of the proposed bridge facility would not itself require the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. However, it is reasonable to assume that vehicles transporting hazardous materials to other destinations in the project area could utilize the proposed bridge facility since it represents the only connection between Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island. However, the existing Park Avenue Bridge currently provides such access, and adherence to existing Federal and State standards would reduce any potential impacts from routine transport of hazardous materials to a less than significant level. These standards include Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 49, Part 177, Carriage by Public Highway, which sets standards for acceptable types of hazardous materials that can be transported by vehicle, inspections, driver training, recordkeeping, and loading and unloading; California Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5, which sets strict permitting requirements for hazardous waste haulers and establishes contingency measures in the event of upset. Upon adherence to these existing standards, impacts would be less than significant in regards to the transport of hazardous materials. Mftigation Measures: No mitigation is required. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact 146th Mitigation Incorporated. Short-Term Impacts One of the means through which human exposure to hazardous substance could occur is through accidental release. Incidents that result in an accidental release of hazardous substance into the environment can cause contamination of soil, surface water, and groundwater, in addition to any toxic fumes that might be generated. If not cleaned up immediately and completely, the hazardous substances can migrate into the soil or enter a local stream or channel causing contamination of soil and water. Human exposure of contaminated soil or water can have potential health effects on a variety of factors, including the nature of the contaminant and the degree of exposure. During the short-term period of project construction, there is a possibility of accidental release of hazardous substances such as petroleum -based fuels or hydraulic fluid used for construction equipment. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials utilized during construction. The construction contractor would be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures that would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the environment. Standard construction practices would be observed such that any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, State, and Federal law. The construction process may result in impacts related to existing hazardous materials located within the impact area. The analysis of existing hazardous materials is based upon the Phase I ISA prepared for the proposed project (refer to Appendix E of this document), which included a review of historical and regulatory hazardous materials information/databases, interviews with key site personnellproperty owners, and a field review of on -site conditions) Based on the Phase I ISA, a number of potential sources of hazardous materials were determined to be present on -site, or are likely to be located on -site, as follows: 1 RBF Consulting, Phase I Initial Site Assessment, Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Project, July 2014. OCTOBER 2014 4.8 -2 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS C� ;bw�ar PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT ° Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Traffic Striping Materials: Lead -based paints (LBP) were commonly used in yellow traffic striping materials before the discontinued use of lead chromate pigment in yellow traffic striping /marking materials and hot -melt Thermoplastic stripe materials (discontinued in 1996 and 2004, respectively). Yellow traffic striping was observed within the boundaries of the project site during the site inspection. Although the on -site striping materials are currently contained and no visible evidence to suggest the release of LBPs into the environment was present, Mitigation Measure HAZ -1 has been provided to ensure that potential LBP materials are properly disposed of and that impacts in this regard would be less than significant. On -Site Utilities: Three pole- mounted transformers were noted on -site during site reconnaissance for the Phase 1 ISA. Transformers are known to contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). No evidence of di- electric fluid or staining was noted during the site inspection.2 However, Mitigation Measure HAZ -2 has been included in order to minimize potential impacts to human health during construction with regard to potential in on -site transformers. Asbestos Containing Materials (on -site bridge structure): As asbestos - containing materials (AGMs) are commonly known to be used in building materials for bridge structures, ACMs may be present in the on -site bridge structure (constructed prior to 1934). No visible evidence to suggest the release of ACMs into the environment was observed. However, during demolition of the on -site bridge structure, an accidental release of ACMs could expose construction workers and the public to hazardous conditions. All demolition that could result in the release of ACMs must be conducted according to Federal and State standards. Compliance with recommended mitigation (Mitigation Measures HAZ -3 and HAZ -4) regarding the notification of workers as to the presence of ACMs, asbestos testing, and proper handling /disposal in compliance with Federal and State requirements and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403, would reduce potential impacts associated with ACMs /ACCMs to a less than significant level. Lead -Based Paint (on -site bridge structure): Given the age of the existing bridge structure on- site, the bridge is also likely to contain lead -based paints (LBPs). Similar to ACMs, Federal and State regulations govern demolition of structures where LBPs are present. If paint is separated from the existing bridge structure (chemically or physically) during demolition, structures, the paint waste would be required to be evaluated independently from the building material by a qualified Environmental Professional (Mitigation Measure HAZ -5). If LBP is found, abatement would be required to be completed by a qualified Lead Specialist before any demolition activities. Compliance with Mitigation Measure HAZ -5 would reduce potential impacts associated with LBPs to a less than significant level, Long -Term Operational Impacts Refer to Response 4.8(a), above, for a description of impacts related to existing and proposed operations at the site. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. 3 Ibid. OCTOBER 2014 4.8 -3 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS XEW VUF r4 PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT = Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Measures: HAZ -1 In the event construction activities associated with the proposed project result in the disturbance of traffic striping materials, the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall ensure that generated wastes are transported and disposed of at an appropriate, permitted disposal facility as determined by a qualified lead specialist. The traffic striping materials shall be contained /transported and properly disposed of in accordance with the Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. HAZ -2 In the event any pole- mounted electrical transformer must be relocated during project construction activities, the construction contractor shall ensure that the relocation is conducted under the local purveyor to identify properly - handling procedures regarding potential PCBs, if applicable. HAZ -3 Prior to demolition of the existing bridge structure, a Certified Environmental Professional shall be retained by the City of Newport Beach to confirm the presence or absence of ACMs. Abatement of asbestos shall be completed before any activities that would disturb ACMs or create an airborne asbestos hazard. Asbestos removal shall be performed by a State certified asbestos containment contractor in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403. HAZ-4 Prior to demolition activities, procedures shall be established, subject to review and approval by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department, whereby all utility personnel and contractors who may be conducting work within the buildings shall be informed, prior to initiating work, as to the presence of ACMs, their location, type, and conditions. HAZ -5 During demolition of the existing bridge structure, the generated waste shall be disposed of at an appropriate, permitted disposal facility as determined by a lead specialist retained by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department. The waste shall be contained /transported and property disposed of in accordance with the Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact There are no existing or proposed schools within one - quarter mile of the project site. The nearest school to the site is Harbor View Elementary School, located at 900 Goldenrod Avenue in Corona del Mar (approximately 1.10 -mile east of the project site). Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. The Phase 1 ISA prepared for the proposed project included a Federal, State, and local regulatory agency database search for any potential hazardous properties within one -mile of the proposed project site. The database search results indicate that no regulatory property is located within the boundaries of the projects site. No known corrective action, restoration, or remediation has been planned, is currently taking place, or has been completed on the site. The project site has not been OCTOBER 20114 4.8 -4 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS F4SW W4J } A PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration under investigation for violation of any environmental laws, regulations, or standards. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The nearest airport to the project site is the John Wayne Airport, located approximately 4.20 miles to the north. In addition, the project site is located outside the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. Therefore, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact No private airstrips exist in the project vicinity. Thus, no impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. During construction activities, access to and from Balboa Island /Little Balboa Island would open remain at all times, via a temporary bridge structure along Balboa Avenue. During long -term operations, the proposed project would result in beneficial impacts related to emergency response /evacuation, as a new, wider, reinforced bridge structure would be constructed at same location as the existing Park Avenue Bridge. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact The proposed project site is located within an urbanized area, and no wildland areas exist in the project vicinity. Moreover, the proposed project would not include any habitable structures that would expose people to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. OCTOBER 2014 4.8 -5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1 �Y.wer)4, r PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. OCTOBER 2014 4.8 -6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS }a H4WP44,T PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Sianificant/moact. Short-Term Impacts The primary water quality concern related to the proposed project would be potential erosion impacts during construction activities. Grading and excavation activities associated with construction of the project would expose soils to potential short -term erosion by wind and water. Generally, construction activities within the City would be regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) program, as administered by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB). The RWQCB administers an NPDES Construction General Permit (CGP) for any construction project disturbing more than one acre of land. The project site is approximately 0.4 -acre, and therefore would not be subject to the requirements of the NPDES CGP. OCTOBER 2014 4.9 -1 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Less Than Would the project., Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant Impactwdb Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impart Incorporated a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of ✓ pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount ✓ of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage ✓ systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ✓ g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood ✓ Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which 10, would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a ✓ result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ✓ a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Sianificant/moact. Short-Term Impacts The primary water quality concern related to the proposed project would be potential erosion impacts during construction activities. Grading and excavation activities associated with construction of the project would expose soils to potential short -term erosion by wind and water. Generally, construction activities within the City would be regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) program, as administered by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB). The RWQCB administers an NPDES Construction General Permit (CGP) for any construction project disturbing more than one acre of land. The project site is approximately 0.4 -acre, and therefore would not be subject to the requirements of the NPDES CGP. OCTOBER 2014 4.9 -1 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY DO*. PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration However, construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with water quality control measures included in Chapter 15.10, Excavation and Grading Code, of the City's Municipal Code. The Excavation and Grading Code includes measures to minimize water quality impacts related to erosion during the short -term construction process. Upon adherence to these requirements, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Long -Term Impacts The proposed project would be required to implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) under the City of Newport Beach General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) to minimize impacts related to long -term operational water quality. The project is located within the urban Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) NPDES permitted area ( NPDES Order R9- 2009 -0002) in Orange County. Drainage from the project drains to the Grand Canal in the Lower Newport Bay, which is a Section 303 impaired water body for Chlordane, Copper, Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), Indicator Bacteria, Nutrients, Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), Pesticides, and Sediment Toxicity. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) have been developed for Selenium, Nutrients, Fecal Coliform Bacteria, Organochlorine Compounds (pesticides), and Sediment. The proposed project represents replacement of an existing bridge between Balboa and Little Balboa Islands. The proposed bridge would not substantially alter drainage or water quality in comparison to existing conditions. As noted above, the City would require that a WQMP is prepared for the proposed project prior to the issuance of grading permits. The WQMP would identify applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would ensure that water quality impacts are reduced to a less than significant level during long -term operations. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would result in a nominal increase in impervious area in comparison to existing conditions, as the new bridge structure would be approximately six feet wider than the existing Park Avenue Bridge. However, groundwater percolation at the project site would not be affected by the proposed project, particularly since drainage from the proposed bridge would be directed to Grand Canal (similar to existing conditions). The project area is currently urbanized and developed and implementation of the proposed bridge would not result in a noticeable deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the groundwater table. The project would not involve or require the extraction of groundwater. As such, the project would not have the ability to substantially affect groundwater levels in the site vicinity, and impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? ' RBF Consulting, Park Avenue Bridge Project Water Quality Technical Memorandum, June 4, 2014 (refer to Appendix F, Water Quality Technical Memorandum, of this document). OCTOBER 2014 4.9 -2 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY yf�w� &r PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT " Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in the replacement of an existing bridge structure along Park Avenue between Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island. Drainage along the project site is currently achieved through sheet flow from the Park Avenue Bridge to drainage facilities on the east and west of the bridge structure, and ultimately draining into the Grand Canal. As the proposed project would result in the replacement of the existing Park Avenue Bridge structure with a new bridge, the existing drainage patterns would remain. Runoff from the project would be adequately conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, and the capacity of existing storm facilities would not be exceeded. In addition, as noted above in Response 4.9(a), the City would prepare a WQMP for the project that would include BMPs necessary to minimize long -term operational water quality impacts (including erosion and /or siltation). It is possible that drainage patterns would be altered during short -term construction activities, However, as noted above, construction of the project would be required to comply with water quality control measures included in Chapter 15. 10, Excavation and Grading Code, of the City's Municipal Code. The Excavation and Grading Code includes measures to minimize water quality impacts during the short term construction process. Upon adherence to these requirements, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? Less Than Significant Impact As stated in Response 4.9(c), the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns of the project site or in the surrounding area. The existing drainage facilities along Park Avenue would not be changed, and would convey drainage runoff into the Grand Canal. The capacity of existing storm facilities would not be exceeded. While the project would implement improvements within and surrounding the Grand Canal, the project would not adversely affect the channel's flood protection capacity. The Grand Canal does not convey water. The normal water surface within the canal is determined by the tidal elevations within Newport Bay. The effect of the Park Avenue Bridge, bridge piers, and temporary/permanent piles do not displace sufficient volume to influence the water surface of Newport Bay and the Pacific Ocean. Removal of the existing bridge piers and construction of new piers and piles do not alter the canal's behavior under the influence of these nearby water bodies. As such, the project would not have the capacity to alter drainage patterns or increase the potential for flooding in the project area. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant lmpact. Refer to Responses 4.9(a), 4.9(c), and 4.9(d), above. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. OCTOBER 2014 4.9 -3 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration t) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No Impact The proposed project is not anticipated to result in water quality impacts other than the potential short-term construction and long -term operational impacts identified above in Responses 4.9(a), 4.9(c), and 4.9(d), Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the project site is situated within Zone AE, which is within the 100 -year flood hazard area.z However, no housing would be constructed as part of the proposed project. No impact would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Less Than Significant Impact. As noted above, the project site is located within a 100 -year flood hazard area. The proposed project would include the placement of piers and piles on a temporary and permanent basis to allow for project implementation. As noted in Response 4.9(d), above, project implementation would not have the capacity to impede or redirect flood flows, since the normal water surface within the canal is determined by the tidal elevations within Newport Bay. The effect of the Park Avenue Bridge, bridge piers, and temporary/permanent piles do not displace sufficient volume to influence the water surface of Newport Bay and the Pacific Ocean.3 As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Less Than Significant Impact As noted above, the proposed project site is located within a 100 -year flood hazard area.4 However, as noted above in Responses 4.9(d), 4.9(g), and 4.9(h), none of the proposed improvements would expose people or structures to a significant risk related to flooding. An existing 12 -inch thick seawall consisting of interlocking reinforced concrete sheet pile is located beneath the existing bridge and along the entire length of the Grand Canal. The project would rebuild the deteriorating seawalls under the proposed Park Avenue Bridge abutments as part of final design and construction. The existing seawalls would be replaced with a 60 -foot length of secant pile wall with 24- inch diameter piles, and six inch concrete wall facing. All adjacent seawall areas would be protected -in- place. While the project would involve improvements to the existing seawall along the Grand Canal to allow for implementation of the Park Avenue Bridge, the improvements would not affect the canal's flood protection capacity. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 2 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map #06059C0382J, Panel 382 of 539, revised December 3, 2009. 3 RBF Consulting, Location Hydraulic Study, Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Project, July 21, 2014 (refer to Appendix G, Location Hydraulic Study, of this document). OCTOBER 2014 4.9 -4 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY an), PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration P Inundation byseiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Less Than Significant Impact. A seiche is an oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed or semi - enclosed basin, such as a reservoir, harbor, lake, or storage tank. A tsunami is a great sea wave, commonly referred to as a tidal wave, produced by a significant undersea disturbance such as tectonic displacement of a sea floor associated with large, shallow earthquakes. Mudflows result from the downslope movement of soil and/or rock under the influence of gravity. Although the project site is located adjacent to Newport Bay, according to the City's General Plan EIR, the probability that damaging seiches would develop in Newport Bay is considered low. In addition, mudflow potential in the project area is considered low, as there are no topographical features capable of producing mudflow adjacent to the project site. The City's General Plan Figure S1, Coastal Hazards, identifies the project site as located within a 100 - year tsunami inundation at extreme high tide zone, with an identified inundation elevation of 13.64 feet. Although a potential tsunami hazard exists for the project area, the proposed project would not increase the potential for inundation in comparison to existing conditions. As noted above, the effect of the Park Avenue Bridge, bridge piers, and temporary/permanent piles do not displace sufficient volume to influence the water surface of Newport Bay and the Pacific Ocean, and the bridge improvements would not affect the canal's flood protection capacity. Rather, the project is anticipated to result in beneficial impacts related to safety during emergency events, as it would improve reliability of the bridge for emergency response and evacuation purposes in the event of tsunami or other flooding event. Thus, impacts in this regard are less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. OCTOBER 2014 4.9 -5 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY F , PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. OCTOBER 2014 4.9 -6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IygFY„ �,+ PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT �£ Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Lr,w"> 4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact The proposed project would not result in impacts related to the division of an established community. The project site is located along an existing roadway (Park Avenue), and is comprised of a bridge structure within a developed urbanized area. Residential uses are located to the east and west of the project area. The proposed project would result in the demolition of the existing bridge structure, and construction of a seismically retrofitted bridge structure. As such, the proposed project would be similar to existing conditions, and would not divide an established community. Rather, the project would result in a beneficial impact in this regard since it would provide improved safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicle users on Balboa /Little Balboa Island. Similarly, the project would not have the capacity to divide an existing community along Balboa Avenue at the temporary bridge site. Balboa Avenue is an existing roadway, and the project would implement a bridge crossing over Grand Canal while the permanent bridge at Park Avenue is constructed. This temporary bridge would not act as a barrier or divider, but rather would provide a new temporary point of connection between Balboa Island /Little Balboa Island that currently does not exist. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significanthnipac t As roadway facilities, Park Avenue and Balboa Avenue (location of the proposed temporary bridge structure) do not have land use designations under the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. However, areas surrounding the project site along Park Avenue, Marine Avenue, and Balboa Avenue are designated "Two -Unit Residential," "Public Facilities," and "Mixed -Use" by the General Plan and Zoning Code. The proposed project would consist of the replacement of an existing bridge to improve its safety and reliability as the only roadway connecting Balboa/Little Balboa Islands. The new bridge would have the same vehicular capacity and would generally maintain the same architectural /visual characteristics. The new bridge would improve safety for all users (Le., pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists) of the site and surrounding area, and would not conflict with any City plan or policy. OCTOBER 2014 4.10 -1 LAND USE AND PLANNING Less Than Would the project: Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Physically divide an established community? ✓ b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, ✓ or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ✓ community conservation Ian? a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact The proposed project would not result in impacts related to the division of an established community. The project site is located along an existing roadway (Park Avenue), and is comprised of a bridge structure within a developed urbanized area. Residential uses are located to the east and west of the project area. The proposed project would result in the demolition of the existing bridge structure, and construction of a seismically retrofitted bridge structure. As such, the proposed project would be similar to existing conditions, and would not divide an established community. Rather, the project would result in a beneficial impact in this regard since it would provide improved safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicle users on Balboa /Little Balboa Island. Similarly, the project would not have the capacity to divide an existing community along Balboa Avenue at the temporary bridge site. Balboa Avenue is an existing roadway, and the project would implement a bridge crossing over Grand Canal while the permanent bridge at Park Avenue is constructed. This temporary bridge would not act as a barrier or divider, but rather would provide a new temporary point of connection between Balboa Island /Little Balboa Island that currently does not exist. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significanthnipac t As roadway facilities, Park Avenue and Balboa Avenue (location of the proposed temporary bridge structure) do not have land use designations under the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. However, areas surrounding the project site along Park Avenue, Marine Avenue, and Balboa Avenue are designated "Two -Unit Residential," "Public Facilities," and "Mixed -Use" by the General Plan and Zoning Code. The proposed project would consist of the replacement of an existing bridge to improve its safety and reliability as the only roadway connecting Balboa/Little Balboa Islands. The new bridge would have the same vehicular capacity and would generally maintain the same architectural /visual characteristics. The new bridge would improve safety for all users (Le., pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists) of the site and surrounding area, and would not conflict with any City plan or policy. OCTOBER 2014 4.10 -1 LAND USE AND PLANNING 40� PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration The project may also implement a temporary bridge at Balboa Avenue to maintain connectivity between Balboall-ittle Balboa Islands during construction of the permanent bridge. Although a bridge crossing at Balboa Avenue is not shown within the City's Circulation Element, this crossing would be temporary in nature (in place for approximately 10 months), and would maintain adequate access for residents in the project area and also for emergency vehicles /personnel. Since this bridge crossing would be a temporary improvement and would be removed upon completion of the permanent bridge at Park Avenue, it would not represent a conflict with an adopted land use plan, policy, or regulation. In addition, the project would be required to comply with California Coastal Act (CCA) and the City's Coastal Land Use Plan. The City would be responsible for acquisition of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) through the California Coastal Commission (CCC). As part of the CDP application process, the CCC would perform a detailed review of the proposed project in relation to the CCA, and identify any measures required to achieve consistency. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 0 Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact The proposed project is located within the Orange County Central /Coastal Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP).' However, as discussed within Responses 4.4(a) through 4.4(e), the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to biological resources, and would not result in conflicts with provisions of the NCCP. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. I California Department of Fish and Wildlife, HCP /NCCP California Regional Conservation Plans, October 2013. OCTOBER 2014 4.10.2 LAND USE AND PLANNING a PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact The proposed project would involve the demolition of the existing Park Avenue Bridge, and construction of a new bridge structure connecting Balboa Island to Little Balboa Island. No mineral recovery activities currently occur in the project area, and the project site is not underlain by any known mineral resources of value to the region and residents of the state. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.11(a), above. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. OCTOBER 2014 4.11 -1 MINERAL RESOURCES Less Than Would the project. Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, ✓ specific plan or other land use Ian? a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact The proposed project would involve the demolition of the existing Park Avenue Bridge, and construction of a new bridge structure connecting Balboa Island to Little Balboa Island. No mineral recovery activities currently occur in the project area, and the project site is not underlain by any known mineral resources of value to the region and residents of the state. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.11(a), above. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. OCTOBER 2014 4.11 -1 MINERAL RESOURCES annwv, ar PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT ° Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. OCTOBER 2014 4.11 -2 MINERAL RESOURCES 97.% PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Li 4.12 NOISE Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air, and is characterized by both its amplitude and frequency (or pitch). The human ear does not hear all frequencies equally. In particular, the ear deemphasizes low and very high frequencies. To better approximate the sensitivity of human hearing, the A- weighted decibel scale (dBA) has been developed. On this scale, the human range of hearing extends from approximately 3 dBA to around 140 dBA. Noise is generally defined as unwanted or excessive sound, which can vary in intensity by over one million times within the range of human hearing; therefore, a logarithmic scale, known as the decibel scale (dB), is used to quantify sound intensity. Noise can be generated by a number of sources, including mobile sources such as automobiles, trucks, and airplanes, and stationary sources such as construction sites, machinery, and industrial operations. Noise generated by mobile sources typically attenuates (is reduced) at a rate between 3 dBA and 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. The rate depends on the ground surface and the number or type of objects between the noise source and the receiver. Hard and flat surfaces, such as concrete or asphalt, have an attenuation rate of 3 dBA per doubling of distance. Soft surfaces, such as uneven or vegetated terrain, have an attenuation rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise generated by stationary sources typically attenuates at a rate between 6 dBA and about 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance. There are a number of metrics used to characterize community noise exposure, which fluctuate constantly over time. One such metric, the equivalent sound level (L .), represents a constant sound that, over the specified period, has the same sound energy as the time- varying sound. Noise exposure over a longer period of time is often evaluated based on the Day -Night Sound Level (Leo)• This is a measure of 24 -hour noise levels that incorporates a 10-dBA penalty for sounds occurring between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The penalty is intended to reflect the increased human sensitivity to noises occurring during nighttime hours, particularly at times when people are sleeping and there are lower ambient noise conditions. Typical Le„ noise levels for light and medium density residential areas range from 55 dBA to 65 dBA. OCTOBER 2014 4.12 -1 NOISE Less Than Would the project: Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or ✓ noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ✓ groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in ✓ the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ✓ project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose ✓ people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the _F_T project expose people residing or working in the project area ✓ to excessive noise levels? Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air, and is characterized by both its amplitude and frequency (or pitch). The human ear does not hear all frequencies equally. In particular, the ear deemphasizes low and very high frequencies. To better approximate the sensitivity of human hearing, the A- weighted decibel scale (dBA) has been developed. On this scale, the human range of hearing extends from approximately 3 dBA to around 140 dBA. Noise is generally defined as unwanted or excessive sound, which can vary in intensity by over one million times within the range of human hearing; therefore, a logarithmic scale, known as the decibel scale (dB), is used to quantify sound intensity. Noise can be generated by a number of sources, including mobile sources such as automobiles, trucks, and airplanes, and stationary sources such as construction sites, machinery, and industrial operations. Noise generated by mobile sources typically attenuates (is reduced) at a rate between 3 dBA and 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. The rate depends on the ground surface and the number or type of objects between the noise source and the receiver. Hard and flat surfaces, such as concrete or asphalt, have an attenuation rate of 3 dBA per doubling of distance. Soft surfaces, such as uneven or vegetated terrain, have an attenuation rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise generated by stationary sources typically attenuates at a rate between 6 dBA and about 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance. There are a number of metrics used to characterize community noise exposure, which fluctuate constantly over time. One such metric, the equivalent sound level (L .), represents a constant sound that, over the specified period, has the same sound energy as the time- varying sound. Noise exposure over a longer period of time is often evaluated based on the Day -Night Sound Level (Leo)• This is a measure of 24 -hour noise levels that incorporates a 10-dBA penalty for sounds occurring between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The penalty is intended to reflect the increased human sensitivity to noises occurring during nighttime hours, particularly at times when people are sleeping and there are lower ambient noise conditions. Typical Le„ noise levels for light and medium density residential areas range from 55 dBA to 65 dBA. OCTOBER 2014 4.12 -1 NOISE NEwe, l J P PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Two of the primary factors that reduce levels of environmental sounds are increasing the distance between the sound source to the receiver and having intervening obstacles such as walls, buildings, or terrain features between the sound source and the receiver. Factors that act to increase the loudness of environmental sounds include moving the sound source closer to the receiver, sound enhancements caused by reflections, and focusing caused by various meteorological conditions. STATE OF CALIFORNIA The State Office of Planning and Research Noise Element Guidelines include recommended exterior and interior noise level standards for local jurisdictions to identify and prevent the creation of incompatible land uses due to noise. The Noise Element Guidelines contain a land use compatibility table that describes the compatibility of various land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Chapter 10.26, Community Noise Control, of the City's Municipal Code contains all noise regulations implemented in the City; refer to Table 4.12 -1, City of Newport Beach Exterior Noise Standards, and Table 4.12 -2, City of Newport Beach Interior Noise Standards. Table 4.12.1 City of Newport Beach Exterior Noise Standards Zone Allowable Exterior Noise Level (LQ' 7:00 a.rrL to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 1- Single -, two- or multiple - family residential properties 55 dBA 50 dBA 2- Commercial properties 65 dBA 60 dBA 3- Residential portions of mixed -use properties 60 dBA 50 dBA 4- Industrial or manufacturing 70 dBA 70 dBA 1. If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standards, the ambient shall be the standard. Source: Chapter 10.26 (Community Noise Contra Section 10.26.025(A) of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, 2013. Table 4.12.2 City of Newport Beach Interior Noise Standards Zone Allowable Interior Noise Level' 7:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m 1- Residential 45 dBA 40 dBA 2- Residential portions of mixed -use properties 45 dBA 40 dBA 1. If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standards, the ambient shall be the standard. Source: Chapter 10.26 (Community Noise Controo Section 10.26.030(A) of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, 2013. The project would also be subject to the limitations imposed by the City regarding construction noise. The following outlines the City's construction noise ordinance: A. Weekdays and Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, OCTOBER 2014 4.12 -2 NOISE 44R Wft n PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any weekday except between the hours of seven a.m. and six - thirty p.m., nor on any Saturday except between the hours of eight a.m. and six p.m. B. Sundays and Holidays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any federal holiday. C. No landowner, construction company owner, contractor, subcontractor, or employer shall permit or allow any person or persons working under their direction and control to operate any tool, equipment or machine in violation of the provisions of this section. EXISTING STATIONARY SOURCES The project area is highly urbanized, consisting of a mix of residential, commercial, office, and public facility uses. The primary sources of stationary noise in the project vicinity are urban - related activities (i.e., mechanical equipment, parking areas, and pedestrians). The noise associated with these sources may represent a single -event noise occurrence, short -term or long- term /continuous noise. EXISTING MOBILE SOURCES The majority of the existing mobile noise in the project area is generated from local traffic along the surrounding roadways (Park Avenue, Marine Avenue, Balboa Avenue, and small residential streets). The highest mobile noise levels currently occur along Marine Avenue, producing noise levels of approximately 57.6 dBA at a distance of 100 feet from the Park Avenue roadway centerline .1 a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. It is difficult to specify noise levels that are generally acceptable to everyone; what is annoying to one person may be unnoticed by another. Standards may be based on documented complaints in response to documented noise levels, or based on studies of the ability of people to sleep, talk, or work under various noise conditions. However, all such studies recognize that individual responses vary considerably. Standards usually address the needs of the majority of the general population. Chapter 10.28, Loud and Unreasonable Noise, of the City's Municipal Code sets forth all noise regulations controlling unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise within the City. As outlined in the Municipal Code, maximum noise levels are based on land use. SHORT -TERM NOISE IMPACTS Construction of the proposed project would occur over approximately 10 months. Construction activities would include demolition, grading, paving, and roadway /structural construction. Ground -borne noise and other types of construction- related noise impacts typically occur during the initial site ' Mobile source noise was modeled using the Federal Highway Administration's Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77- 108), which incorporates several roadway and site parameters. The model does not account for ambient noise levels. Noise projections are based on modeled vehicular traffic as derived from the Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Traffic Analysis (Traffic Impact Analysis) prepared by RBF Consulting (May 15, 2014); refer to Appendix H of this document A 25 -mile per hour average vehicle speed was assumed for existing conditions based on empirical observations and posted maximum speeds. OCTOBER 2014 4.12 -3 NOISE i4wwep r y PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration preparation. This phase of construction has the potential to create the highest levels of noise; however, it is generally the shortest of all construction phases. Typical noise levels generated by construction equipment are shown in Table 4.12 -3, Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment. Operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be due to random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). Table 4.12.3 Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment Type of Equipment Acoustical Use Factor' L� at 50 Feet (dBA) Concrete Saw 20 90 Crane 16 81 Backhoe 40 78 Dozer 40 82 Excavator 40 81 Forklift 40 78 Tractor S 84 General Industrial Equipment 50 85 Note: 1 - Acoustical Use Factor (percent): Estimates the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full pDwer i.e., its loudest condition during a construction operation. Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA -HEP -05- 054), January 2006. Sensitive uses surrounding the Park Avenue and Balboa Avenue sites include residential uses adjoining /surrounding each site. These sensitive uses may be exposed to elevated noise levels during project construction. The City's Municipal Code does not establish quantitative construction noise standards. Instead, Chapter 10.28 of the City's Municipal Code establishes allowable hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m, on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and at no time on Sundays or Federal holidays. Thus, construction activities would be conducted during allowable daytime hours, per the City's Municipal Code. In addition, given the proximity of construction activities to sensitive receptors, the project would not include any pile driving activities. Rather, the project would incorporate cast -in- drilled -hole (CIDH) and /or vibratory pile installation for implementation of bridge piles to minimize temporary noise impacts. Further, implementation of Mitigation Measure N -1 would ensure that noise generated during construction of the project would be lessened to the maximum extent possible. Mitigation Measure N -1 includes the designation of a'Noise Disturbance Coordinator,' and orientation of stationary construction equipment away from nearby sensitive receivers, among other requirements. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure N -1. Refer to Response 4.12 (c) for a discussion of the proposed project's long -term operational noise impacts. Mitigation Measures. N -1 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit or Building Permit for new construction, the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that: OCTOBER 2014 4.12 -4 NOISE �rw�w F4 PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration • All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other State required noise attenuation devices. The City shall provide a qualified "Noise Disturbance Coordinator." The Disturbance Coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the Disturbance Coordinator shall notify the City within 24 -hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the complaint, as deemed acceptable by the Community Development Department. The contact name and the telephone number for the Disturbance Coordinator shall be clearly posted on -site. • During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. • Construction activities that produce noise shall not take place outside of the allowable hours specified by the City's Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 (7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays; construction is prohibited on Sundays and /or federal holidays). b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact Project construction can generate varying degrees of ground -bome vibration, depending on the construction procedure and the construction equipment used. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity of the construction site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Ground -bome vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations. In general, the FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations (i.e., 0.20 inch /second) appears to be conservative. The types of construction vibration impact include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Typical vibration produced by construction equipment is illustrated in Table 4.12 -4, Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Eouipmenf. Ground -borne vibration decreases rapidly with distance. The proposed project would not require pile driving. As indicated in Table 4.12 -4, based on the FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during project construction range from 0.003 to 0.076 inch - per - second peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet from the source of activity. The nearest sensitive receptors (residential surrounding the project site) are located approximately 15 feet from the project boundary at both the Park Avenue and Balboa Avenue sites. As noted in Table 4.124, vibration at 15 feet would range from 0.075 to 0.191 PPV. Therefore, vibration from construction activities experienced at the nearest sensitive receptors) would be below the 0.20 inch -per- second PPV significance threshold. In addition, as noted above, the project would incorporate cast -in- drilled -hole (CIDH) and/or vibratory pile installation for implementation of bridge piles rather than pile driving to OCTOBER 2014 4.12 -5 NOISE 30M, PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration minimize temporary noise /vibration impacts. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Table 4.12 -4 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact An off -site traffic noise impact occurs when there is a discernable increase in traffic noise and the resulting noise level exceeds an established noise standard. The proposed project consists of the replacing the existing Park Avenue Bridge with a new bridge structure at the same location. The project would not result in an increase in vehicular capacity of the bridge, nor would it substantially alter the profile or alignment. As such, the project would not generate any operational mobile traffic trips and increased mobile traffic noise levels, and/or introduce any new stationary noise sources to the project area. Noise levels would be similar to existing conditions upon completion of the new bridge Park Avenue Bridge structure. As such, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. CO Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above the levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Responses 4.12(a) and 4.12(c), above. While the project may include a minor increase in noise levels during construction and operation of the temporary bridge site along Balboa Avenue, any such increase would be short -term in nature and all impacts would cease once the Park Avenue Bridge replacement is complete. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure N -1. Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure N -1. OCTOBER 2014 4.12 -6 NOISE Approximate peak particle Approximate peak particle Equipment velocity at 25 feet velocity at 15 feet (inches /second)' (incheslsecondy Large bulldozer 0.089 0.191 Loaded trucks 0.076 0.164 Small bulldozer 0.003 0.006 Jackhammer 0.035 0.075 Notes: 1. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006. Table 12 -2. 2. Calculated using the following formula: PPV a 4, = PPV„ rx (251D)r s where: PPV (equip) = the peak particle velocity in intsec of the equipment adjusted for the distance PPV (ref) = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 12 -2 of the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines D= the distance from the equipment tothereceiver C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact An off -site traffic noise impact occurs when there is a discernable increase in traffic noise and the resulting noise level exceeds an established noise standard. The proposed project consists of the replacing the existing Park Avenue Bridge with a new bridge structure at the same location. The project would not result in an increase in vehicular capacity of the bridge, nor would it substantially alter the profile or alignment. As such, the project would not generate any operational mobile traffic trips and increased mobile traffic noise levels, and/or introduce any new stationary noise sources to the project area. Noise levels would be similar to existing conditions upon completion of the new bridge Park Avenue Bridge structure. As such, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. CO Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above the levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Responses 4.12(a) and 4.12(c), above. While the project may include a minor increase in noise levels during construction and operation of the temporary bridge site along Balboa Avenue, any such increase would be short -term in nature and all impacts would cease once the Park Avenue Bridge replacement is complete. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure N -1. Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure N -1. OCTOBER 2014 4.12 -6 NOISE 4 �kw oti4 h PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. There are no private or public airports or airstrips within two miles of the project site. In addition, the project site is not located within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. t) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact Refer to Response 4.12(e). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. OCTOBER 2014 4.12 -7 NOISE (b-- PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Qjl� Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. OCTOBER 2014 4.12 -8 NOISE 9�0; PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact The proposed project would not involve the construction of any homes, businesses, or other uses that would result in direct population growth. The project consists of the demolition of the existing Park Avenue Bridge, and the construction of a new bridge structure at the same location. While this would improve safety and traffic efficiency in the project area, it is not expected to induce population growth because: 1) the project area is urbanized and generally built -out; 2) the project would not increase the vehicular capacity of the Park Avenue Bridge; and 3) the project would not represent the removal of a barrier to growth, since roadway facilities exist throughout the project area. As such, impacts in regards to growth inducement would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact No housing would be affected by the proposed project, and no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact No people would be displaced by the proposed project, and no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. OCTOBER 2014 4.13 -1 POPULATION AND HOUSING Less Than Would the project: Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and ✓ businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other Infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing ✓ elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ✓ construct on of replacement housing elsewhere? a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact The proposed project would not involve the construction of any homes, businesses, or other uses that would result in direct population growth. The project consists of the demolition of the existing Park Avenue Bridge, and the construction of a new bridge structure at the same location. While this would improve safety and traffic efficiency in the project area, it is not expected to induce population growth because: 1) the project area is urbanized and generally built -out; 2) the project would not increase the vehicular capacity of the Park Avenue Bridge; and 3) the project would not represent the removal of a barrier to growth, since roadway facilities exist throughout the project area. As such, impacts in regards to growth inducement would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact No housing would be affected by the proposed project, and no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact No people would be displaced by the proposed project, and no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. OCTOBER 2014 4.13 -1 POPULATION AND HOUSING QNt'R�'�d PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration �tmrwa> This page intentionally left blank. OCTOBER 2014 4.13 -2 POPULATION AND HOUSING 95M PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1) Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Newport Beach Fire Department provides fire protection within the City. The nearest station to the project site is Station #4, located 124 Marine Avenue, approximately 100 feet to the west of the Park Avenue Bridge site and 500 feet southwest of the Balboa Avenue site. As a roadway bridge project, the proposed facility would not substantially increase the need for fire protection services. No habitable structures are proposed. Moreover, since the project would be designed to accommodate all City of Newport Beach Fire Department emergency response vehicles and would be wider than the existing bridge structure, the project would result in beneficial impacts related to emergency response and roadway connectivity in the project area. Currently, the Park Avenue Bridge provides emergency vehicle access to Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island. During construction of the proposed project, access to both Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island would be maintained at all times, via a temporary construction bridge along Balboa Avenue. As such, fire response capability would be maintained at all times, and impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 2) Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The Newport Beach Police Department provides police protection within the City. The Newport Beach Police Department is based at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, approximately 1.30 -mile north of the Park Avenue and Balboa Avenue sites. As a roadway bridge facility, the proposed facility would not substantially increase the need for police protection services. No habitable structures are proposed. As noted above, the proposed bridge structure would result in a OCTOBER 2014 4.14 -1 PUBLIC SERVICES Less Than Would the project. Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1) Fire protection? ✓ 2) Police protection? ✓ 3) Schools? ✓ 4) Parks? ✓ 5) Other public facilities? ✓ a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1) Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Newport Beach Fire Department provides fire protection within the City. The nearest station to the project site is Station #4, located 124 Marine Avenue, approximately 100 feet to the west of the Park Avenue Bridge site and 500 feet southwest of the Balboa Avenue site. As a roadway bridge project, the proposed facility would not substantially increase the need for fire protection services. No habitable structures are proposed. Moreover, since the project would be designed to accommodate all City of Newport Beach Fire Department emergency response vehicles and would be wider than the existing bridge structure, the project would result in beneficial impacts related to emergency response and roadway connectivity in the project area. Currently, the Park Avenue Bridge provides emergency vehicle access to Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island. During construction of the proposed project, access to both Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island would be maintained at all times, via a temporary construction bridge along Balboa Avenue. As such, fire response capability would be maintained at all times, and impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 2) Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The Newport Beach Police Department provides police protection within the City. The Newport Beach Police Department is based at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, approximately 1.30 -mile north of the Park Avenue and Balboa Avenue sites. As a roadway bridge facility, the proposed facility would not substantially increase the need for police protection services. No habitable structures are proposed. As noted above, the proposed bridge structure would result in a OCTOBER 2014 4.14 -1 PUBLIC SERVICES 3Q� PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration beneficial impacts related to emergency response, as the bridge would be wider and provide increased safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists in the project area. Currently, the Park Avenue Bridge provides emergency vehicle access to Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island. During construction of the proposed project, access to both Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island would be maintained at all times, via a temporary construction bridge along Balboa Avenue. As such, police response capability would be maintained at all times, and impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitioation Measures: No mitigation is required. 3) Schools? No Impact The proposed project would not directly result in any student generation, as no homes are proposed. Moreover, as discussed in Response 4.13(a), the project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth in the project area. Thus, no impacts are anticipated in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4) Parks? No Impact. As a roadway bridge facility, the project would not generate the need for new or physically altered park facilities. No habitable structures are proposed as part of the project. Moreover, as discussed in Response 4.13(a), the project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth in the project area. Thus, no impacts are anticipated in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required, 5) Other public facilities? No Impact As shown above in Responses 4.14(a)(1) through 4.14(a)(4), the proposed project would not result in significant impacts on public services or facilities. No other public facilities are anticipated to be affected by the project. No impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. OCTOBER 2014 4.14 -2 PUBLIC SERVICES YµWYp PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.15 RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact As stated in Response 4.14(a)(4), the proposed project would not result in an increase in demand on parks or other recreational facilities, and would not result in physical deterioration of these facilities. No impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than SigniFcant Impact As stated in Response 4.14(a)(4), the proposed project would not result in an increase in demand on parks or other recreational facilities. During construction activities, access between Balboa/Little Balboa Islands would remain open at all times for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians via a temporary bridge along Balboa Avenue. Access along the Grand Canal for recreational users may be temporarily affected during the short -term construction process. Although the majority of the canal would remain open and accessible for recreational use, there would be periods when portions of the canal (i.e., the Park Avenue and/or Balboa Avenue sites) would need to be closed to maintain public safety. The Park Avenue Bridge site would require closure during periods when canal users would be subject to hazards (e.g., falling debris during demolition, open construction areas related to piers, bridge installation activities, etc.). Closure of the Balboa Avenue site would be limited to the brief periods when the bridge is launched /installed and removed. Upon completion of construction, the new Park Avenue Bride would match the existing vertical curve profile and existing freeboard of the existing bridge, and recreational use would be unaffected. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. OCTOBER 2014 4.15 -1 RECREATION Less Than Would the project: Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that ✓ substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which ✓ might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact As stated in Response 4.14(a)(4), the proposed project would not result in an increase in demand on parks or other recreational facilities, and would not result in physical deterioration of these facilities. No impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than SigniFcant Impact As stated in Response 4.14(a)(4), the proposed project would not result in an increase in demand on parks or other recreational facilities. During construction activities, access between Balboa/Little Balboa Islands would remain open at all times for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians via a temporary bridge along Balboa Avenue. Access along the Grand Canal for recreational users may be temporarily affected during the short -term construction process. Although the majority of the canal would remain open and accessible for recreational use, there would be periods when portions of the canal (i.e., the Park Avenue and/or Balboa Avenue sites) would need to be closed to maintain public safety. The Park Avenue Bridge site would require closure during periods when canal users would be subject to hazards (e.g., falling debris during demolition, open construction areas related to piers, bridge installation activities, etc.). Closure of the Balboa Avenue site would be limited to the brief periods when the bridge is launched /installed and removed. Upon completion of construction, the new Park Avenue Bride would match the existing vertical curve profile and existing freeboard of the existing bridge, and recreational use would be unaffected. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. OCTOBER 2014 4.15 -1 RECREATION Cap <,aeohr. } PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. OCTOBER 2014 4.15 -2 RECREATION �pwP,)R PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT ° Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.16 TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less Than Significant lmpact. BACKGROUND This section is based upon the Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Traffic Analysis (RBF Consulting, May 15, 2014) prepared for the proposed project; refer to Aooendix H, Traffic Analysis, of this document. The purpose of the Traffic Analysis is to evaluate potential project impacts related to traffic and circulation in the vicinity of the project site. Since the project would include a temporary bridge at Balboa Avenue while the Park Avenue Bridge is demolished and reconstructed, the Traffic Analysis analyzes temporary impacts along Balboa Avenue and surrounding roadways and intersections; operational traffic impact analysis is not considered, as the project would not generate any trips after construction is complete. OCTOBER 2014 4.16 -1 TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC Less Than Would the prolec t Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and ✓ non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other ✓ standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that ✓ results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or ✓ incompatible uses e.., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ✓ f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or ✓ otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less Than Significant lmpact. BACKGROUND This section is based upon the Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Traffic Analysis (RBF Consulting, May 15, 2014) prepared for the proposed project; refer to Aooendix H, Traffic Analysis, of this document. The purpose of the Traffic Analysis is to evaluate potential project impacts related to traffic and circulation in the vicinity of the project site. Since the project would include a temporary bridge at Balboa Avenue while the Park Avenue Bridge is demolished and reconstructed, the Traffic Analysis analyzes temporary impacts along Balboa Avenue and surrounding roadways and intersections; operational traffic impact analysis is not considered, as the project would not generate any trips after construction is complete. OCTOBER 2014 4.16 -1 TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC ^ gawvey; PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Setting To evaluate the potential traffic impacts of the proposed project, identification of a range of local study intersections and roadways was coordinated with the City of Newport Beach. Local Intersections 1. Marine Avenue /Balboa Avenue 2. Marine Avenue /Park Avenue 3. Abalone Avenue/Balboa Avenue; and 4. Abalone Avenue /Park Avenue Analysis Methodology Intersection Analysis Level of service (LOS) is commonly used as a qualitative description of intersection operation and is based on the capacity of the intersection and the volume of traffic using the intersection. The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis method is typically utilized by the City of Newport Beach to determine the operating LOS of signalized intersections; however, the ICU analysis methodology is not applicable to unsignalized intersections. Therefore, the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis methodology has been utilized to determine the operating LOS of the study intersections for this study. The analysis of proposed temporary signalized intersections associated with temporary bridge conditions has also been prepared utilizing the HCM analysis methodology so the particular signal operations can be modeled more accurately. Unlike the HCM analysis methodology, the ICU analysis methodology does not account for various factors that would affect the study intersection LOS such as traffic signal timing (extended all -red clearance intervals in particular), phasing, cycle length, and distance between intersections. The 2000 HCM analysis methodology describes the operation of an intersection using a range of LOS from LOS A (free -flow conditions) to LOS F (severely congested conditions), based on the corresponding ranges of stopped delay experienced per vehicle for signalized and unsignalized intersections shown in Table 4.16 -1, LOS and Delay Ranges. Table 4.16.1 LOS and Delay Ranges Unsignalized Intersections VIC Ratio LOS < 10.0 A 10.0 to < 15.0 B 20.0 to < 35.0 C 35.0 to < 55.0 D 55.0 to < 80.0 E > 80.0 F Source: RBF Consulting, Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Traffic Analysis, May 15, 2014; rate r to A endix H. OCTOBER 2014 4.16 -2 TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC HMwW 4 PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration nc Performance Criteria • Intersection Performance Criteria: The City's goal for peak hour intersection operation is LOS D or better. Thresholds of Significance Intersection Thresholds of Significance The City of Newport Beach has no thresholds of significance for unsignalized intersections. Therefore, this analysis documents the delay /LOS, displaced parking, and vehicle queuing for existing conditions and the two alternative reconstruction conditions. Local Intersections and Roadways Existing Roadway System The characteristics of the roadway system in the vicinity of the project site are described below: • Marine Avenue is a two -lane undivided roadway trending in a north -south direction. There is no posted speed limit on Marine Avenue within the project vicinity; on- street parking is permitted. • Abalone Avenue is a one -way southbound undivided roadway. There is no posted speed limit on Abalone Avenue within the project vicinity; on- street parking is permitted. • Balboa Avenue is a two -lane undivided roadway trending in an east -west direction. Balboa Avenue is bisected by the Grand Canal water channel which runs north- south. There is no posted speed limit on Balboa Avenue within the project vicinity; on- street parking is permitted. • Park Avenue is a two -lane roadway with intermittent raised medians trending in an east-west direction. The Park Avenue Bridge spans the Grand Canal water channel. There is no posted speed limit on Park Avenue within the project vicinity; on- street parking is generally permitted with the exception of on the Park Avenue Bridge. Existing Traffic Conditions To determine the existing operation of the study intersections, a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour intersection movement counts were collected in April 2014 during typical weekday conditions. The a.m. peak period intersection counts were collected from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.; the p.m. peak period intersection counts were collected from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The traffic volumes used in this analysis were taken from the highest hour within the two -hour peak period counted. Additionally, daily traffic volumes for the roadway circulation system were also collected in April 2014. Detailed traffic count data sheets are contained in Appendix H. Existing Conditions Peak Hour Study Intersection LOS Table 4.16 -2, Existing Conditions Study Intersections AM & PM Peak Hour LOS summarizes existing conditions a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour LOS of the study intersections. OCTOBER 2014 4.16 -3 TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC 90M, PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 4.16 -2 Existing Conditions Study Intersections AM & PM Peak Hour LOS Study Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour -- Delay - LOS - Delay - LOS Ot- Marine Avenue/Balboa Avenue 12.3 -B 11.7 -B 02-Marine Avenue/Park Avenue 9.0 -A 9.4 -A 03-Abalone Avenue/Balboa Avenue 9.7 -A 9.3 -A ,04-Abalone Avenue/Park Avenue 7.2 -A 7.2 -A Source: RBI Consulting, Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Traffic Analysis, May 15, 2014; refer to Alopendix H. As shown in Table 4.16 -2, the study intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) according to City performance criteria. TEMPORARY BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS As noted above, the project would include the operation of a temporary bridge structure along Balboa Avenue, between Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island during demolition and construction of the new Park Avenue Bridge structure. Under this scenario, the trips currently traversing the Park Avenue Bridge would be redistributed to the temporary Balboa Avenue bridge connection since there would be no traffic connection at the Park Avenue location during demolition and construction activities. Table 4.16 -3, Temporary Bridqe Conditions AM & PM Peak Hour LOS, summarizes the a.m. and p.m. peak hour LOS of the study intersections with implementation of the temporary bridge along Balboa Avenue during construction activities. Table 4.16 -3 Temporary Bridge Conditions AM & PM Peak Hour LOS Study Intersection Existing Conditions Temporary Bridge Conditions Change in Delay Delay- LOS Delay - LOS AM Peak PM Peak; AM Peak PM Peak Hour Hour 1 Hour Hour AM Peak Hcur PM Peak Hour 01-Marine Avenue/Balboa Avenue 12.3 -B 11.7 -B 12.2 -B 12.0 -B -01 +0.3 02-Marine Avenue/Park Avenue 9.0 -A 9.4 -A 8.4 -A 8.4 -A -0.6 -1.0 03-Abalone Avenue/Balboa Avenue 9.7 -A 9.3 -A 9.3 -A 8.9 -A 0.4 -0.4 04- Abalone Avenue /Park Avenue 72 -A 7.2 -A 7.4 -A 7.5 -A +02 +0.3 Source: RBF Consulting, Park Avenue Bride Replacement Traffic Analysis, May 15, 2014; refer to Appendix H. As seen in Table 4.16 -3, the study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) during operation of the temporary bridge along Balboa Avenue, according to the City of Newport Beach performance criteria. It should be noted that the LOS for the AM peak hour at Marine Avenue /Balboa Avenue is shown as slightly decreasing from 12.3 (LOS B) under existing conditions to 12.2 (LOS B) under temporary bridge conditions. While one may expect the LOS to increase due to the temporary bridge, the LOS actually decreases since the LOS is based upon average delay for all OCTOBER 2014 4.16 -4 TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC 3*0� PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration movements at the intersection. The primary existing movement at the Marine Avenue /Balboa Avenue intersection is the north -south through movement. Since the temporary bridge would attract additional east -west turning movements onto Balboa Avenue, this would reduce north -south through movements and slightly reduce the overall average delay at the intersection. CONCLUSION As demonstrated in the analysis above, all of the study intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS during operation of the temporary bridge over the Grand Canal at Balboa Avenue. As such, short - term construction impacts in this regard would be less than significant. As noted above, the project would not generate vehicle trips or have the capacity to alter traffic conditions along Park Avenue upon completion of new bridge structure. Long -term operational traffic impacts would not occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No Impact Based on the Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) Congestion Management Program (CMP), there are no designated CMP roadways that would be affected by the proposed project. The nearest CMP roadway is East Coast Highway (State Route 1), which is located approximately 0.5 -mile to the north. No impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The nearest airport to the project site is the John Wayne Airport, located approximately four miles to the north. The proposed project would not have the capacity to result in a change in air traffic patterns. No impact would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would result in the replacement of the Park Avenue Bridge with a new bridge structure, connecting Balboa Island to Little Balboa Island. During the short -term construction process, a temporary two-lane bridge would be installed at Balboa Avenue over the Grand Canal. This temporary bridge would operate in a similar capacity to the existing Park Avenue Bridge, and the bridge design would be subject to City review during the final plan review process to ensure public safety. In addition, the temporary bridge would incorporate a five -foot wide pathway for bicycle and pedestrian use that would be separated from vehicle travel lanes. Upon completion of construction of the new Park Avenue Bridge, the project would result in beneficial impacts in regards to hazards. The project would result in an improved, seismically - reinforced bridge over the Grand Canal. Vehicle, bicyclist, and pedestrian travel on the new bridge would be similar to what currently occurs on the existing bridge. Moreover, project design would comply with applicable State (i.e., Caltrans) and local design requirements for bridge facilities, ensuring that hazards to travelers are minimized. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. OCTOBER 2014 4.16 -5 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC pWe? PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ;M Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. Currently, the Park Avenue Bridge provides emergency vehicle access to Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island. During construction of the proposed project, access to both Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island would be maintained at all times, via a temporary bridge along Balboa Avenue. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Long -term operation of the proposed project would not impair or interfere with emergency access. The proposed project would result in beneficial impacts related to emergency access, since it would improve connectivity and circulation in the project area by providing a wider bridge structure connecting Balboa Island to Little Balboa Island. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. fl Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance orsafety of such facilities? Less Than Significant Impac t. The proposed project would involve the replacement of the existing Park Avenue Bridge with a new bridge structure, connecting Balboa Island to Little Balboa Island. Generally, the proposed project would result in beneficial impacts to transportation efficiency and connectivity in the project area. The project would include 11 -foot wide vehicle lanes, and six -foot wide sidewalks on the bridge structure. Overall, the new bridge structure would be six feet wider than the existing Park Avenue Bridge. In addition, the temporary bridge would accommodate continuous access between Balboa/Little Balboa Islands for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle use during construction of the proposed project. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with any policies, plans, or programs related to public or alternative transportation. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required. OCTOBER 2014 4.16 -6 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC �Y P'Yr)A PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Wafer Quality Control Board? No Impact The proposed project would result in the demolition of the existing Park Avenue Bridge, and construction of a new bridge structure in the same location. The project would not include the use of any habitable structures, and would not have the capability to produce wastewater. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact The proposed project would result in the demolition of the existing Park Avenue Bridge, and construction of a new bridge structure in the same location. The project would not include the use of any habitable structures, and would not have the capability to consume water or produce wastewater. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. OCTOBER 2014 4.17 -1 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Less Than Would the project: Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ✓ Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing ✓ facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ✓ construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or ✓ expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has ✓ adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ✓ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations ✓ related to solid waste? a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Wafer Quality Control Board? No Impact The proposed project would result in the demolition of the existing Park Avenue Bridge, and construction of a new bridge structure in the same location. The project would not include the use of any habitable structures, and would not have the capability to produce wastewater. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact The proposed project would result in the demolition of the existing Park Avenue Bridge, and construction of a new bridge structure in the same location. The project would not include the use of any habitable structures, and would not have the capability to consume water or produce wastewater. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. OCTOBER 2014 4.17 -1 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS rtn��JN>y, }� ♦ AF PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT ° Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration �MIV c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would include the temporary relocation of existing utilities (i.e., water, gas, electrical, telecommunication) within the existing Park Avenue Bridge structure to allow for continued utility service throughout the duration of the construction process. Upon completion of the proposed project, all utility lines would be placed within the new bridge structure, and would be similar to existing conditions. As discussed within Response 4.9(c), the construction of new stormwater facilities would not result in any significant impacts, and existing facilities along Park Avenue are adequate to accommodate the project. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Sfgnificantlmpact. Refer to Response 4.17(b), above. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.17(a) and 4.17(b), above Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in the demolition of the existing Park Avenue Bridge, and construction of a new bridge structure in the same location. The project would not include the construction of any habitable structures, and would not have the capability to produce solid waste. Although the project may require the disposal of debris during the demolition process (concrete, soil, etc.), the generation of these materials should be short -term in nature and would not have the capability to substantially affect the capacity of regional landfills. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. The proposed project would comply with all Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which provides the federal government with "cradle to grave' authority over the disposal of solid waste and hazardous materials. The project would also be required to comply with Assembly Bills 939 and 1327, which require measures to enhance recycling and source reduction. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. OCTOBER 2014 4.17 -2 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 59A PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.18 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? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As noted in Section 4.4, Biolo ical Resources, the only sensitive biological resources associated with the project site is eelgrass that occurs within the Grand Canal, nesting birds that may occur in the project area, and jurisdictional waters. Mitigation Measures BI0 -1 through 13104 would be implemented to minimize impacts in this regard to a level below significance. In addition, while no sensitive cultural resources are known to exist within site boundaries, Mitigation Measures CUL -1 and CUL -2 would be implemented in the event such resources are discovered during ground - disturbing activities. Therefore, the Project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the overall quality of the region's environment, or substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population or 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. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would not result in the construction of any new housing or other uses that would directly result in population growth. There would be no impact that would be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable for the environmental issues analyzed within this Initial Study. As indicated throughout Section 4.0, OCTOBER 2014 4.18 -1 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Less Than Would the project Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly ✓ or indirectly? 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? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As noted in Section 4.4, Biolo ical Resources, the only sensitive biological resources associated with the project site is eelgrass that occurs within the Grand Canal, nesting birds that may occur in the project area, and jurisdictional waters. Mitigation Measures BI0 -1 through 13104 would be implemented to minimize impacts in this regard to a level below significance. In addition, while no sensitive cultural resources are known to exist within site boundaries, Mitigation Measures CUL -1 and CUL -2 would be implemented in the event such resources are discovered during ground - disturbing activities. Therefore, the Project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the overall quality of the region's environment, or substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population or 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. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would not result in the construction of any new housing or other uses that would directly result in population growth. There would be no impact that would be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable for the environmental issues analyzed within this Initial Study. As indicated throughout Section 4.0, OCTOBER 2014 4.18 -1 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE `iY.WYIl4p PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis, impacts as a result of the proposed project would be less than significant with implementation of recommended mitigation measures. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts in this regard. C) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Sign cant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Previous sections of this Initial Study reviewed the proposed project's potential impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils, greenhouse gases, hydrology /water quality, noise, hazards and hazardous materials, traffic, and other issues. As concluded in these previous discussions, the proposed project would result in less than significant environmental impacts with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in environmental impacts that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. OCTOBER 2014 4.18 -2 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 4�-O PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.19 REFERENCES The following references were utilized during preparation of this Initial Study /Environmental Checklist. These documents are available for review at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660. 1. Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, AELUP Height Restriction Zone for JWA, January 8, 2004. 2. California Air Resources Board, Climate Change Proposed Sopping Plan, October 2008. 3. California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, A General Location Guide for Ufframafic Rocks in California - Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report, August 2000. 4. California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Orange County Important Farmland 2010 Map, published August 2011. 5. California Department of Conservation, Regional Geologic Hazards and Mapping Program, http: / /www. quake. ca. gov /gmaps/WH /regulatorymaps.htm, accessed June 9, 2014. 6. California Department of Conservation, Seismic Hazards Zone Map, http: / /www. conservation.ca.gov /cgs /shzp /Pages /Index.aspx, accessed June 9, 2014. 7. California Department of Transportation, California Scenic Highway Mapping System, http : / /www.dot.ca.gov /hq /LandArch/ scenic_highwaysfindex.htm, accessed June 2014. 8. California Department of Transportation, Historic Property Survey Report, August 2014. 9. California Department of Transportation, Seismic Design Crrieria Version 1. 7, April 2013. 10. California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013. 11, California Emissions Estimator Model, Version 2013.2.2. 12. California Energy Commission, California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000 -2012, May 2014. 13. California Fish and Wildlife Service, HCP/NCCP California Regional Conservation Plans, October 2013. 14. California State Office of Planning and Research, Noise Element Guidelines, October 2003. 15. City of Newport Beach, City of Newport Beach General Plan, July 2006. 16. City of Newport Beach, City of Newport Beach General Plan Environmental Impact Report, April 2006. 17. City of Newport Beach, City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, current through Ordinance 2014 -11, passed on June 24, 2014. OCTOBER 2014 4.19 -1 REFERENCES ogw)� (tr: i PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 18. City of Newport Beach, Emergency Operations Plan, Approved on September 27, 2011. 19. City of Newport Beach, Local Coastal Program, Local Coastal Land Use Plan, Adopted October 13, 2005, amended on February 5, 2009. 20, Cogstone Resource Management, Inc., Archeological Survey Report for the Grand Canal Bridge Along Park Avenue, City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California, August 15, 2014. 21. County of Orange, Drainage Area Management Plan, 2003. 22. Cyril M. Harris, Noise Control in Buildings, 1994. 23. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map #06059C0382J, revised December 3, 2009. 24. Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA- HEP -05 -054), January 2006. 25. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006. 26. Google Earth, 2014. 27. Governor's Office of Planning and Research, CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review, 2008. 28. RBF Consulting, Location Hydraulic Study, Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Project, July 21, 2014. 29. RBF Consulting, Natural Environment Study, Habitat Assessment, including the results of a Jurisdictional Delineation Park Avenue Bridge over the Grand Canal, June 2014. 30. RBF Consulting, Park Avenue Bridge Project Water Quality Technical Memorandum, June 4, 2014. 31. RBF Consulting, Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Traffic Analysis, May 15, 2014. 32. RBF Consulting, Phase I Initial Site Assessment Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Project, July 2014. 33. RBF Consulting, Visual Impact Assessment, Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Project, May 13, 2014. 34. Southern California Association of Governments, 2012 -2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, April 4, 2012. 35, Southern California Earthquake Center website, hftp:llwww.scec.org /, accessed June 9, 2014. 36. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2012 Air Quality Management Plan, 2012. 37. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November 1993. OCTOBER 2014 4.19 -2 REFERENCES H PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 38. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Appendix C, June 2003 (revised 2009). 39. State of California, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, ORDER NO. R8 -2009 -0030, NPDES No. CAS618030. 40. United State Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey, hftp: / /websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov /App /HomePage.htm, accessed June 9, 2014. 41. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Noise Effects Handbook — A Desk Reference to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise, October 1979, revised July 1981. OCTOBER 2014 4.19 -3 REFERENCES ` Hy.WYr,16 F PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. OCTOBER 2014 4.19 -4 REFERENCES §"V� PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.20 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL City of Newport Beach (Lead Agency) 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 949.470.3091 Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Director, Community Development James W. Campbell, Principal Planner Mark Vukojevic, Deputy Director, Public Works Fong Tse, Principal Civil Engineer RBF Consulting 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, California 92618 949.472.3505 Brad Mielke, Senior Vice President, Structures Bo Burick, Vice President, Structures Alan Ashimine, Environmental Task Manager Ryan Chiene, Environmental Analyst Eddie Torres, Air Quality and Noise Manager Chris Johnson, Regulatory Services Manager Bob Matson, Traffic Brad Losey, Hydrology Travis McGill, Biology Kristen Bogue, Hazardous Materials/Visual Specialist Nora Jens, Water Quality Linda Bo, Graphic Artist Cogstone Resource Management (Cultural Resources) 1518 West Taft Avenue Orange, CA 92865 714.974.8300 Sherri Gust, Registered Professional Archaeologist OCTOBER 2014 4.20 -1 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. OCTOBER 2014 4.20 -2 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL i4 W Ppet f G F PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES Aesthetics AES -1 Prior to final plan approval, the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall ensure that project specifications require that all construction and construction staging areas are sited and /or screened with temporary fencing in order to minimize impacts to public views to the maximum extent feasible. The fencing shall be comprised of opaque material to shield views from surrounding sensitive viewers. In addition, equipment/materials storage and any vehicle parking shall be sited such that their visibility from adjacent receptors is reduced to the greatest extent feasible. AES-2 For any nighttime lighting required for the project, the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall ensure that the contract documents require the construction contractor and /or bridge contractor to use the minimum amount and intensity of lighting required for safety purposes. The lighting shall be shielded and directed towards the specific area of construction, and away from surrounding sensitive uses to the extent practicable. Air Quality AQ -1 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the City shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that, in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust prevention measures, as specified in the SCAQMD's Rules and Regulations. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 402 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off -site. Implementation of the following measures (among others required by Rules 402 and 403) would reduce short -term fugitive dust impacts on nearby sensitive receptors: • All active portions of the construction site shall be watered every three hours during daily construction activities and when dust is observed migrating from the project site to prevent excessive amounts of dust; Pave or apply water every three hours during daily construction activities or apply non -toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas. More frequent watering shall occur if dust is observed migrating from the site during site disturbance; • Any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or other dusty material shall be enclosed, covered, or watered twice daily, or non -toxic soil binders shall be applied; All grading and excavation operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour; • Disturbed areas shall be replaced with ground cover or paved immediately after construction is completed in the affected area; • Visible dust beyond the property line which emanates from the project shall be prevented to the maximum extent feasible; OCTOBER 2014 5-1 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES N4.wr�kr r PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration • All material transported off -site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust prior to departing the job site; and • Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas. Biological Resources BIO -1 Prior to project implementation, the City of Newport Beach shall thoroughly map the area, distribution, density and relationship to depth contours of any eelgrass beds that have the potential to be directly or indirectly impacted by project construction. Factors to be considered in delineating potential habitat areas include appropriate circulation, light, sediment, slope, salinity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, depth, proximity to eelgrass, history of eelgrass coverage, etc. All mapping efforts should be completed during the active growth phase for the vegetation (generally March through October) and shall be valid for a period of 60 days with the exception of surveys completed in August - October. Surveys completed in August - October shall be valid until the resumption of active growth (i.e., in most instances, March 1). After project construction, the City of Newport Beach shall conduct a post - project survey within 30 days and the results shall be sent to the resource agencies. The actual area of impact shall be determined from the post - project survey. An additional survey shall be completed after 12 months to ensure that the project or impacts attributable to the project have not exceeded the allowed limits. If the post - project or 12 month survey demonstrates a loss of eelgrass greater than the allowed limit, then mitigation pursuant to Sections 1 -11 of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy shall be required. BIO -2 The City of Newport Beach shall ensure that compensatory mitigation is provided in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS, 1991 as amended, Revision 11) for temporary impacts to eelgrass. Such mitigation may include planting eelgrass within the temporarily affected area and throughout the Grand Canal to offset impacts to eelgrass and increase the amount of eelgrass within the Grand Canal. The City of Newport Beach shall develop the compensatory mitigation program in consultation with the resource agencies prior to any construction activities that have the capacity to result in adverse impacts to eelgrass. Per the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy, the ultimate mitigation ratio shall be dependent on the results of the pre - and post - construction eelgrass surveys, but shall be no less than a 1:1 mitigation ratio unless otherwise agreed upon by the resource agencies. BIO -3 If construction occurs between February 951 and August 31st, the follow shall be implemented: A pre- construction survey shall be conducted prior to construction activities to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds within the BSA. A qualified biologist shall conduct the survey. If an active nest is found, the bird shall be identified to species and the approximate distance from the closest work site to the nest is estimated. No additional measures need to be implemented if active nests are more than the following distances from the nearest work site: a) 500 feet for raptors or listed species; or b) 250 feet for non - listed passerines. Nests within these distances from the project site shall have a no- disturbance buffer implemented around them. The buffer shall be a minimum 250 feet for non - listed passerines and a minimum 500 feet for raptors or listed species. This OCTOBER 2014 5 -2 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES ` �wwe„yr PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration distance may be increased according to the judgment of the qualified biologist, and may be decreased only with approval from the CDFW. A qualified biologist shall periodically monitor any confirmed nest sites (with no- disturbance buffers) during construction to determine if grading activities occurring outside the buffer zone disturb the birds and if the buffer zone should be increased to prevent nest abandonment. The nest trees shall be monitored until all nests have been abandoned (for non - project related reasons) or the young have fledged. If no nesting birds are found on -site during this time period, construction activities may continue as planned. BIO-4 Prior to any construction activity within the Grand Canal, the City of Newport Beach shall consult with the appropriate responsible resource agency (i.e., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Coastal Commission) to verify delineation results, determine permanent losses and temporary impact areas, and identify compensatory mitigation, as applicable. Prior to undertaking ground - disturbing activities on or immediately adjacent to any aquatic resource areas, the City of Newport Beach and /or their consultant shall obtain all obligatory discretionary permitslauthorizations. Cultural Resources CUL -1 If evidence of subsurface archaeological resources is found during construction, excavation and other construction activity in that area shall cease and the construction contractor shall contact the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director. With direction from the Community Development Director, an archaeologist certified by the County of Orange shall be retained to evaluate the discovery prior to resuming grading in the immediate vicinity of the find. If warranted, the archaeologist shall collect the resource and prepare a technical report describing the results of the investigation. The test -level report shall evaluate the site including discussion of significance (depth, nature, condition and extent of the resources), final mitigation recommendations, and cost estimates. CUL -2 If evidence of subsurface paleontological resources is found during construction, excavation and other construction activity in that area shall cease and the construction contractor shall contact the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director. With direction from the Community Development Director, a paleontologist certified by the County of Orange shall evaluate the find. If warranted, the paleontologist shall prepare and complete a standard Paleontological Resources Mitigation Program for the salvage and curation of identified resources. Geology and Soils GEO -1 Prior to the approval of design plans for the proposed project, the City of Newport Beach Department of Public Works shall ensure that the proposed project meets the design parameters identified in the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria and Caftrans Bridge Design Aids. OCTOBER 2014 5-3 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES h�Me l M L n PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT WIF Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Hazards and Hazardous Materials HAZ -1 In the event construction activities associated with the proposed project result in the disturbance of traffic striping materials, the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall ensure that generated wastes are transported and disposed of at an appropriate, permitted disposal facility as determined by a qualified lead specialist. The traffic striping materials shall be contained /transported and properly disposed of in accordance with the Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. HAZ -2 In the event any pole- mounted electrical transformer must be relocated during project construction activities, the construction contractor shall ensure that the relocation is conducted under the local purveyor to identify properly - handling procedures regarding potential PCBs, if applicable. HAZ -3 Prior to demolition of the existing bridge structure, a Certified Environmental Professional shall be retained by the City of Newport Beach to confirm the presence or absence of ACMs. Abatement of asbestos shall be completed before any activities that would disturb ACMs or create an airborne asbestos hazard. Asbestos removal shall be performed by a State certified asbestos containment contractor in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403. HAZ-4 Prior to demolition activities, procedures shall be established, subject to review and approval by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department, whereby all utility personnel and contractors who may be conducting work within the buildings shall be informed, prior to initiating work, as to the presence of ACMs, their location, type, and conditions. HAZ -5 During demolition of the existing bridge structure, the generated waste shall be disposed of at an appropriate, permitted disposal facility as determined by a lead specialist retained by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department. The waste shall be contained /transported and properly disposed of in accordance with the Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Noise N -1 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit or Building Permit for new construction, the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that: • All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other State required noise attenuation devices. The City shall provide a qualified "Noise Disturbance Coordinator." The Disturbance Coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the Disturbance Coordinator shall notify the City within 24 -hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the complaint, as deemed acceptable by the Community Development Department. The contact name and the telephone number for the Disturbance Coordinator shall be clearly posted on -site. OCTOBER 2014 5-4 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES go PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. • Construction activities that produce noise shall not take place outside of the allowable hours specified by the City's Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 (7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays; construction is prohibited on Sundays and /or federal holidays). OCTOBER 2014 5 -5 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES yFWPI @f PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration [MIIwFw This page intentionally left blank. OCTOBER 2014 5 -6 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES OQW PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 6.0 CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATION Based on the information and environmental analysis contained in the Initial Study /Environmental Checklist, we recommend that the City prepare a mitigated negative declaration for the Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Project. We find that the proposed project could have a significant effect on a number of environmental issues, but that mitigation measures have been identified that reduce such impacts to a less than significant level. We recommend that the second category be selected for the City's determination (See Section 7.0, Lead Agency Determination). October 2014 Date Alan Ashimine, Project Manager RBF Consulting OCTOBER 2014 6 -1 CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATION 30*�, PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. OCTOBER 2014 6 -2 CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATION 4rsW 4 ti PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT ° Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Z-0;.nl 7.0 LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation, the City of Newport Beach (lead agency for the proposed project) has made the following determinafion: The City finds that the proposed use COULD NOT have a significant effect on the _ environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. The City finds that although the proposal could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the V/ mitigation measures described in Section 5.0 have been added. A MITIGATED — NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. The City finds that the proposal MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. The City finds that the proposal MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been _ addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated.' An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. OCTOBER 2014 7 -1 LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION $WA c4 4 F ; ; PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. OCTOBER 2014 7 -2 LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION Exhibit "B" Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Project Final MND including Responses to Comments and Mitigation Monitoring Program for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2014 -002 State Clearinghouse Number 2014101015 FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Project Lead Agency: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Contact: Mr. Fong Tse, P.E. 949.644.3321 Prepared by: RBF CONSULTING 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, California 92618 -2069 Contact: Mr. Alan Ashimine 949.472.3505 November 2014 JN 130307 6g �oyr 4r 4 PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT ° ' Final Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration <nou£> TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ................................... ............................... 2.0 Responses to Comments .................................... ............................... Errata................................................................ ............................... 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1 -1 ............................ ............................2 -1 ... ......... ... ..... ... . .............................. 2 -18 ....3 -1 November 2014 i Table of Contents OW, PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. November 2014 ii Table of Contents PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT • Final Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Project (herein referenced as the 'project") proposes demolition of the existing Park Avenue Bridge, and construction of an improved seismically - reinforced bridge over the Grand Canal. The new bridge would include 11 -foot vehicle lanes, 6 -foot raised sidewalks, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)- compliant switchback ramps, The new bridge structure would be slightly wider than the existing bridge, with a width of approximately 36 feet (compared to the existing width of approximately 30 feet). The improved bridge structure would be positioned within existing City right -of -way (ROW), and does not include nor require any ROW acquisition. Bridge lighting would be provided for both pedestrian safety and architectural character. To maintain access between Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island during construction activities, the project would include the installation of a temporary bridge over the Grand Canal at Balboa Avenue, which would allow for demolition of the entire Park Avenue Bridge at one time and reconstruction in a single phase. Construction of the proposed project would take approximately 10 months to complete. Following a preliminary review of the proposed project, the City of Newport Beach has determined that it is subject to the guidelines and regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Initial Study addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of the project, as proposed. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS /MND) has been prepared for the proposed project. The IS /MND was made available for public review and comment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15105. The public review commenced on October 6, 2014 and expired on November 5, 2014. The IS /MND and supporting attachments were available for review by the general public at: • City of Newport Beach Public Works Department, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA, 92660; • Newport Beach Public Library (Corona del Mar Branch), 420 Marigold Avenue, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625; • Newport Beach Public Library (Mariners Branch), 1300 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660; • Newport Beach Public Library (Balboa Branch), 100 East Balboa Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92660; • Newport Beach Public Library (Central Library), 1000 Avocado Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660; and • the City's website at hftp:// www. newportbeachca .gov /index.aspx ?i)age =1347. November 2014 1 -1 Introduction ' �CN94)yT PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. November 2014 1 -2 Introduction �F6wre,F: PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS During the public review period, comments were received on the Draft IS /MND from public agencies and private parties. The following is a list of the persons, firms, or agencies that submitted comments on the IS /MND during the public review period: A. Donald L. Abrams, Broker, Abrams Coastal Properties, email correspondence dated October 12, 2014. B. Bill Thomas, dated October 20, 2014. C. Michael Cushing, dated October 21, 2014. D. Patricia Martz, President, California Cultural Resources Preservation Alliance, Inc., dated October 22, 2014. E. Glenn S. Robertson, Engineering Geologist, Regional Planning Programs Section, CEQA Coordinator, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, e-mail correspondence dated October 23, 2014. F. Laree Brommer, Manager, Planning Division, OC Public Works, dated October 31, 2014. Although and the State CEQA Guidelines do not require a Lead Agency to prepare written responses to comments received on an IS /MND, the City has elected to prepare the following responses with the intent of conducting a comprehensive and meaningful evaluation of the proposed project. Each comment letter is bracketed and coded, and correlates to the letter assigned to each comment as identified in the list above. November 2014 2 -1 Responses to Comments COMMENT LETTER A From: Don Abrams rmailto :don(o)abramscoastal.coml Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2014 8:38 PM To: Tse, Fong Subject: Little Balboa Island bridge H1 Fong: Regarding the bridge, I have 3 comments: 1. 1 would urge you to consider re- rooting incoming Island traffic to make a right turn on the North Bayfront alley and then make Onyx a one -way street and have traffic go left there so we can avoid a huge traffic jam at Marine Al and Balboa Avenues. Marine could be one -way only in the 300 block which would also ease congestion. See map attached. 2. The pedestrian walkway across the bridge exits to the north and I think the more logical place is to the A2 south. See map. 3. As discussed at meetings, Little Island residents would like to have permit parking during = onstruction. Is there anything more I should be doing to furthering these comments? Please advise. Sincerely, Don Donald L. Abrams, Broker Abrams Coastal Properties ARRAU+ COASTAL 315 Marine Avenue Balboa Island, CA 92662 Ofc. (949) 675A822 Cell (714) 325 -9055 Fax (949) 675 -5547 donCalabramsmastal. com www.abramscoastair)ropertics.com A3 „ mne Pwa 4 I t ,l s k a N i' ti •enVewla4V 97x0 W wo0I OE �aavoPer a99�aaaaa GGGGGGGOafI ��100ptl41N000NNNNm pppYYY41YYNOYa1 ■YYOIlNNNNaa oFyy aW110 m,p� _/� antlavVeW ,_ .,, -f� a000G0a0 � an016p� �a00a00aa0aClaa ®a0Ga10a9a �� aa0Gfla0Gaa 9ta 0a00gma00aa za9Q1im DOMINION 0000a1MIaa1 ➢a �04INNOa MINI1a0UM 11,9111119111109 U01909909a iffft a1a0100a0Gaa 01a110001a9a1,'am0fla1G0 099100111091010Ifl1001a©E `0a00fl1a= a,��a0000��oca�oon �aoo3�oonnc�cc nn�cnc�9na u-V W"a0 `tea ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢c ➢ ➢v 91aa1acaaaacaa aalaomm c Mo ,:!'� ➢ ➢➢0 ➢➢➢ ➢D➢G ➢Q 9�C9a000000GIG dG0011a00a C � anv a,�aaas �� ➢ ➢➢G ➢ ➢G6➢G0 ➢ ➢ =10aaa1a01a010: Gaa�lOaaa�,i �G ➢0 ➢ ➢1 ➢ ➢ ➢C6iG � 10a60aC10a1001a a00a0fl1a0a p antl Pa�10 �'= � ➢cc ➢ ➢ ➢c ➢c� aaaaalaaallaae acaallaaaa� i�� ➢ ➢ca ➢� ➢cn ➢G aaaalalaoaa� aaaa99aaaa.,e m `= � ➢ ➢o�➢cccG a9aaalaaaaaafla aaaaalaaaar x �Q➢9 ➢u ➢ ➢ ➢9D GaaaGB00N;= aaa0a1aC0a" q � m ij (d iU fl] w 0 l3 m a N Je, � W ¢O o U a cU rU � v E E 0 a 0 r 0 0 3 J O X v a v V a E e 3 r w o� c m v c N d m v L M kyRwllyJ PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration A. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM DONALD L. ABRAMS, BROKER, ABRAMS COASTAL PROPERTIES, DATED OCTOBER 12, 2014. Al. The commenter suggests that southbound traffic along Marine Avenue during construction be re- routed to make a right turn on the North Bayfront alley, and then make Onyx Avenue a one -way street to avoid traffic congestion at Marine and Balboa Avenues. While the commenter's concerns related to traffic congestion are noted, the Draft IS /MND included a detailed, quantitative traffic analysis that analyzed traffic impacts a numerous local intersections during the temporary construction process. Based on this detailed traffic analysis, it was determined that the Marine Avenue /Balboa Avenue intersection would operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) of LOS "B" during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours; refer to page 4.16- 4 of the Draft IS /MND. As such, a less than significant impact would result in this regard. A2. The commenter suggests that the alignment for the pedestrian access walkway on the temporary bridge structure at Balboa Avenue be located to the south of the bridge structure, rather than the north. The ultimate determination for the location of the pedestrian access walkway on the temporary bridge structure would be subject to refinement during final design of the bridge. A number of variables would factor into the placement of the walkway, including final design criteria, ADA requirements, pedestrian safety, and discussions with affected homeowners. The pedestrian walkway is expected to result in a similar range of environmental impacts, regardless of which side of the bridge it is constructed on. A3. The analysis of parking impacts is not a required area of topical analysis under the CEQA Guide lines. However, as part of the final design process, the City would consult with affected homeowners and property owners to determine the most prudent method of minimizing parking impacts during the temporary construction process. November 2014 2A Responses to Comments COMMENT LETTER WILLIAM E. THOMAS 301 Grand Canal Newport Beach, CA 92662 (951) 782 -8812 October 20, 2014 VIA EMAIL (FTse @newportbeachca.gov) Fong Tse Principal Civil Engineer Public Works Department City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Balboa Island Temporary Bridge Dear Mr. Tse: I am the owner of 301 Grand Canal on Balboa Island, located on the North corner of Balboa Ave. and the Grand Canal on the Big Island. I am also currently in escrow to purchase 227 Grand Canal, located on the South corner of Balboa Ave. and the Grand Canal on the Big Island. I understand that the temporary bridge to be placed on Balboa Ave. during the reconstruction of the bridge between the Big Island and the Little Island will include a pedestrian walkway. On the illustrations provided by you a few months ago atone of the meetings regarding the bridge replacement project, the walkway was depicted on the North side of the temporary bridge. I urge you to place the pedestrian walkway on the SOUTH side of the temporary bridge for safety and traffic flow reasons. I have lived on the Grand Canal for over 10 years. As anyone familiar with the Balboa Island can attest, the overwhelming majority of the foot traffic flows to and from the South Bayfront of the Island. This flow is due in large part to the harbor views and water -based activities afforded by the South Bayfront and the location of the Ferry. In addition, there is heavy daily foot traffic to and from the Starbucks on the South corner of Marine Ave. and Balboa Ave. The natural place to put the walkway is on the South side of the temporary bridge. If the pedestrian walkway is on the North side, many pedestrians will unsafely jaywalk across Balboa Ave. in front of the temporary bridge, instead of using the crosswalk at the intersection of Balboa Ave. and Marine Ave., as they walk to /from the South Bayfront or Starbucks or other Marine Ave. merchants. Wherever the pedestrian walkway is placed, North or South, it will severely impact two of the four property owners at the corner of Balboa Ave. and Grand Canal on the Big and Little m Islands as pedestrians will essentially walk off the bridge just about into the front patios of the affected owners. As the new owner of 227 Grand Canal on the South corner, I have no issue with the pedestrian walkway being placed on the SOUTH side of the temporary bridge. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions or if I can do anything else to further these comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at 951 -782- 8812. Sincerely, Bill Thomas m fµ6 ^'�rly1 PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration B. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM BILL THOMAS, DATED OCTOBER 20, 2014. B1. The commenter requests that the pedestrian access walkway be located to the south of the proposed temporary bridge structure, rather than the north; refer to Response to Comment A2, above. November 2014 2 -7 Responses to Comments COMMENT LETTER C October 21, 2014 Fang Tsa, Principal Civil Engineer Public Works Department City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Tsa: I have a few questions and concerns relative to the demolition of the Park Avenue bridge and the construction of the new bridge connecting Balboa Island to Little Balboa Island. My residence is 201 Grand Canal which is located adjacent to the existing bridge. Some of my concerns are; when the demolition of the existing bridge begins there will be heavy equipment used to demolish and remove the existing bridge. In addition when the new bridge is under construction, again there will be heavy equipment etc. used to build the bridge. Will this cause excessive shaking to my home? My home is only a few years old. The exterior of my home is smooth stucco. Will the heavy equipment cause shaking of my home which in turn could cause the smooth stucco to crack, cause cracks in my walls, my patio slab and perhaps damage to my windows? If this should happen, who will be responsible for any cost of repairs that may occur to my home related to the demolition and new construction of the bridge? Would appreciate your advice regarding this matter. Sin- c�e'rrellyy,, Michael Cushing 201 Grand Canal Balboa island, CA 92662 Phone: 949 - 673 -5249 C1 3VAi;'. PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration C. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM MICHAEL CUSHING, DATED OCTOBER 21, 2014. Ct. As noted on page 4.12 -5 of the Draft IS /MND, ground -borne vibration from construction equipment at the project site would range from approximately 0.075 to 0. 191 inch -per- second peak particle velocity (PPV) at a distance of 15 feet from the source of activity. The residence located at 201 Grand Canal is located approximately 15 feet from the nearest construction activity area for the project. The identified maximum PPV of 0.191 is below the established Federal Transit Administration (FTA) criteria for architectural damage to buildings. In addition, the City evaluated numerous options for pile driving that would be required for construction of the project. Since impact pile drivers typically generate substantially greater vibration during the pile driving process, the City has opted for cast in drilled hole (CIDH) or vibratory pile driving to further minimize impacts to adjacent properties. Therefore, based on the analysis provided within the Draft IS /MND, a less than significant impact would occur with regard to ground -borne vibration. November 2014 2 -9 Responses to Comments cCRPa P.O. Box 54132 Irvine, CA 92619 -4132 October 22, 2014 C C R COMMENT LETTER 0 An alliance of American Indian and scientific communities working for the preservation of archaeological sites and other cultural resources. Fong Tse, Principal Civil Engineer Public Works Department City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Mitigated Declaration for the Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Project Dear Mr. Tse: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above mentioned project. We concur with the findings that cultural resources were not observed during the archaeological investigations. Mitigation measure Cul -1 is an appropriate treatment in the event that buried cultural deposits are discovered during construction. Item d, page 4.5 -3) regarding disturbance of any human remains, states that there is a less than significant pact with mitigation incorporated and cites Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. This is an appropriate treatment in the unlikely event that human remains are encountered, but it is not given a mitigation designation, and the section "Mitigation Measures" states "No mitigation is required ". Please address this discrepancy. Thank you, Patricia Martz, Ph.D. President D1 gwr „4F fe PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration D. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM PATRICIA MARTZ, PRESIDENT, CALIFORNIA CULTURAL RESOURCES PRESERVATION ALLIANCE, INC., DATED OCTOBER 22, 2014. D1. As noted on page 4.5 -3 of the Draft IS /MND, in the event that human remains are found on the project site during construction activities, the City would be required to comply with State of California Public Resources Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 contains provisions if any human remains are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site, while Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code requires the City to notify the County Coroner and Native American Heritage Commission, as well as and consultation with the individual identified by the Native American Heritage Commission to be the "most likely descendant.” If human remains are found during excavation, excavation must stop in the vicinity of the find and any area that is reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains until the County coroner has been called out, and the remains have been investigated and appropriate recommendations have been made for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Since Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 is an existing State regulation (thus making its implementation mandatory for all projects in California), it is unnecessary to include this requirement as a mitigation measure. November 2014 2 -11 Responses to Comments COMMENT LETTER E From: Robertson, Glenn @Waterboards rm3ilto•Glenn.Rg:g[ son@waterbo�rds ca.c; ,v] Sent: Thursda /, October 23, 2014 10 :03 AM To: Tse, Fong Cc: Shibberu, Doug @Waterboards; Brown, Marc@Waterboards; Adelscn, Mark @Waterboards; Cross, Wanda @Waterboards Subject: IS-MVD for Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Project, Balboa Island, City of Newport Beath CEQA Response To Fong Tse, Principal Civil Engineer Public Works Department City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Thank you for the opportunity to comment by email on the Initial Study for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, issued Octcber 6, 2014, for the proposed Park Avenue 3ridge Replacement Project between Balboa Island and little Balboa Island (Project). The existing degrading traffic bridge over the Grand Canal at Park Avenue wil be demolished. The City will install anew pre -cast bridge in its place, with vertical curve profile, freeboard, pier positions, and correcting seawalls very much like the existing one. However, the new bridge will be six feet wider (36 feet vs. 30 feet) and have three spans instead of five. Sixty --oot lengths of secant pile walls will replace the existing seawalls. For crossings during the construction period, the City will construct a temporary bridge with eigh: piers at Balboa Avenue to the north. Eelgrass and the habitat it provides is prevalent throughoutthe Grand Canal, except in the shade beneath the existing bridge. A pre - Project, post - Project, and 12 -month post- Project sequence of surveys will be conducted to determine actual impacts to eelgrass (MM BI0-1 and MM BIO -2, MND p.4.4 -41. For anticipated impacts, compensatory mitigation will consist of eelgrass planting in the Grand Canal, conducted at no less than a 1:1 ratio in compliance with the Southerr California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (MM BI0-2) and the City's eelgrass mitigation program. MIND p.4.4 -4 and -5 state that consultation with the resource agencies (Coastal Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Board; include California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife ?) regarding the mitigation ratio will occur prior to any construction activities that would adversely impact eelgrass (MM BI0-4), yet the u'.timate mitigation ratio would depend on the above - referenced surveys. The MND projects that 0.004 acre of permanent impacts would occur at both the Park and Balboa Avenue bridges, with 0.006 acre cf temporary impacts at the Balboa Avenue bridge. E1 Board staff believes that appropriate mitigation is being considered by the City at this evaluation stage of the Project. For the anticipated Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Standards Certification, the calculated area of a now wider bridge (perhaps two) and pilings, plus their maximum infiuential shade cast and the impact of that greater area of shading, should be considered in the eventual square feet of area to mitigate for. Planting at a greater ratio of 1:1 could be considered for needed areas even outside of the Grand Canal. You may contact Marc B -own of our office regarding any questions about the Certification processor application, at 951 - 321 -4584 or Marc.Brown @waterbcards.ca.gov We appreciate the upcoming consultation to determine the mitigation area(s), which will compensate for permanent and temporal losses of the oeneficial uses EST *, WILD, SPWN listed in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin, 1995 (Basin Plan). *Estuarine Habitat; Wildlife Habitat; Spawning, Reproduction, and Development. Glenn S. Robertson Engineering Geologist, M.S., PG Regional Planning Programs Section, CEQA Coordinator Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board 3737 Main Street, Suite 500 Riverside, CA 92501 Phone: 951-782-3259 Fax: 951- 781 -6288 Email: Glenn .Robertson @waterboards.ca.gov E2 &P „IkT c PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT °' Final Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration E. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM GLENN S. ROBERTSON, ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST, REGIONAL PLANNING PROGRAMS SECTION, CEQA COORDINATOR, SANTA ANA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, E -MAIL CORRESPONDENCE DATED OCTOBER 23, 2014. E1. The commenter provides a summary of the project description and mitigation applying to biological resources (as discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources) in the Draft IS /MND. It should be noted that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is not referenced within Mitigation Measure 13I0 -4, since the CDFW does not have jurisdiction over saline waters. E2. The commenter agrees that the proper mitigation for impacts to eelgrass in the Grand Canal are considered in the Draft IS /MND. As discussed on page 4.4 -4 of the Draft ISIMND, per the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy, the ultimate mitigation ratio would be dependent on the results of the required pre- and post - construction eelgrass surveys, but shall be no less than a 1:1 mitigation ratio unless otherwise agreed upon by the resource agencies. November 2014 2 -14 Responses to Comments L C PublileWorks Integrity, Accountability, Service, Trust Shane L. Silsby, Director COMMENT LETTER OJ� 1 U r+ x,125.78891 <IFOAc'� October 31, 2014 NCL -14 -033 Mr. Fong Tse, Principal Civil Engineer Public Works Department City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Subject: Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt Mitigated Declaration for the Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Project Dear Mr. Tse: The County of Orange has reviewed the Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt Mitigated Declaration for the Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Project and offers the following comments: Environmental Resources: 1. It is noted in the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration acknowledges the need to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to address long -term operational surface water quality impacts of the projects. 2. A key focus of the City of Newport Beach's WQMP should be incorporation of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidance, "Managing Wet Weather with Green Infrastructure: Green Streets" in a manner consistent with the maximum extent practicable (MEP) standard. A copy of the guidance is included in Appendix B of the County of Orange Model WQMP (http: / /ocwatersheds.com /documents /wgmp /tgd /). 3. Regarding the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration, the following text errors were noted: • Section 4.9a (page 4.9 -2, first paragraph under Long -Term Impact), references NPDES Order R9- 2009 -002. The correct NPDES Order should read 118- 2009 -0030. • Section 4.9i (page 4.9 -4, first sentence after "less Than Significant Impact "), includes reference to footnote number 4. There does not appear to be a footnote number 4 in this section. 300 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA 92703 P.O. Box 4048, Santa Ana, CA 92702 -4048 www, ocpublicworks.wm 714.667.8800 1 lnfb @OCP W.ocgm.mm F1 F2 F3 F4 Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Page 2 of 2 If you have any questions or need clarification please do not hesitate to contact Jennifer Shook at (714) 955 -0671. SIncer ly, J La ee om mer, Manager, Planning Division OC Iic Works Service Area /OC Development Services 300 North Flower Street Santa Ana, California 92702 -4048 La ree.brommergocow.ocgov.com cc: Chris Crompton, Manager, OC Public Works /Environmental Resources 300 N. Flower Street. Santa Ana, CA 92703 P.O. Box 4048, Santa Ana, CA 927021048 vrww.ocpublicworks.com 714.667.8800 1 lnfo@OCPW.ocgov.com 361; PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM LAREE BROMMER, MANAGER, PLANNING DIVISION, OC PUBLIC WORKS, DATED OCTOBER 31, 2014. F1. The commenter notes that the Draft IS /MND acknowledges the need for the project to provide a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to address long -term operational surface water quality impacts. This comment is informational and does not address the adequacy of the Draft IS /MND. No response is necessary. F2. The commenter provides a description of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) water quality requirements. The WQMP to be prepared for the project would be consistent with Federal, State, and local requirements. F3. The requested change to the permit numbering on page 4.9 -2 of the Draft ISIMND will be revised in the Final IS /MND; refer to the Errata section of this document. F4. The requested change for footnote number 4 on page 4.9 -4 of the Draft IS /MND will be revised in the Final IS /MND; refer to the Errata section of this document. November 2014 2 -17 Responses to Comments EAIUpT PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ERRATA Changes to the Draft Initial Study and Mitigation Negative Declaration (IS/MND) are noted below. A double - underline indicates additions to the text; strikeout indicates deletions to the text. Changes have been analyzed and responded to in the Responses to Comments, above. The changes to the Draft IS /MND do not affect the overall conclusions of the environmental document. Changes are listed by page and, where appropriate, by paragraph. Page 4.9 -2 of the Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS /MND) will be modified in the Final IS /MND, as follows: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Long -Term Impacts The proposed project would be required to implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) under the City of Newport Beach General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) to minimize impacts related to long -term operational water quality. The project is located within the urban Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) NPDES permitted area ( NPDES Order R9 2009 9)82 R6- 2009 -0030) in Orange County. Drainage from the project drains to the Grand Canal in the Lower Newport Bay, which is a Section 303 impaired water body for Chlordane, Copper, Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), Indicator Bacteria, Nutrients, Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), Pesticides, and Sediment Toxicity. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) have been developed for Selenium, Nutrients, Fecal Coliform Bacteria, Organochlorine Compounds (pesticides), and Sediment. Page 4.9 -4 of the Draft IS /MND will be revised in the Final IS /MND, as follows: Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Less Than Significant Impact. As noted above, the proposed project site is located within a 100 -year flood hazard area.4 However, as noted above in Responses 4.9(d), 4.9(g), and 4.9(h), none of the proposed improvements would expose people or structures to a significant risk related to flooding. An existing 12 -inch thick seawall consisting of interlocking reinforced concrete sheet pile is located beneath the existing bridge and along the entire length of the Grand Canal. The project would rebuild the deteriorating seawalls under the proposed Park Avenue Bridge abutments as part of final design and construction. The existing seawalls would be replaced with a 60 -foot length of secant pile wall with 24- inch diameter piles, and six inch concrete wall facing. All adjacent seawall areas would be protected -in- place. While the project would involve improvements to the existing seawall along the Grand Canal to allow for implementation of the Park Avenue Bridge, the improvements would not affect the canal's flood protection capacity. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. November 2014 2 -18 Responses to Comments (�y0.wFrrq? PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration I,Y3� 3.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CEQA requires that when a public agency completes an environmental document which includes measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects, the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring plan. This requirement ensures that environmental impacts found to be significant will be mitigated. The reporting or monitoring plan must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared for the proposed Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Project. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is intended to provide verification that all mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study prepared for the project are monitored and reported. Monitoring will include 1) verification that each mitigation measure has been implemented; 2) recordation of the actions taken to implement each mitigation; and 3) retention of records in the project file. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program delineates responsibilities for monitoring the project, but also allows the City of Newport Beach flexibility and discretion in determining how best to monitor implementation. Monitoring procedures will vary according to the type of mitigation measure. Adequate monitoring consists of demonstrating that monitoring procedures took place and that mitigation measures were implemented. Reporting consists of establishing a record that a mitigation measure is being implemented, and generally involves the following steps: • The City distributes reporting forms to the appropriate entities for verification of compliance. • Departmentslagencies with reporting responsibilities will review the Initial Study, which provides general background information on the reasons for including specked mitigation measures. • Problems or exceptions to compliance will be addressed to the City as appropriate. • Periodic meetings may be held during project implementation to report on compliance of mitigation measures. • Responsible parties provide the City with verification that monitoring has been conducted and ensure, as applicable, that mitigation measures have been implemented. Monitoring compliance may be documented through existing review and approval programs such as field inspection reports and plan review. • The City prepares a reporting form periodically during the construction phase and an annual report summarizing all project mitigation monitoring efforts. • Appropriate mitigation measures will be included in construction documents and/or conditions of permits/approvals. Minor changes to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, if required, would be made in accordance with CEQA and would be permitted after further review and approval by the City. Such changes could include reassignment of monitoring and reporting responsibilities, plan redesign to make any appropriate improvements, and /or modification, substitution or deletion of mitigation measures subject to conditions described in CEQA Guide lines Section 15162. No change will be permitted unless the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program continues to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Cade Section 21061.6. November 2014 3 -1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program �ytlR ,7I PARK AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT : Final Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration �IGIenV'�� This page intentionally left blank. November 2014 3 -2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program H c U a W m O iO dw z wR w O1 gZ a� w w g C7 m -o Z - W a Q — Y N LL d Acv.. c.a s i Y/ V TWT ,i v `Z r O IL LU Z Q � z �1`�i� r O 2 `_C r F w U N Z Y E J d R � 0 O U O Z O 1- R U p V. K W '/ N R y Y N N c � 0 °0.3 ° 0 �w oCL 'Z`cLiO 2t� O ,C O R U U .L`cLi U N m m c m > iii c Q c o > iii Q c o R m B rn o 0 2 C O y S S O a0. m O N C O O O N �_ - 0 5 _N g C 0 C o 0 °a U ao � � G R C N C O N tl O C C c y rL O C rn a m C y R C O c a m d o. N Da c Q N 30°a oa a m U c U c m U c K cp 0 w R 8.2 E O M y L Mn 0 c m 0 N 6 O E Z a G 0 'Z` m� 0 R N :S (/1 p R C ° L o 3 c E y= 0 m Q .p o m E `vmi Z m N o M n 0 °- d ° o a E c o d E E a N E R U 0 E d c t aai H U f6 E m R w m o a° z E f6 n. C m M.0 R R U N O' N U m R " 0 d L i N m - E N m D c > O y C mO= OR O -s M1m d m N M L 0 J 'L p 7 Q 0- a d m 'ZC N t0� /i O 0 N a V L R ° C C � M E 0.O °. " E o .0 TmO C mc o 'dN .R_.. O mH�� 'm 0 L ��N yE N R0 � 0.2 No Nm� d dU O ' wRd dm m >= E N a rn N d 4- O N N .O R E> 1p •- �O C R C d R N O@ _y - Cp 0 U C _T p O C3 L N TJ O empu� C m O O O CY vi C3 Q .D 0N'1 Q c m Q a O a `R o T E a lc O E a m N R o N m m � m r m o CO c U v a w Cb Q o� �¢ w �¢ C Z C Q a M v 0 N N z° \\ )\ (\ §� {�} \ \ � \� )§ )_ / \ }« {k: \ \ /\�� }\ \\ �— —_ «■`_� @` °k`#® - \))\] \j 16 �2 4��j }kj _ )%2 /f, &2= \kjk� \ \ \ }�k� #7)) \\ _ \ »f � ~'E» V5 § y7 = C3 E fo gJ7 \$ %| tf gJ \ F- C w N O f6 a. w z > w •- w � 5z d a � w W � O c [o -o Z � W L Y m ¢ LL a a {ik:I w U N y z ¢ E J a � � 0 O U O 0 Z O a < U p > A m �+ a pl r 3 to m 2 U 0 w U ti m aT of � •!.• rn C co O N a U O M U O N U C N O y c N N O N c O O Z m ga °VJ E� U � � 2-2 C 1 lO N fN/1 O na a 0 w L... dv a E o -tg � `o oS O yna O .2 :F U 0 N O L T L t m T 16 2 6 0 0 Z C p rN a 0 O M > _ ° 0.2 v C m m w dN E S aL m h �Nm�pCO n% E "i m 2 y UOl �tO N.- `m c a'i5 Oin°"'� -� a�i o¢ co tt n d m° E £ Qi :E g o v c n m o f '° o E m a N rg E a m aL`'¢ d a 8 p m° 0 19 aci a>i ani n m c E v c N re O a lO NO_ N E O= E U C d ° o ° 01 c4 m > 3 a w' ¢ "a1 v c' c4 <`a N o m c s v ° w E - • • • • U .y R C O E N > V> N O C N N N N N N K N N d o C O d OIL L rn O N a$ l0 go J C ¢ a OJ o_ Z O m m M 0 N N a 7 z I- C U w R O m d' d a � R w w UQ Z J N d � W p� w� O c � R y� � VJ z � W Q C Y � � lL a w w U Z Q J R d � � 0 v w O Z O U p w io .c m R E y O O R d O° C7d %B r0 0 RYJ R� m° Q y ,� h ° fn c c O1 c d 2 c ° mr (n,. E V E$ _d m U� Il can o cN U U ° CL W U L_ � C 3 y C d a p p O d C Q � U CS E Q � U ._. C R y £ '.' R C '" R $ •- •� N �. � .- Q O� yd�NR� C a �,. i. R i:J T C m R iR + .te .0 C d V N E O R [L R c R y3 8 d O C7 iy C J d U d ° O E pO w L R L r R N E L d r O U 'O L E N C R y -- y y R '..O ° a$ d° £ �W o > L £ . R R R R . N E d m R p r O 0 R U O C r y ryC N � d o N N R D y R O O .. U d t E N R3'n m R $ M R y Lt 8. RMRy O py 0 R C O 0 d z Od C 0 y 0 C 2 R 0 L y E - R m O R r U Y C W R OR N R E E R N d� � d y -E .E ito. d o 2 c£ R° Z Lr r' d d `� Z m m 0 3_,` Z. ° vi R i C o Z•�- >- p m R 0 R- v o m E E m o°. o R o p w U_ 0 3 m U :E £ a R E d Ly C N C C R 9 R W O .� .c°J ._2.' C N Z C@ O O .P.r C L U C E R O y U U r 2. .p c L R -c3 E p s m y£ o_ `R °R a£ >. o o R a z R +y-� R E A i, a`� P.: 'o c c o Z a m� Qmv w- m E m R E -c E m E c m d E£ c y y Z $ 3a2 EE?U $�3 $ d� � d m'y £in�IL- EFIEF m c 00 N E m M v 0 d a Z \\ \\ }\ /\ \� Q \ \ � LD E { /k3) E J \)) ^4k 2i ƒ \�\< E > m @»= a- "`$)aI7 =§f \§ }22),«�-E \\4 ( \E 0 \2/ \* §I M f 00< {/7! ƒf }t \\R) /�k� \ § ƒE 2=BG: _ _!lr,B /{ _ \ k\-s- / \.2 \\ \zs \\\ __a0M =,=3:0 02 {`/)16 « \ £. ` i� \}) § /(kj) \ §< ( �= /,l,2w,_ 7() 2 N{ k7\�)- \� |$;)) =o =a 7 7 )f ,�g§t2e�E \)$§)]SS4,�70 j6E �/- < §= §a e,- 2m,a£,E��ae_ < 'E V5 . . . A FM_& = \ C U o � E O 'a ao w U z w f0 w� o � T m a Z m W �- > 'c a— Y m C QLL a 40�`CA r m v r.7 i WW WW Y Z Y p y _ C oU o `0 2�c _= E Q n° d E as o w ciQt�a ci O c o U U N O Q a m m N 3 A c 0 m c o y ' a QE �z mw-sus-6 p C c C'2 N N N m N ° '.°0 c a y c c -o m m n c Nw2 N w L C p a N t O — _ N Oi N V G� p QJ L N O C N C d C d .0. 0� O N.2� 9 .12 o° E ca E D) C O N tg C t6 10 c o a 0 W a `m o o > O p U L O � m o. U-F= =5dUa IT O m o E c o .� 0 0 U- n o p> O '-NO P? O> H O "a N E ° m > = c E C t6 N O r N °.- A a >$ U o m rn w �� cL"" �� c C {p O U c — O O p O N N $ op 2 m m y N C -p 'U N •C ,�-• _ c 5 co gv `o �o ° p 3 L c C p Q O � O8 Z;�o0c M O d a d Z C � U co o oU o `0 2�c _= i N a=:?J2�= ate¢ ciQt�a ci -mac U�' Elm o -U c�a LLI EE �m ° oc Ua V as -Z5 U N 3 A c 0 m c o y ' a QE �z mw-sus-6 p C c C'2 N N N m N ° '.°0 c a y c c -o m m n c Nw2 N w L C p a N t O — _ N Oi N V G� p QJ L N O C N C d C d .0. 0� O N.2� 9 .12 o° E ca E D) C O N tg C t6 10 c o a 0 W a `m o o > O p U L O � m o. U-F= =5dUa IT O m o E c o .� 0 0 U- n o p> O '-NO P? O> H O "a N E ° m > = c E C t6 N O r N °.- A a >$ U o m rn w �� cL"" �� c C {p O U c — O O p O N N $ op 2 m m y N C -p 'U N •C ,�-• _ c 5 co gv `o �o ° p 3 L c C p Q O � O8 Z;�o0c M O d a d Z � C O O W N 1 O 16 a o @ w� m U Z J -O W � K a w� � c � m m T a w G 'c Y Q W a hCACy � n y a JF X•� w U � z J � O U O Z O H U v p LL 7 N w C m N N ZU °o0N Za'C Zar mc0 m N $° c y O1 $ g N D E v a o a C G R 9 = p +? DU¢ :o�d o.d cQ � Q O O 'pp U@°@ L .O ` E v c Lm o v �i U 5 o° aOi 3 �_ aci .Q m E U c m o= -�> O m E `o °° o m m t ED 3 8 a"i c c a g' c y m r Nii a �°m N _0 �C Z . N N@ y � O o'pC� 25 E.S E...o� o•� m° 'c r 6 mom 83 8 U o c —M =,E w o` nE @�� d V 3 V Q 2�c a- o o N m a N@ 'O m 'gO n-O a o p E .y N 8 �.Qg m , 'O ' N -N w @ O N X E EE c U N m ° E aN p m 2 m C-m V ° N N N °� iU d N O Q (O(Opp U N 8 ir- 0 o O E G N z i d N n 0 nm d rnmct � p Z Q Q L OO V VO � N Q z U J O Q d = M v 0 N d a Z U o w O m M K 0 a0 z > W ¢w Z wCDJ � 1O K W D C � R m -o Z � Y N Q w d 111�N w U N Y Z � J a � � O U LL 0 z O H U m p LL � N is C y N N N N a31 =E a31 =E a31 -E a1 -E N C Z 3@ a n Z N o d a Z E N o a a Z N o a d ` 'cLiO C'c' QUO QUO = o R U U y U U� m m C C 0 'kj O �. w a K 2.2 N C Ql 2.5-D N N C ' C _ m °I G N N L E E O O c E d O 2 m� ¢ U m U O¢ U o< O W > fn O ¢ Q ¢ m c O C O C p N � oa:p N E O 2 E 01m E °' E 01m v rn 2 -2 p '.cam o 2 N 2 a W din o¢ c x min W o m0 oUA > c a a o C N 001 m d p '." L3 O- y H m y$ m L O p U h- m iJ N N O .mC r N " _ °z4 N 0.2 T R 6 C R Q1 R 2 2 0 12 m . d O a O O C 0 O C a "r L o'- 22 N o sO y - a p m o O d E R N o 0 O� m Nm a Q d p O °Np NN N C N G p m o — m ° c .vi m`p — S `x— d � .0y ° R 'V N c a N 0 0 O y o o R 0 m c z v y y . LL E o Q L.p ) ra ia o f 01 �f0 i m c m N m m c° m c ,Z_• v g "o ' "o mai ° rn '0 vi m a c y .oR.. v r R ° SU W Ir E p p a - m O p d R p N C 'm E O O Z G R p ° 3 m R O O U R R N R oN O R E` �m m 2 En£m 5 3 c Q E �z = 0 M O N d a 0 Z \/ (/ \$ \�\ \ k ) / \ i /CL/ SE f« / cr) a ; CL J J� )2 & \ \�\ \ \�k / \� \� § /)\\ cn — �� — «a — —M 0. -8- 7± —� 2 o0ca -- ° °20 §, @7 ■22/ k0C —t6 �+$\n \a§! { ;$(� \3 /) \ \ }�k = >|n§ g ,a+«E,a2E ��k(0j& 427_` — \7OZ��\ �§r« »)I§ §,§ ;.— «3 ±aa7& §E±* ) ` @a9f{�!{ —T� 7a { f7 Ja)A §&) ±J § \B §f / \) \® w�a-k� _ 0 \) \m 3 r 70- #) 3 � 0 \ F C U w m O 1E d O Z j W N WO ¢U Z J N d � w W � O c � m m w � p U Z m W Q- Y � 4 a W z N Y Q @ J � O U W O Z O H a� Q m U p u_ N A a D5 c c '- `o o N c o � T � `m d Q' N C C p O � N G y O _ a c [O O N C � U 2-2 � O N l0 N� O O T m o R Cn d O9 T� Y C 0 NO R a v a j= y C d w N C N L � C o E ,�p L y -Ei Q d p U = N O . O N .... a N o O d A a C Y 2 c �.� m o 2` �� w t5 O O C a p v m 2 U y m� [6 N cOi R C O y a � Z N M O d O Z STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2014 -104 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 25th day of November, 2014, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: Ayes: Council Member Petros, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tern Selich, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Henn, Council Member Gardner, Mayor Hill Nays: None Recused: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 26th day of November, 2014. City Clerk Newport BeacJyp9My (Seal)