9.9_-_Murray_Bridge_MND_Addendum_FINAL_9-15-14.pdf

MURRAY STREET BRIDGE SEISMIC RETROFIT CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

Mitigated Negative Declaration ADDENDUM 1 S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 4

City of Santa Cruz

MIT IGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ADDENDUM

City of Santa Cruz Murray Street Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project [SCH#: 2007112037] S E P T E M B E R 15 , 2014

I . B A C K G R O U N D

Project Title: Murray Street Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project

Project Location: The proposed project is located at the eastern edge of the city of Santa Cruz within the coastal zone. The project area includes: the Murray Street Bridge which spans the Santa Cruz Small Craft Harbor; portions of lands within the Santa Cruz Port District harbor area; portions of the harbor waters; and the area along the Murray Street road right‐of‐way west of Lake Avenue (see Figure 11).

Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Santa Cruz Department of Public Works 809 Center Street, Room 201 Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Contact Person and Phone Number: Hoi Yu, (831) 420‐5179

Project Applicant’s/Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of Santa Cruz

Background: The existing Murray Street Bridge (Bridge #36C‐0108) crosses the Santa Cruz Small Craft Harbor in the city of Santa Cruz, California. The proposed project consists of a seismic retrofit of the existing bridge and additional minor modifications to replace deficient bridge barriers (widening bike lanes and sidewalk and improvement of railings and lighting). The project will provide the bridge with additional vertical support and resistance to lateral seismic forces by installing additional pilings and supplemental structural elements. In order to provide sufficient area for construction operations, some boat berths, Harbor facilities, and commercial businesses will require temporary relocation and/or replacement.

1 All figures are located at the end of this document for ease in referencing.

C O N T E N T S :

I. Background II. Project Description III. Environmental Setting IV. Use of An Addendum V. Environmental Review VI. Adopted Mitigation Measures

& Construction Specifications

FIGURES

Mitigated Negative Declaration ADDENDUM 2 S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 4

An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared pursuant to requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and circulated for public review in November 2007.

The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was adopted in January 2008. Subsequently, the Santa Cruz Port District requested that replacement berths associated with the project be located on the west side of the harbor instead of the east side as had been originally proposed. An Addendum to the MND was prepared in February 2009 that addressed this change in which 11 new berths were proposed instead of eight berths at the ends of Docks A through F, along with removal and replacement of 12 existing berths. The removal of boat berths is necessary to provide access to install the additional bridge piles.

I I . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N

The nine‐span bridge is supported by two abutments (identified as Abutments 1 and 10, located at the western and eastern ends of the bridge, respectively) and 8 “bents” (identified as Bents 2 through 9, located at 60‐foot intervals between the abutments). The seismic retrofit project consists of the following basic elements:

(1) Installation of concrete infill walls at Bents 2, 3, 4, and 9 to span the voids between the existing concrete support columns. The infill walls will also span the void between the existing and new columns at Bent 9.

(2) Installation of shear keys and seat extenders at Abutments 1 and 10, and Bents 2 through 9.

(3) Retrofit of foundations with 16‐inch diameter CISS (cast‐in‐steel‐shell) piles at Bent 9 and Abutments 1 and 10.

(4) Retrofit abutment with two 96‐inch CIDH piles (cast‐in‐drilled‐hole) piles behind Abutment 10 to a depth of ‐50 feet.

(5) Retrofit of both outriggers and bents with 30‐inch diameter CISS piles at Bents 6, 7, and 8 and 30‐inch diameter CIDH piles at Bents 2, 3, 4, and 5.

(6) Installation of fenders to protect boats passing by the pier foundations, new pile caps at Bents, 5, 6, 7, and 8, and replacement of existing fender.

Figure 2 provides a cross section showing the abutment and bents and proposed improvements. The installation of new piles at each support is summarized below:

Abutment 1 – 2 piles

Bents 2, 3, and 4 – 2 piles each

Bents 5, 6, 7, and 8 – 4 piles each

Bent 9 – 8 piles

Abutment 10 – 8 piles

The overall construction schedule duration remains unchanged, although the starting date is now anticipated in 2015 instead of May 2009/2010. The project is tentatively proposed for construction in five partially overlapping interchangeable phases. The timing of each phase and a brief description of

Mitigated Negative Declaration ADDENDUM 3 S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 4 work to be performed during each phase is provided in Table 1. Overall, the seismic retrofit work will be executed over a period of approximately 18 months within four construction phases as summarized in Table 1. Phase 1 will take place over approximately 2 months. In‐water activity will occur in Phases 2 and 4 over an approximate total 10‐month period over two seasons, although the phases may overlap. The additional bridge improvements will be constructed over a period of approximately 6 months as part of Phase 5 of the construction.

Proposed Project Modifications: The current project modifications include removal of seven heritage trees and elimination of the previous proposal to construct 11 new boat berths. At the time the MND and Initial Study were prepared, no trees were planned for removal. Additionally, since preparation of the 2009 MND Addendum and as a result of further discussions between the City and Port District, the previously proposed new boat berths are being eliminated, although temporary removal of existing berths at Dock FF and at Dock BY (Boat Yard north of Dock T) with reconstruction is planned as originally proposed. Further discussion of each of these modifications is provided below. Figure 3 shows the general location of the trees to be removed, and Figure 4 shows the current plan for harbor facilities. There is no change to bridge design or construction techniques.

Heritage Tree Removal: There are seven trees within the proposed project area that are considered heritage trees due to diameter size as defined by the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.56, as well as approximately six small trees that are not considered heritage trees under City definitions. The tree removal is required to complete the proposed project improvements, specifically widening the sidewalk and bike lanes, replacing the barrier rails, relocating the southwestern stairs and utilities and providing equipment access. Most of the trees are on the west side of the harbor, just south of the Murray Street Bridge, and one tree is on the northeastern side of the bridge as shown on Figure 3.

The trees to be removed include: one two‐stem coast live oak (14‐inch and 16‐inch) on the northwest side of Murray Street; three canary pines (30 inches) and one Monterey pine (38 inches) on the southwest side of the harbor, south of Murray Street and adjacent to the pedestrian stairway from the harbor to Murray Street; and one two‐stem coast live oak (13‐ inch and 14‐inch) along Murray Street west of the pines, and one Eucalyptus (35 inches) on the northeast side. The City will replant three 24‐inch coast live oaks in the project area and 11 24‐inch redwoods and coast live oak trees on the east side of Santa Cruz, in the vicinity of the project improvements such as along Murray Street, at Frederick Street Park, above the harbor area, at Tyrell Park near Pilkington Creek, and/or at Arana Gulch.

Mitigated Negative Declaration ADDENDUM 4 S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 4

Table 1. Murray Street Bridge Retrofit Project: Construction Phasing & Approximate Schedule

[CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE]

Work Tasks Effects on Harbor and Road Operations Phase 1: Construction in East Zone - 2 months ( May-July)[1]

Temporarily relocate overhead utilities north of bridge ‐ Only after the south side of the bridge is constructed

Install traffic control system with alternating 1‐way traffic

Prepare construction staging area (8,000 sq.ft.) at harbor boat yard Construct temporary sewer bypass on north side of bridge

Close Murray for 7 days for installing anchor piles

Retrofit Bent 9 & Abutment 10; install anchor piles Temporary relocation (dry storage) of 9 dry‐docked boats from boat yard

Erect Girder Span 9 Traffic controls along Lake Avenue during construction staging area setup Construct temporary sheet pile wall Close east walkway under bridge

Phase 2: Construction in Eastern Waterway - 5 months (July‐December)

Remove berths (12) at docks FF and north of dock T Temporary relocation of 2 boats from north of Dock T to AA

Construct work platform(s) (trestle or barge) for Stage 2 work [2] Temporary closure of East Drive & part of harbor boat yard

Retrofit Bents 7 & 8 (includes installing anchor piles at Bents 7 & 8) Availability of only one boat channel under the bridge for 6 non‐consecutive half‐days Erect Girder Spans 7 & 8 and construct Deck Spans 7, 8, & 9

Restore boat yard; reopen pedestrian path

Remove east work platform

Replace berths (2) north of Dock T upon construction in the eastern waterway and only between July and mid‐November

Phase 3: Construction in West Zone - 6 months (December-May)

Install row boat storage at docks A/B & USCG area Closure of West Path, western concrete stairway and access ramp to Dock FF

Install temporary building at USCG area Temporary relocation of affected facilities (offices, storage, restrooms, etc.)

Temporarily relocate existing offices and row boats to above [2]

Close portion of western parking lot [2]

Construct temporary access ramp to Dock FF

Retrofit Abutment 1 and Bents 2, 3, & 4

Erect Girder Spans 1, 2, & 3 [and construct Deck Spans 1, 2, & 3]

Mitigated Negative Declaration ADDENDUM 5 S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 4

Phase 4: Construction in Western Waterway - 5 months (May-October)

Construct modifications to Dock FF; move 7 boats to new Dock FF

Closure of West Path, western concrete stairway and access ramp to Dock FF

Construct work platform(s) (trestle or barge) for Stage 4 work

Temporary relocation of affected facilities (offices, storage, restrooms, etc.)

Retrofit Bents 5 & 6 (including installation of anchor piles) Temporary relocation of 8 boats from Dock FF

Erect Girder Spans 4, 5, & 6 [and construct Deck Spans 4, 5, & 6] Availability of only one boat channel under the bridge for 6 non‐ consecutive half‐days

Construct south rails [3] after south side construction completed

Remove work platform(s)

Construct new water line Relocate PG&E electrical, gas lines

Phase 5: Construction of Superstructure and Barrier Rails - 6 months [no timing provided]

Remove sidewalks & temporary barrier rails

Construct new barrier rails

Restore Dock FF, parking lot, existing offices and related facilities

Restore all remaining facilities to original condition

Repair deck

Footnotes:

[1] Note that construction phases overlap; the sum of the construction periods specified is therefore greater than the total period indicated by start and finish dates.

[2] These tasks could be initiated and/or completed during the prior stage.

[3] These tasks could be completed either in Phase 2 or 4.

[4] Temporary closure of Murray Street bridge roadway to all traffic is possible during any phase for a short duration. The alternating one-way traffic with signal control will occur during the construction

Mitigated Negative Declaration ADDENDUM 6 S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 4

Temporary Harbor Facility Relocation: The proposed project includes removal of Dock FF and Dock BY to facilitate access and installation of support piles for the bridge with reconstruction upon completion of construction. The Initial Study/MND and 2009 Addendum identified removal of 12 berths at Dock F‐F and replacement after construction and also proposed construction of 11 new recreational berths at the ends of docks A through F on the lower west side of the harbor. The current modified project calls for the temporary relocation of berths at Dock FF and Dock BY to existing visitor berths with reconstruction of Dock FF and Dock BY upon completion of the bridge seismic retrofit construction. A walking dock (gangway) would be constructed to connect the existing parking lot area to the portion of Dock F‐F that will remain during construction. Six temporary berths may be constructed adjacent to the gangway to minimize relocation of some of the existing boats. Dock F‐F accommodates University of California Santa Cruz (UCSC) boats that are used for university classes. With this proposed project modification, the overall area of disturbance would be reduced as new berths would not be constructed. It also appears that the existing number of berth spaces at Dock F‐F was erroneously reported as 12, but the actual count is 21 as some berths accommodate two boats, which likely were only counted as one in previous reviews.

I I I . E N V I R O N M E N T A L S E T T I N G

The existing concrete Murray Street bridge structure, built in 1962, is approximately 544 feet long and 35 feet wide, with eight piers in the Santa Cruz Small Craft Harbor. The bridge structure carries two lanes of traffic, and has a sidewalk on the south side. The roadway is a portion of the Pacific Coast Bicycle Route, although there are only narrow bike lanes/shoulders on the bridge.

The bridge carries both a 12‐inch water main and a 3‐inch gas main, which are suspended underneath the structure. A sanitary sewer line conveying wastewater from the unincorporated area of the County to the City is located underneath the Harbor in the project vicinity. There are overhead power lines and street lighting facilities just north of the bridge, which will need to be relocated for the pile driving operation.

The Santa Cruz Harbor is located directly beneath the bridge. The Harbor accommodates approximately 920 boat berths that support both commercial and recreational boating activities. In the immediate project vicinity, the Santa Cruz Rowing Club boat storage and UCSC rowing berth facility are located underneath the bridge and immediately south of bridge, respectively, on the west side of the Harbor. There are two waterway openings beneath the bridge through which all boats berthed in the northern portion of the harbor must pass. These two openings are required for efficient operations in the harbor.

A pedestrian path/sidewalk loops around the Harbor from Aldus Restaurant on the west side to the Crow’s Nest Restaurant commercial area on the east side, a portion of which is located within the construction area on both sides of the harbor. Bicyclists and other recreational users also occasionally use the path, although bicyclists mostly use the harbor service road and use the path/sidewalk where the service road does not exist. Residential uses generally surround the harbor

Mitigated Negative Declaration ADDENDUM 7 S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 4 area on all sides. The city‐owned Arana Gulch greenbelt area is located to the north of the project area, outside of the proposed project construction zone.

I V . U S E O F A N A D D E N D U M

Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, an addendum to a certified EIR or an adopted Negative Declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary and none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that call for preparation of a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration have occurred. Under Section 15162, no subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration would need to be prepared unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, one or more of the following:

Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of previous the EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known, at the time the previous EIR or Negative Declaration was prepared shows any of the following:

The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;

Significant effects previously discussed will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR or negative declaration;

Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or

Mitigation or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR or negative declaration would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation or alternative.

As previously indicated, the proposed project was evaluated in an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND); the MND was adopted in 2008. The City has determined that the proposed modifications represent a refinement of a conceptual project that has already undergone environmental review, and the project changes are not substantial (see Table 2). None of the bridge or roadway elements are changed. The removal of heritage trees was not analyzed in the IS/MND, but as discussed below, removal will not result in new significant aesthetic or biological impacts or a

Mitigated Negative Declaration ADDENDUM 8 S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 4 substantial increase in previously identified significant impacts. Removal and relocation of the berths were addressed in the Initial Study. The current project modifications eliminate construction of 11 new berths addressed in the IS/MND and 2009 MND Addendum.

These minor changes in the project will not result in new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. Similarly, there are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, no substantial changes in the environmental conditions since preparation and adoption of the 2008 MND, and no new information of substantial importance that would result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in significance of previously identified impacts as discussed in the following section. Thus, the City has determined that an Addendum to the 2008 MND is the appropriate environmental review document for the proposed project modifications. Given this finding, this Addendum to the adopted MND has been prepared in accordance with the California environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15164.

V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The following analyses address potential impacts due to the proposed project modifications, which are focused on those issues affected by the currently proposed tree removal and/or boat berth changes. Table 2 summarizes all significant project impacts, mitigation measures and recommended conditions of approval that were identified in the Initial Study, and also summarizes the extent to which the proposed project, as modified, is consistent with the analyses and mitigation measures identified in the adopted MND and Initial Study. No impacts were identified for the following topics for either the project analyzed in the Initial Study or the currently proposed project modifications, and thus, these topics are not discussed below: agricultural resources, land use, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities. A full list of the project mitigation measures and construction specifications are included in Attachment A.

Aes t he t i c s

The project site is not part of a mapped scenic view. Eucalyptus, oak, pine and other trees of a variety of sizes generally border Murray Street on both sides of the roadway between Seabright Avenue on the west and Lake Avenue on the east.

Project Modification: The overall bridge design would remain unchanged with the proposed project modifications. However, the project will remove seven heritage trees, which include two coast live oak trees, one Monterey pine tree, three canary pine trees and one eucalyptus, all of which are considered heritage trees under City regulations. Approximately six other non‐native and non‐heritage trees also will be removed. The trees are visible or partially visible along limited segments of Murray Street, but are not visible from a state highway.

Murray Street in the project vicinity is lined with trees with existing eucalyptus trees being prominent in the area as seen in representative views present on Figure 5. Given the size and location of the two oak trees to be removed, they are not visually distinctive to passing

Mitigated Negative Declaration ADDENDUM 9 S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 4 motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians given the amount of other existing tree cover and foliage, as well as distant views of trees in both directions. One oak is located at the upper edge of a sloped embankment adjacent to Murray and the other is located on the downward side of an embankment with only the top of the tree being visible from Murray Street. The four heritage pine trees located adjacent to Murray Street are tall and visible in the immediate area in which they are located and for a short segment along Murray Street Bridge. However, these trees are not unusual for their species or visually distinctive. The trees are visible for a limited duration, and are not highly prominent, except in the immediate area, due to other taller eucalyptus tree groves both west and east of the bridge. The eucalyptus tree on the north side of Murray Street is visible in its immediate vicinity, but from more distant views, it is not discernible from the other extensive eucalyptus tree cover in the area. Views along Murray Street are characterized by trees that line the roadway, as well as several stands of eucalyptus trees on the north side of the roadway.

The heritage trees proposed for removal are visible from limited areas in the immediate vicinity, but they are not a prominent landmark or feature in the landscape. While any tree may be considered to possess aesthetic attributes, none of the trees proposed to be removed possess qualities under which they would be considered scenic. The pine trees are a non‐native species, and none of the trees to be removed are unusual or visually distinctive compared to other similar trees of the same size. The project vicinity contains other mature trees along Murray Street, the canopies of which are all visible along the street. Given, the other surrounding tree cover and canopy, the removal of the seven heritage trees would not be highly noticeable, especially for the oak trees, given the other predominant tree cover and canopy in the vicinity. The pine trees adjacent to the stairway are visible from a limited area in the project vicinity, but their removal would not be a substantial change to area views from more distant vantage points. As the trees are not unusual for the species or visually distinctive or prominent from a wide area, their removal would be considered a less‐than‐ significant impact to a potential scenic resource, and mitigation measures are not required.

Tree removal and potential impacts to retained trees during construction are reviewed below under the Biological Resources subsection’s review of heritage tree removal and the City’s regulations pertaining to heritage tree removal.

B io l og i ca l Resou r ce s

Special Status Bat Species. Bat surveys conducted as part of the preparation of the Initial Study did not observe or acoustically detect Pallid and Townsend’s big‐eared bats, which are California Species of Special Concern. The nearest occurrence record for the pallid bat is located near Summit Road in the headwaters of Soquel Creek, and the nearest occurrence of the Townsend’s big‐eared bat is from the Pogonip Clubhouse. One unidentified bat was observed in a tunnel on the northwest side of the Murray Street Bridge, and roosting habitat for the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), Townsend’s big‐eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes), and long‐ legged myotis (Myotis volans) exists in the expansion joint crevices of Murray Street bridge, and in the weep holes of the adjacent railroad bridge. The fringed myotis may also roost in the marginal habitat provided by the coast live oak trees in the study area. Low quality roosting habitat exists for

Mitigated Negative Declaration ADDENDUM 10 S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 4 the foliage roosting western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) in the isolated stands of trees in the study area. The western red bat is known to occur in Arana Gulch to the north of the project site.

The Initial Study found that while the study area does not offer high quality habitat for bat species and neither pallid nor Townsends’ big‐eared bats were observed during surveys, the bridge does provide suitable roosting habitat for special‐status bats. Thus, the Initial Study identified a potentially significant impact to roosting bats during construction if they are present in the bridge at the time of construction. The impact can be mitigated to a less‐than‐significant level with implementation of pre‐construction surveys and measures to seal bridge crevices.

Project Modification: The project modifications will result in of seven heritage trees and approximately six small, non‐heritage trees. The seven heritage trees are located immediately adjacent to the Murray Street roadway and include two coast live oak trees, one Monterey pine tree, three canary pine trees, and one eucalyptus tree. The Initial Study identified a potentially significant impact to roosting bats if any are present during construction. While the likelihood of roosting bats in the trees to be removed is considered low, the foliage roosting western red bat, which is not a listed or special species of concern, is known to occur in Arana Gulch. MITIGATION MEASURE 2 calls for pre‐construction bat surveys at the bridge site that should also be implemented prior to removal of the trees if removal is scheduled during the bat breeding season (April 1 through August 31). The measure is required to provide pre‐construction clearance in the event bats are roosting in the bridge structure. The pre‐construction survey would detect bats in the vicinity during non‐breeding season and/or during acoustic surveys. If trees are removed outside of breeding season, trees and branches can be cut and left on site overnight to allow any bats to leave if they are present. Since the trees are located in the same area as the bridge where bats may be present, tree removal would not result in a new significant impact or a substantial increase in severity of the impact analyzed in the Initial Study.

Nes t i ng B i rds . The Initial Study reported evidence of swallow nest remains underneath the Murray Street Bridge. Cliff swallows have been observed nesting on Murray Street Bridge in previous years, but it is possible that both species occupy the bridge. A great blue heron (Ardea herodias) rookery exists in the eucalyptus grove on the northwest side of Murray Street Bridge, which is also used for night roosting. Great egrets (Ardea albus) are also known to nest in this eucalyptus grove. A roosting heron was observed at dusk in a eucalyptus tree in the U. S. Coast Guard yard on the west side of the bridge. A potential nest was located in the tree in which the great blue heron was observed roosting. Western gulls (Larus occidentalis) were also observed in the study area. Some of the tree groves adjacent to the project vicinity are known to support nesting raptors.

The Initial Study found that Project construction could result in potential disturbance to nesting bird species either under the bridge or in nearby eucalyptus trees, which was considered a potentially significant impact, as nests were observed in nearby trees, as well as under the bridge itself. No direct impacts to potential nesting areas where identified as no trees were proposed to be removed at the time the Initial Study was prepared. During project construction, noise disruption of nesting birds (herons, egrets, gulls and swallows) could occur if such nesting occurs within 100 feet of the construction zone. All migratory birds and their nests are federally protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. MITIGATION MEASURE 6 requires pre‐construction nesting surveys and implementation of a buffer if nesting is detected.

Mitigated Negative Declaration ADDENDUM 11 S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 4

Project Modification: The project modifications will result in removal of seven heritage trees and approximately six small, non‐heritage trees. The seven heritage trees are located immediately adjacent to the Murray Street roadway and include two coast live oak trees, one Monterey pine tree, three canary pine trees and one eucalyptus tree. Review by consulting wildlife biologist, Gary Kittleson, found that the trees to be removed are not heron nest areas and no nesting birds were observed at the time of the site visit, which was during the 2014 nesting period. Thus, no new significant impacts are anticipated. MITIGATION MEASURE 6 calls for pre‐construction nesting surveys and measures to protect nesting birds if found within 100 feet, which would also apply to the currently proposed tree removal if removal is scheduled during the nesting season (typically February through July). The measure is required to provide pre‐construction clearance in the event nesting birds are present in nearby trees. Since the trees are located in the same area as the bridge construction zone, tree removal would not result in a substantial increase in severity of the impact analyzed in the Initial Study. Requirements of MITIGATION MEASURE 1 preclude in‐water pile driving during the bird nesting season. MITIGATION MEASURES 6 and 7 remain in effect. Since the trees are located in the same area as the bridge where birds may nest, tree removal would not result in a substantial increase in severity of the impact analyzed in the Initial Study.

Conf l i c t s w i th Loca l T ree Po l i c ie s/Regu la t ions . The Initial Study identified two ornamental non‐heritage trees on the east side of the Harbor adjacent to the existing trail that would be removed and several pine and oak heritage trees on the west side that could be potentially damaged during construction. These heritage trees are the pine and oak trees now planned for removal. Chapter 9.56 of the City Municipal Code defines heritage trees, establishes permit requirements for the removal of a heritage tree, and sets forth mitigation requirements as adopted by resolution by the City Council. Removal of a heritage tree that is consistent with the criteria, provisions and requirements set forth in City ordinances is not considered a significant impact. The Initial Study concluded that indirect impacts (damage) to retained heritage trees may result during construction, but this was a less‐than‐significant impact.

immediately adjacent to the Murray Street roadway and include two coast live oak trees, one Monterey pine tree, three canary pine trees and one eucalyptus. The trees are proposed to be removed in order to widen the bridge sidewalk and bike lanes, replace barrier rails, and relocate the stairway and utilities and access for equipment and material. Review by City Forester2 indicates that the pine trees are in poor condition and/or health.

City regulations set forth the criteria for heritage tree removal and replacement requirements. Resolution NS‐21, 436, sets forth the tree replacement/mitigation requirements for approved removal of a heritage tree to include replanting three 15‐gallon or one 24‐inch size. Tree removal that is consistent with the criteria set forth in City regulations is not considered a significant impact. The city will replant three 24‐in coast live

2 September 9, 2014. “Tree Construction Impact Analysis, Murray Street Bridge Retrofit Project.”

Prepared by Leslie Keedy, City of Santa Cruz Urban Forester.

Mitigated Negative Declaration ADDENDUM 12 S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 4 oaks in the project area and eleven 24‐inch redwoods and coast live oak trees on the east side of Santa Cruz, in the vicinity of the project improvements such as along Murray Street, at Frederick Street Park, above the harbor area, at Tyrell Park near Pilkington Creek, and/or at Arana Gulch. Coast live oak trees will be planted at Arana Gulch in accordance with the City’s Streambed Alteration Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Therefore, a total of 14 24‐inch trees will be replanted to replace the seven heritage trees to be removed. This exceeds the City requirements of one 24‐inch tree replacement for each heritage tree removed and is consistent with the requirements of the City’s heritage tree regulations. Thus, no new significant impact would occur as a result of the tree removal.

Additionally, the trees were reviewed by the City’s Urban Forester, consistent with Community Design Program 6.1.1 in the City’s Local Coastal Plan (LCP), and the tree replacement is consistent with provisions of LCP Community Design Program 6.1.2 that requires a two‐for‐one or more replacement planting when tree removal is necessary for new development. LCP Community Design Program 6.1.4 calls for minimizing cutting of trees between the nearest through public road and the coast. Tree removal has been limited to only those necessary to accommodate widening of the bridge and bridge approach, for wider bicycle lanes and pedestrian sidewalk, new barrier rails, relocation of the stairway and utilities, and construction access.

The Initial Study recommended a condition that calls for protection of retained heritage trees that may be in the construction area. However, there are no heritage trees that would retained with the proposed tree removal. . Thus, the project would not result in a new significant impact related to indirect impacts to retained heritage trees.

Noi se

Project construction, including installation of new support piles, will result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels over an approximate 18 month period. Because higher noise levels associated with the project will vary throughout the construction period, and noise levels associated with use of heavy equipment would be intermittent throughout a given day and entire construction phasing, the Initial Study concluded that temporary increases in noise is a less‐than‐significant impact. Construction‐ related noise levels would vary throughout the day, depending on the type of equipment in use at any one time and the distance to the receptors. Pile installation and construction will result in temporary vibration to residences closest to the construction activities, which was considered a potentially significant impact for a few houses within 150 feet of pile driving operations.

and approximately six small, non‐heritage trees. The heritage trees are located immediately adjacent to the Murray Street within the overall “Area Of Potential Impact” analyzed in the Initial Study. The tree removal would result in limited noise increases for a short period of time and would not result in a new significant impact. Tree removal would not result in generation of vibration. Additionally, the currently project proposal eliminates construction of 11 new boat berths, which would eliminate short‐term construction noise associated with installing piles and new berths.

Mitigated Negative Declaration ADDENDUM 13 S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 4

T ra f f i c and T ranspo r t a t i on

Project construction, including roadway improvements to Murray Street, will result in temporary closure of one or both lanes of Murray Street Bridge for intermittent periods over the 18‐month construction period. Because the temporary increase in construction‐related traffic is minor, lane closures will vary throughout the construction period, and road closure would not occur for more than two weeks at any one given time, the Initial Study identified this as a less‐than‐significant impact.

immediately adjacent to the Murray Street within the overall “Area of Potential Impact” analyzed in the Initial Study. Removal of the seven trees may result in short‐term closure of travel lanes, which would be of limited duration. The construction specifications included in the Initial Study would apply to any work within the road right‐of‐way. Thus, tree removal would not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact, of which there were none.

Mitigated Negative Declaration ADDENDUM 14 S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 4

TABLE 2: Summary of Impacts with Proposed Modifications

2007 MND Impact IS/MND Mitigations & Recommended Conditions Project Modifications & Impacts

Aesthetics Impact: Bridge construction would not affect scenic views or resources.

(No Impact)

Bridge design and lighting would not create a new source of substantial light or glare or substantially degrade the visual quality of the surrounding area.

(Less-than-Significant Impact)

Recommended Condition of Approval: Require all bridge lighting to be hooded and directed downward.

Less-than-significant impact related to scenic resources & no change to light/glare impact: The project modifications will result in removal of seven heritage trees, which would result in a new less‐than‐significant impact to scenic resources as discussed in the narrative. However, the modifications, including elimination of boat berths, would not result in new significant impact or affect other aesthetics’ impacts. Project modifications do not affect bridge structure or lighting.

Air Quality Impact: Air Emissions from construction are less than Air District thresholds.

(Less-than-Significant Impact)

Recommended Construction Specification: Require that all stockpiles of debris, soil and other materials which can become windblown be covered.

No change to air quality impact: The project would eliminate 11 new boat berths with a decrease in accompanying traffic and emissions. No new impacts would occur with this modification or removal of seven heritage trees.

Biological Resource Impact: Potential indirect impacts to steelhead that may be present during installation of piles and future reinstallation of docks and floats for boat berths.

(Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation)

Mitigation Measure 1: Conduct pile driving activities in Harbor waters from July 1 to mid‐November, unless otherwise permitted by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NFS).

No change to special status species (steelhead) impact (construction only): The project would eliminate 11 new boat berths, which would slightly decrease the extent of in‐water construction and duration. The reduction of permanent new boat berths and heritage tree removal would have no effect on steelhead that may be present in harbor waters. Mitigation Measure 1 will continue to be implemented.

Biological Resource Impact: Potential disruption to roosting pallid bats, Townsends’ big‐eared bats, fringed myotis, and/or long‐legged myotis if any of these species are using joint crevices of the Murray Street bridge for roosting or maternity roosting.

(Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation)

Mitigation Measure 2: Conduct focused pre‐construction surveys of the Murray Street bridge by a qualified biologist to determine if bats are roosting in the bridge’s joint crevices if bridge construction activities are scheduled during the breeding season of native bat species (April 1 through August 31), and seal bat crevices prior to reproduction.

No change to special status species (bats) impact (construction only): The project modifications do not affect bridge construction or potential bat habitat. Mitigation Measure 2 remains in effect and has been revised to include pre‐construction surveys prior to tree removal; see section VI.

Biological Resource Impact: Project construction could result in indirect harm or harassment to marine mammals that may be in the vicinity.

(Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation)

Mitigation Measure 3: Remove known or potential marine mammal resting sites prior to construction based on the outcome of preconstruction survey to assess if and how marine mammals utilize the construction area of potential impact.

Mitigation Measure 4: Require a qualified biological monitor be present during in water construction activities to search for target marine mammal species and halt project activities that could result in injury or mortality to these species.

Mitigation Measure 5: Prohibit pile driving activities within a 500‐foot radius if marine mammals are present with implementation of specified measures if animals move into the construction area.

No change to special status species (marine mammals) impact (construction only): The project would eliminate 11 new boat berths, which would slightly decrease the extent of in‐water construction and duration that may reduce the severity of the impact to marine mammals that may be present in harbor waters. Mitigation Measures 3-5 will continue to be implemented which require implementation of specified measures to ensure no harm to marine mammals.

Mitigated Negative Declaration ADDENDUM 15 S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 4

Biological Resource Impact: Project would result in minor placement of fill within “waters of the U.S” due to pile driving.

(Less-than-Significant Impact)

None required. No substantial change to wetlands impact: The project would eliminate 11 new boat berths, which would slightly decrease the extent of in‐water construction and would result in a minor decrease in new berth piles and fill in the waters of the U.S.

Biological Resource Impact: Project construction could result in potential disturbance to nesting bird species either under the bridge or in nearby eucalyptus trees.

(Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation)

Mitigation Measure 6: Require that a pre‐construction survey for special‐status nesting avian species and postpone construction within 100 feet of the nest site if nesting is found.

Mitigation Measure 7: If project activities are to be initiated outside of the breeding season, remove existing nests and/or install exclusion netting under the bridge to prevent nesting for the season.

No substantial change in nesting bird impact: The removal of seven trees adjacent to Murray Street would not substantially increase the severity of the impact analyzed because pre‐ construction surveys would be conducted for the identified “Area of Potential Impact” in which the trees to be removed are located. The requirements of Mitigation Measure 1 preclude in‐water pile driving during the bird nesting season.

Mitigation Measures 6 and 7 remain in effect and would also be required as part of tree removal and pre‐construction requirements. The language of Mitigation Measure has been clarified to specify pre‐construction surveys be conducted prior to any tree removal.

Biological Resource Impact: Project construction would result in removal of seven heritage trees, but with planned replanting would not conflict with the City’s heritage tree regulations. Inadvertent damage to nearby eucalyptus trees could occur during construction.

(Less-than-Significant Impact)

Recommended Condition of Approval: Implement measures to protect existing retained heritage trees in order to minimize damage to protected trees and their root zones during construction.

Less-than-significant impact related to heritage trees. The removal of seven heritage trees and replacement consistent with City regulations would not result in a new significant impact.

Cultural Resource Impact: Unidentified archaeological resources may be discovered during construction.

(No Impact)

Recommended Condition of Approval: Implement specified measures if unknown archaeological resources are found during construction.

No change in cultural resources impact: The project modifications are within the “Area of Potential Impact” that was analyzed in the Initial Study. The recommended condition remains in effect.

Geology and Soils Impact: The project would be subject to seismic hazards but will be designed in accordance with geotechnical recommendations. The proposed seismic retrofit of the existing bridge will substantially improve safety.

(Less-than-Significant Impact)

None required. No change in geology/soils impact: There have been no changes to geologic or soils conditions in the project area. The elimination of permanent boat berths and tree removal will not result in new significant geotechnical. The project impacts related to seismic hazards (liquefaction) would not change.

Mitigated Negative Declaration ADDENDUM 16 S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 4

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The project would not result in new permanent development, vehicle trips, energy use or other operations that would result in greenhouse gas emissions.

(No Impact)

None required. No change in geology/soils impact: The requirement to analyze greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions was not in effect when the Initial Study was prepared. However, the project would not result in permanent GHG emissions as the bridge would not result in new development or operations that would generate traffic, use energy or otherwise result in GHG emissions, although some temporary emissions would occur during construction, which would not be considered substantial given the limited amount of construction.

Hazards & Hazardous Materials Impact: Project construction could result in short‐term, localized disturbance or exposure to hazardous materials found in the soils.

(Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation)

Mitigation Measure 8: Test, treat, and/or properly dispose of contaminated fill soils excavated from the east end of the bridge.

No change in hazards impact: Neither the proposed tree removal or elimination of boat berths would expose soils in the area where hazardous soils may be potentially present.

Mitigation Measure 8 remains in effect for other components of project construction.

Hydrology and Water Quality Impact: Construction activities within the Harbor waterway could result in inadvertent erosion or discharge of materials in harbor waters if construction activities and dock replacement are not property contained and managed, resulting in potential water quality impairment and potential indirect effects to aquatic species.

(Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation)

Mitigation Measure 9: Incorporate BMPS into construction specifications to protect water quality.

No substantial change in hydrology impact: (construction only): Tree removal is not adjacent to the harbor waters, and elimination of new permanent boat berths would slightly decrease the extent of in‐water construction, which would not increase the severity of water quality impacts during construction. Mitigation Measure 9 will continue to be implemented which requires implementation of Best Management Practices to prevent water quality degradation.

Noise Impact: Pile installation and construction will result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels.

(Less-than-Significant Impact)

Recommended Conditions of Approval:

Require all stockpiling and vehicle staging areas and stationary noise‐generating construction equipment to be located as far as possible from nearby residential areas as practicable.

As part of construction specifications, require all equipment to be kept in good repair and fitted with superior quality mufflers. All equipment shall be properly maintained to assure that no additional noise, due to worn or improperly maintained parts, would be generated.

Require the contractor to assure that mobile noise‐ generating equipment and machinery are shut off when not in use.

No substantial change in noise impact: (construction only):

The removal of heritage and non‐heritage trees adjacent to Murray Street would not substantially increase the severity of less‐than‐significant noise impacts analyzed because the area in which the trees are located are within the overall “Area of Potential Impact” that would be subject to temporary construction‐related noise impacts. Tree removal would be of short duration compared to construction of the project, and would not substantially increase noise levels.

Mitigated Negative Declaration ADDENDUM 17 S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 4

Noise Impact: Pile installation and construction will result in temporary vibration to residences closest to the construction activities, but vibration levels will significantly decrease with increasing distance from the construction site.

(Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation)

Mitigation Measure 10: Require that property owners and residents located within 150 feet of the pile installation locations be notified at least one week prior to construction.

No substantial change in noise impact: (construction only):

The removal of trees would not result in vibration to nearby residences. Mitigation Measure 10 would remain in effect for other project construction elements.

Traffic Impact: Project construction will result in temporary increase of peak hour trips and will result in temporary closure of one or both lanes of Murray Street Bridge for intermittent periods over the 18‐ month construction period.

(Less-than-Significant Impact)

Recommended Construction Specification:

Prepare and implement a traffic control plan that includes: installation of signals on each side of the Murray Street bridge to allow controlled access for each…