CC 2017-01-24_12a Bridge Street Bridge Project
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TERESA MCCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
BY: JILL MCPEEK, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A PROJECT STATUS UPDATE AND
ELIMINATION OF THE REPLACEMENT ALTERNATIVE FOR THE
BRIDGE STREET BRIDGE PROJECT
DATE: JANUARY 24, 2017
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council:
1. receive a project status update for the Bridge Street Bridge project; and
2. eliminate the replacement alternative from further consideration for the project.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
The City has been successful in securing 100% funding through the Local Highway
Bridge Program (HBP) funds for the Bridge Street Bridge project.
BACKGROUND:
On January 27, 2015, Council selected two alternatives with which to proceed for
environmental study for the Bridge Street Bridge Improvement Project ("Project") as
follows:
Replacement Alternative
Salvage and Relocate Truss on New Bridge (Option 2)
Construct a new cast-in-place post-tensioned concrete box girder bridge in the current
location and incorporate the architectural features of the existing historic truss. Portions
of the existing bridge, such as the main trusses and railings could be attached to the
new structure as architectural components in order to recreate the historic feel of the
existing bridge. Separated and raised wooden sidewalks could be designed to replicate
the existing pedestrian sidewalks.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF A PROJECT STATUS UPDATE AND ELIMINATION OF THE
REPLACEMENT ALTERNATIVE FOR THE BRIDGE STREET BRIDGE PROJECT
JANUARY 24, 2017
PAGE 2
Rehabilitation Alternative
Replace Existing Supplemental Truss with New Supplemental Truss (Option 4b)
Replace the existing supplemental structure with a new stronger supplemental
structure. The new supplemental structure will be designed to handle 100% of modern
design live loads as well as support the weight of the historic truss. No structural
changes would be made to the members of the existing truss that contain historic value.
However, the historic truss would need to be removed and disassembled during new
foundation construction.
On January 27, 2015, the Council also approved an amendment with Quincy
Engineering, Inc. to allow the consultant team to carry the two alternatives through the
environmental process. In response, the consultant team proceeded with preparation of
the technical studies for the two alternatives and has brought both alternatives to a 65%
design level.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
One of the technical studies required as part of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) process is a FNAE-SC-SOIS (Finding of No Adverse Effect with Standard
Conditions: the use of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties). This document was prepared by the consultant team and submitted
to Caltrans for comment. Caltrans agreed with the Finding of No Adverse Effect for the
rehabilitation alternative. The final document is under review and the team expects
formal approval of the document within 30 days.
Given this finding, the rehabilitation alternative is now considered an avoidance
alternative under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. This alternative
would allow for the Bridge to maintain its historic eligibility. Under Section 4(f), Caltrans
must select the avoidance rehabilitation alternative if it is feasible and prudent, which
has been confirmed through the analysis. This means that Caltrans cannot approve the
replacement alternative which in effect requires the City to drop the replacement
alternative at this time.
In addition, should the replacement alternative be dropped from consideration, Caltrans
has stated that the FNAE-SC-SOIS would not need State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) concurrence since the project does not result in a finding of significant impact
on the historic resource. Instead FNAE-SC-SOIS documents would go to the Cultural
Studies Office (CSO) at Caltrans Headquarters. This alternate review process is in
accordance with the Caltrans Section 106 Programmatic Agreement and is historically
much shorter than the SHPO review process.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF A PROJECT STATUS UPDATE AND ELIMINATION OF THE
REPLACEMENT ALTERNATIVE FOR THE BRIDGE STREET BRIDGE PROJECT
JANUARY 24, 2017
PAGE 3
On December 7, 2016, these findings were presented to the Bridge Street Bridge
Stakeholders group. The group unanimously agreed with the elimination of the
replacement alternative.
Due to the documented findings and stakeholders vote presented above, it is
recommended that the replacement alternative be dropped from further consideration
for the project.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:
- Approve staff’s recommendations;
- Do not approve staff’s recommendations;
- Receive a project status update of the Bridge Street Bridge project but do not
eliminate the replacement alternative from further consideration for the project; or
- Provide direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
Eliminating the replacement alternative will allow a shorter review period for the Finding
of No Adverse Effect. Since the rehabilitation alternative does not result in an adverse
effect to a significant resource, the City would pursue an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND) under CEQA rather than Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
which would require an alternatives analysis (no longer needed) and would be more
time-consuming and costly. Moving forward with the rehabilitation alternative maintains
the bridge’s historic eligibility. The project is consistent with the Council goal to support
City infrastructure.
DISADVANTAGES:
The rehabilitation alternative will require a longer construction duration which will cause
some disruption within the Village.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The environmental studies discussed in this staff report will require National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) approval with Caltrans as the lead agency. The City
will be the lead agency for CEQA approval. The respective environmental
determinations and documents will be circulated for public review and presented to
Council with the draft project report.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code Section 54954.2.