Loading...
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.