HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.B 07/16/2012 AgemicwIteww#5 .3
isse
DATE: July 16,2012
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council'throu h City Manager
Or
FROM: Dan St. John, F.ASCE—Director, Public Works ani Uti t
Larry Zimmer, P.E. —Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Downtown Trestle
Rehabilitation Project and Selecting Alternative 1 to Rehabilitate the Trestle
Structure
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Downtown Trestle Rehabilitation Project and designate Alternative 1 as the preferred alternative
to rehabilitate the trestle structure.
BACKGROUND
In December 2010, the State Coastal Conservancy awarded $475,000 for planning and design of
the trestle.rehabilitation. The Coastal Conservancy requires a $25,000 match that the City and
SMART are meeting with in-kind services. SMART is supportive of the current work, but no
formal commitments have been made regarding the future ownership or responsibility for
maintenance of the trestle structure.
On December 14, 2011, a public meeting was held topresenf.the.process to date, the results of
the preliminary analysis of the trestle structure and three alternative approaches to
rehabilitate/reconstruct the trestle. In summary, all of the attendees were in favor of restoring the
trestle>in,some;fashion as opposed to its removal. Opinions differed between preference for a
fullreplacernent pfoject.(Alternative 3) and the rehabilitation project that maintains as much of
the existing structure as feasible(Alternative,1).
On February 6, 2012, staff presented the project development to date and a summary of the
public comments from the December Public Meeting to City Council. Staff received
commentary from the Council that indicated a preference for Alternative 1 —Rehabilitation.
Council members indicated a desire to maintain as much of the existing structure as feasible.
Work since the Council meeting focused on developing Alternative 1 and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental document.
Agenda Revie )v ^
j
City Attorney 1" Finance Director City Manager
On June 26, 2012, staff presented the project to the Historical and Cultural Preservation
Committee (HCPC) and received,a unanimous recommendation,to Council for selecting
Alternative 1 and adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration, In addition, one committee
member requested the addition of the mid-span pedestrian bridge which is•discussed in more
detail as an option to Alternate 1 in attachment 2 of this report. It was recommended that staff
confirm the potential impacts to fish be properly investigated. Another comment was regarding
the potential impact of implementation of the mitigation that may become necessary when the
brackish marsh is established at a new location.This may be necessary if existing brackish marsh
is impacted during construction, and concern that the construction impacts may not have been
adequately defined specifically related to land-based vs. water-based construction operations.
The project consultant has been directed to consider and address these comments.
DISCUSSION
The "preferred" project forpurposes-of primary study in the Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) is Alternative 1, but Alternatives 2 and 3 are also considered for informational purposes.
A CEQA Initial Study and MND has been prepared and published for public comment. As the
governing body, the Council is responsible for adopting the MND and designating the preferred
alternative.
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is not required because the project impacts can be
mitigated. Consistent with a MND, the project,proposes to rehabilitate the existing structure to
address safety issues and use it aspedestrian promenade while maintaining the tracks for
possible future use. As proposed, the final form of the trestle will be the same as the structure
that exists currently. The rehabilitation alternatives have estimated construction costs from $3.4
million to $4.7 million.
•
The Historic Resource Evaluation was completed at the outset of the current project to determine
the historic resource eligibility of the downtown trestle to the National Register of Historic
Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. The trestle appears to be eligible for
the California Register, but not eligible for the National Register.
During the public review period of June 13 to July 16, 2012, staff received comments from the
Petaluma Yacht Club and the State Lands Commission. Staff responded to the Yacht Club and
has attached the correspondence. The State Lands Commission comments have been
incorporated into the MND.
Staff recommends that Council adopt the MND and authorizes staff to direct the engineering
design firm to begin the detailed design process.for Alternative 1. Alternative 1 will rehabilitate
the existing structure by retaining as much of the existing material as is practical. The decking
must be completely replaced, but a large portion of the stringers, and bent caps can be reused.
Except for the piles all material structurally inadequate will be replace with wood materials of
same or similar dimensions to maintain the look and feel of the original trestle. Due to potential
impacts from pile driving of'timber piles, augured in steel piles and steel shells would likely be
used to replace or strengthen existing timber piles. The steel pile will extend only to the high
water line, with either existing or replacement timber piles extending beyond that elevation best
•
2
•
maintaining the original trestle.design. Design is scheduled,for,completion by the end of the
calendar year. The State Coastal Conservancy grant requires,close-out by March 31, 2013.
The proposed action meets City Council goal: "Plan for and implement priority capital projects
as funding permits."
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The study and design project is within the prior approved budget for work. The completion of
environmental clearance process will allow staff to search for and apply to granting agencies for
construction funding. The Coastal Conservancy may contribute up to another $500,000 toward
the construction phase if they have funding available and find a subsequent grant application
worthy. Staff is seeking grant opportunities for the future project and working to define discrete
projects within the overall project that could be grant funded in advance.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
2. Alternative 1
3. Trestle Existing Pile Bent Elevation
4. Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee Staff Report
5. Historical and Cultural Preservation Committee Resolution
6. Petaluma Yacht Club letter dated June 21, 2012
7. Petaluma Yacht Club response dated July 2, 2012
8. State Lands Commission comments dated July 5, 2012
® Items listed below are large in volume and are not attached to this report, but may be viewed in the
City Clerk's office.
9. Environmental Assessment and Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
3
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION ADOPTING.A.MITIGATED NEGATIVE-DECLARATION FOR THE
DOWNTOWN TRESTLE REHABILITATION'PROJECT, SELECTING
ALTERNATIVE 1 TO.REHABILITATE THETRESTLE STRUCTURE
WHEREAS, the Downtown Railroad Trestle, built in 1922 on the west bank of the
Petaluma River in downtown Petaluma, is currently in poor condition and fenced off from public
use; and
WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma is desirous to complete a project to rehabilitate this
structure; and
WHEREAS, the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit agency, the owner of the trestle, is
supportive of the rehabilitation project; and
WHEREAS, the San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program, administered by the
Coastal Conservancy, has awarded $475,000 toward the planning and design of the Downtown
Railroad Trestle Rehabilitation Project; and
WHEREAS, the Trestle Rehabilitation Project supports Conservancy goals by improving
public access to the Bay through the connection of land and water based trails and promotes open
space accessible to urban populations for recreational and educational purposes; and
WHEREAS, staff has worked with an engineering design consultant to develop design
criteria and alternative rehabilitation and reconstruction approaches; and
WHEREAS, city staff presented,the alternative approaches at three public meetings held
on December 14, 2011, February 6, 2012, and June 26, 2012 and received support for the
rehabilitation approach, Alternative 1; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared
pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which
1926051.1 4
concludes that there is no substantial evidence that the proposed Trestle.Rehabilitation Project as
mitigated, will have a significant adverse effect on the environment;and
WHEREAS, a mitigation and monitoring plan incorporating all mitigation measures
identified in the MND has been prepared for the project; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated.Negative,Declaration for the project
was published in the Argus-Courier on June 14, 2012, and posted with the Sonoma County Clerk
and the State Clearing House, providing for a thirty (30) day public comment period as required
by CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City received and reviewed all comments received during the 30-day
public review period and to date, none of which identify new significant or substantially
increased environmental effects from those evaluated in the MND; and
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2012, the Historical and Cultural Preservation Committee
recommended to the City Council that they adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Downtown Trestle Rehabilitation Project, select Alternative 1, Rehabilitation, and approve the
initiation of the design and specification documents; and
WHEREAS, the record of proceedings of the decision on the Project is available for
public review at Petaluma City Hall, Public Works and Utilities Department, 1.1 English St.,
Petaluma, CA.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City hereby
finds that:
1. On the basis of the entire record, including the Initial Study and Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Downtown Trestle Rehabilitation Project ("Project"), dated June 13,
2012 there is no substantial evidence that the Project, as mitigated, will have a significant effect
on the environment.
5
2. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has;been reviewed by the City
Council and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City as:lead-agency for the
project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City'Council.that:
1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration.is hereby adopted.
2. All mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration are imposed upon the Project as conditions of approval.
3. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Prograin presented herewith as
Appendix A to the Mitigated Negative Declaration ishereby-,adopted.
•
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that:
1. Staff is directed to•proceed with design and specification documentation for the
Project, Alternative I, Rehabilitation.
1926051
•
6
•
Attachment 2,
Alternative 1 —Rehabilitation Approach
The objective of Alternative 1 is to retain as much of the original structure.as possible in order to
maintain the historic integrity of the trestle and provide a pedestrian amenity and connection for
the downtown area, while maintaining the railroad tracks. In general, components of the existing
trestle can be both repaired and retained as part of the rehabilitated structure, or for those that are
too far deteriorated, replaced. The components.that remain in good condition, including piles,
can be preserved. According to an evaluation of the condition of the trestle piles conducted in
late 2011, approximately 70%of the piles were-.identified:as being in"fair", "poor" or "beyond
poor' condition with significant section loss due to microbial decay=and dry rot. The majority of
the piles cannot withstand full loads and will require treatment for strengthening or replacement.
To approach the trestle rehabilitation with a consistent method both for design integrity and
aesthetic value, three rehabilitation scenarios were developed foi1heg piles:=repair piles (A),
replace with steel piles (B), and replacewith wood piles (C).. At the initiation of the
environmental assessment, staff considered option C to,be theipreferred'method since new wood
piles would provide the desired original look while installing new timber that is treated for
installation within waterways to modern best-management-practices (BMP's) acceptable to
environmental protection agencies. However, the impact,related to pile driving and the resulting
vibration poses a risk of damage to-the adjadenthistoric downtown buildings that.may be too
great for the City to mitigate. In light of this, staff considers the repair option (A) or(B)'to be
the best project approach. Following is a discussion of the rehabilitation approaches for the
different trestle components.
Rehabilitation Scenario A: Timber piles-to be repaired with a fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP)
jacket placed over the existing,pile from approximately one foot below mud line to mean highest
high water(MHHW) and filled with;grout:to provide structural integrity. If the section of the
existing pile is found to be deteriorated above MFIHW, a.new'timber pile section-would be
spliced using a steel sleeve with mechanical connections. The remainder of the piles will have a
steel sleeve installed to provide visual consistency:
Rehabilitation Scenario B: Timber piles to be repaired with an auguredisteel pipe pile extending
to MHHW and new timber pile section spliced with mechanical connections to support the bent
cap. The remainder of the piles will have a steel pipe sleeve installed to provide visual
consistency.
Rehabilitation Scenario C: Timber piles to be replaced would be reinoved.and,a new coated
timber pile would be installed. Timber piles in good condition and able to be preserved must be
wrapped with PVC or HDPE sheets extending to MHHW to prevent future creosote leaching into
the water, retard further deterioration,and maintain visual consistency: Since timber piles must
be driven, or vibrated into place, this method is not recommended due to potential impacts to
adjacent buildings.
Approximately forty piles (eight bents of five piles each) in:the,middle section of the trestle have
shifted away from the bank possibly due to adjacent slope failure pushing the piles out of
alignment. Due to the condition of these piles, the recommended solution is to replace these
1926051.1 7
piles with steel pip •piles extending to the MHHW line with;a wood`section at the,top to connect.
with the bent cap and provide,a.historically accurate look. The steel pilesrunlike wood piles can
be augured in to greatly reduce ground vibration.
It is not possible to precisely identify which part of the trestle would be repaired and retained and
those that would require replacement due to the unknown timeframe,foractual.constrnotion. The
trestle is continuing to deteriorate;what may be repairable today may need to be replaced in a
few years. It is expected that much of the wood'components above the piles (bent caps,
stringers,joists, outriggers and ties) are in good and useable condition will be retained and
reused. Sections of these wood components that have deteriorated will be replaced in-kind. The
deck boards and joists are unusable and will be completely replaced.
Several components of the trestle are mutually exclusive of which alternative is selected, and
discussed at the public meeting.
• The existing tracks will be replaced in their current alignment, for possible future use.
• The hand railing is not an original component of the structure and since there was no
railing during the active original use of the trestle, there is no historic material to save and
no design to copy. Current building codes set certain requirenients of the railing design
upon the project. At this time,.staff-is intending fcontinuationrofthe railing installed a few
years ago during the Water Street Plaza project, or something similar to maintain
consistency.
• Some citizen comments suggested the addition of a mid-span pedestrian bridge.
Historically, a spur railroad line split off the trestle, heading south, approximately
between First and Second.Streets, paralleling both. The.mid-span pedestrian crossing
was further investigated and, although both desirable and,feasible;from an engineering
standpoint, the estimated costs,for planning and design prohibit inclusion into the project
at this time.
• The fender piles are a lineof solid timber piles, spaced approximately four feet apart, and
approximately four feet from the trestle structure. This line of fender piles is visible from
across the Turning Basin, however, they are not required for,any%structuralpurpose. It is
staffs intention to include construction of removal and replacement fender piles,;possibly
of the same material as whatever becomes the recommended alternative,of the,trestle, as
an alternative bid in the construction documents. This will allow City Council to decide
on inclusion of the fender piles, based on actual cost, at the time of contract award.
•
8
r1 O.•G .
N .
U
cal
d °''o
d Q'= 'W J-W
CC U 3 Q w Z CO Ui
W Q W
z w 00 w ¢- ��w a o W':2 ¢
O <"� L4 a s:w U.03 co
m N 0 5` co H gew
0 0 w Q N-2 F-•
W co v J OO ' w Q LL._.N O
°° J W N j CO m':'a • t 0. Q'W 2.
-LL e < c'W B'. `< Z w .`7'0' a. a:J
W N W N W N. W O W W W Q, J U
O
< 0-
wF
a
w
I- Z
.o W
Q
co '' F t <Y.A •` I W
o I
wN.
`�� W
sir °fir ‹Atu • - a
ti
/rAl z
• Z
Z E-1 p
® 0
W
_
o 7 �� W—
w Z 1I , (/)
Ce
a1 N Y 1 ^/ . i L J
NO Z. w0 II / 7 �,•
O A
wa. I / o / %'
� II J l)
• it
- i
H
ot oo
•-• 1144.,; <�
•
Attachment 4
•
CITY OF PETALUMA
STAFF REPORT
Community Development Department,Planning Dii ision,ll.EiglislrStreet,Petaluma, CA 94952
(707) 778-4301 Fax(707) 778-4498. E-mail:peth1wnnplatiitiiij @ci.petalutnn.ca.us
DATE: June 26, 2012 AGENDA ITEM NO. 13
TO: Historic and Cultural`Preservation Committee'
PREPARED BY: Larry Zimmer, Capital Improvements Division Manager
REVIEWED BY: Heather Hines, Deputy Planning Manager
SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN RAILROAD TRESTLE REHABILITATION
Historic Review of Rehabilitation Project
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee recommend the •
rehabilitation alternative approach(Alternative 1) for the Downtown Railroad Trestle`Rehabilitation
Project located on the west bank of the Petaluma•River for Petaluma City Council's•consideration.
Staff also recommends that the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee recommend the City
Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project: Downtown Railroad Trestle Rehabilitation ProJect
Project Applicant: City of Petaluma,Department of Public Works,and Utilities
Property Owner: Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit
Nearest Cross Street: Water Street and Western..Street
Site Characteristics: The subject property is located on the west bank:of the Petaluma
River beginning at the terminus of WesternStreet running along the
Water Street side fo the Great Petaluma Mill and the intersection of B
and Second Streets,and ends near the Yacht Club.
Zoning: Adjacent to T-5
GP Land Use: Adjacent to Mixed Use
Subsequent Actions: City Council decision on MND and alternative
Building Permit
•
10
Page I
PROJECT DESCRIPTION . •
BACKGROUND
The downtown trestle begins at the terminus of Western Street, runs along the Water Street side of
the Great Petaluma Mill and the intersection of B and;Second Streets, and endssnear the Yacht Club.
The 90-year old structure is ownedby the Sonoma Mann AreaRail Transit(SMART). In recent
year it has become unsafe for pedestrian use and is fenced off.
In 2002, as part of the River Enhancement Project,'a City consultant developed a"Preliminary
Study of the Water Street Trestle Evaluation and Replacement:" The studygave an approximate •
age, description of the trestle, evaluation of the condition and recommendation'to`prohibit
pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The report also provided rehabilitation•and replacement schemes,
with estimated costs.
In 2007, a Historic Structure Report was completedto;:research the origins of the trestle, create a
chronology of railroad ownership, and•perform preliminary•engineeruig.and rehabilitation cost
estimation for both pedestrian and trolley loading. Although engineering analysis,forthe current
project reached a different conclusion, ass discussed below, the"Treatment Recommendations"
section in the 2007 report stated,that rehabilitation for pedestrians Only-Would retain more of the
trestle's historic fabric and original construction, but that rehabilitation to iallowtr011ey use would
require a majority replacement of the trestle structure.
In March 2010, the City submitted a grant:application to the State Coastal Conservancy requesting,
$500,000 for planning and design of the trestle.rehabilitation, including bank stabilization measures,
environmental clearance and necessary permits, and an educational component, The Coastal
Conservancy required a 5%financial match'that the City split with SMART'as a.project partner.
Although SMART is supportive of the current work,no other commitments have+been made
regarding the future ownership or;responsibility for maintenance of the trestle structure.
hi December 2010, City Council accepted the grant and in spring-2011,staff issued a request for
proposals that resulted in the selection of,GHD, Inc. as the consultant engineenng firm. The work
to date has comprised of a historical evaluation to determine eligibility,engineering analysis to
develop alternative project approaches„Secretary ofthe Interior,standard evaluation of the project
alternatives and the CEQA initial study;and mitigated negative declaration. The final product for' •
the work funded by this grant will be construction drawings and specifications.
Staff and the consultants considered three general alternatives for the project, Altemative 1 will
maintain as much of the existing structure as feasible.,.Alternative 3 is a full replacemerit,.or • �
reconstruction of the trestle tcy appear similar to the originalbutwith modern materials and
construction methods to provide;for a longer expected life:, Alternative 2!is a compromise between
. the Alternativel and Alternative'3,:and involves constructinga new trestle support structure while
maintaining or reusing existing components, and allowing1exrsting piles to remain in place,,intheir
existing condition. In Alternatives 2 and 3, steel piles•were;suggested.to replace the timber-piles for
structural integrity, longevity, ease of installation and future maintenance. The auger-head style
steel piles would be less disturbing to the adjacent businesses due to the torque-down°methodof
installation rather than impact pile.driving. Additionally, any treated wood utilizedin the river is
currently required to be coated or wrapped. Untreated wood is subject to tide cycles resulting in a
shorter lifespan as wood not having the opportunity to dry'completely will.tot In Alternatives 2
• 11
Page 2
and 3, the wood components above;the piles would be replaced&with'-wood or colored and textured
concrete.
Based on past reports it was expected that the cost of constructing the trestle for trolley loading
would be significantly more expensive,than pedestrian only loading. However, after further
investigation, it was determined that pedestrian only loading does;notchange the design
significantly. Since the cost difference is expected to be minor(or non'existent),rather than limit
future use, all alternatives were developed to be adequate for both trolley and pedestrian loading.
This project will design the trestle with-a deck for public pedestrian use Any improvements to the
structure needed for future trolley operation would be addressed in a subsequent project.
City staff, SMART staff,and the design consultants met to discuss the alternatives. The concern
with either of the rehabilitation.alternatives,(Alts. 1 or 2) is that the modifications necessary to make
the trestle structurally adequate and safe for,pedestrians would require,such alterations that its
appearance would be drastically and negatively impacted. The consensus opinion within this group
was a replacement (Alt. 3) would,provide a far more attractive structure, which would appear more
similar to the original design of the trestle, and would provide a longer'life.and minimize ongoing
maintenance. r
-
On December 14,2011, a public meeting was.held to present the process to date, share the results of
the preliminary analysis of the trestle structure, and outline theTthree alternative approaches to
rehabilitate/reconstruct the trestle. All of the attendees were in favor of restoring the trestle'in
some fashion as opposed to a'full reconstruction. Opinions differed between the project alternatives
and the specific details.
Alternative 1 was favored by some,since it maintained more of the original materials. Some were
of the opinion this alternative made,the structure"ugly" by wrapping the;piles and adding structural
members. Based on a citizen's,boniments,this alternative would be modified from the schematic in
the presentation to uniformly treat',the piles to:create a consistent appearance. Any added structural
members would be hidden as much as possible behind exiating-niaterials. Pile repair and
replacement would be done selectively to maintain the"maximum of the original structure.
Alternative 2 was clearly the least popular alternative since it added new'"bents,"'(the vertical
components of a trestle)between the existing ones creating a completely trestle. Alternative 3
was supported, provided the new materials are made to look as much like the original wooden
structure as possible. Opponents to this alternative wanted to make it clear that this alternative
builds a"replica" with no authenticity, and does not maintain any of the historicatintegrity.
The discussion about lossi of the original materials;led to aediscussion about possibly maintaining
some components of original structure. Some suggestions were:to keep, or reconstruct one bent of
the new structure out of the'original material, use some of the original material as a.facade on the
exposed face of a new trestle,rebuild a bent as a monument(separate from the trestle), or use
exiting materials to construct an additional pedestrian connection to the trestle (discussed below).
On February 6, 2012, staff presented the project development to date and received commentary
from the Council clearly preferring Alternative 1 —rehabilitation. Some
Councilmembers further stated the need to maintain as much of the existing structure as feasible.
Page 3 12
•
•
DESCRIPTION
The objective of this project and the development of Alternative 1 —Rehabilitation is;to:retain as
much of the original structure as possible in order to maintain the historic integrity of the trestle and
provide a pedestrian amenity and connection for the,downtown'area. Imgeneral, components of the
existing trestle will either be repaired and retained as part of the rehabilitated structure, or for those
components that are too far deteriorated,replacement may be required. A fewtrestle piles remain
in good condition and can be preserved. According to an evaluation of the condition of the trestle
piles conducted in late 2011,approximately 70Wof the:piles were identified as being in'"fair" or
"beyond poor"condition with significantsections loss due to microbial decay and dry rot. The
majority of the piles canhot withstand fill loads and will require treatment for strengthening.
All components to be repaired and retained in the rehabilitated structure in direct contact with the
Petaluma River water will.be wrapped to mean high higher water,(MHHW). Components being
replaced and in contact with water would be treated with a waterborne preservative,Ammonlacal
Copper Zinc Arsenate (ACZA)!and.either coated with an epoxy or wrapped to prevent'chemical
leaching into the Petaluma River. Untreated wood subjected to tide oyeles'not.having?the
opportunity to dry completely will rot resulting in a shorter'lifespan.
For those components being replaced (excluding the piles which are described in more detail wider
construction methods below), the existing component would be replicated in design, color, texture,
and where feasible, materials.
The current Alternative 11 has,been modified to uniformly treat the piles to create a consistent
appearance in response to previous concernsexpressed at the public meeting. Pile repair and
replacement would be done selectively to maintain.the maximum possible of the original structure.
Any added structural members would be hidden as much as possible behind existing materials.
The few timber piles in good conditionand able to be preserved would be wrapped with PVC or
HDPE sheets extending to MHHW to prevent:future creosote leaching into the water. The piles
would be cleaned of marine growth prior to wrapping and the *rap would be secured to the piles
using straps or bolts.
Timber piles to be repaired would have a steel, HDPE.or FRP jacket,placed over the existing pile
from approximately one foot below mudline to NIIIIIW and filled with grout to provide structural
integrity. If the section of the existing.pile is found to be deteriorated<above MIHHW, a new:timber
pile section would be spliced using a steel pile sleeve with mechanical,connections. The new
timber pile sections would be treated with a waterborne preservative.
Timber piles to be replaced would be cut at the mudline: If the pile is found to be deteriorated
below the cut line, a steel pile would be driven.over the "stump." It is anticipated that an impact or
vibratory hammer and crane barge would be usedto install the pile. If the pile is found to be sound
below mudline, a steel pile sleeve would be,;placed over the pile stump: The'steel sleeve may be
installed using a crane or with smaller equipment. A new timber pile section would. then be
attached to the steel pile sleeve and would support the bent cap. As an alternative, if the existing,
damaged timber piles can be completely removed, new timber Piles would be installed.
It is not possible to precisely identify which parts,of the trestle'would be repaired and retained and
which would require replacement due to the unknown timeframe foractual construction: The trestle
13
Page 4
•
•
is deteriorated and, as time passes, thedeterioration rate could'>iricrease; what maybe repairable
today would need to be replaced in a few years.
The existing track will be replaced in its current alignment with as many ties;as are:in'reusable
condition (estimated around 50%) and the deck boards and joists will'be completely replaced. In
Alternative 1, the stringers and bent.caps wouldbe.assessed for extent:of deterioration and
reinforced or replaced in-kind as needed. At this time, the,condition of all the wood components
have been assessed by visual means, "sounding" (striking with:a hammer) and:some limited
resistance testing. All three methods have an objective and scientific approach,.but since all of the
components are not accessible to be tested from all angles, and'some are not reachable such as the
stringers, reasonable assumptions must be made about Their condition. Theactual condition would
not be known until the time that-the trestle is,dismantled.
There are several components•of the`'trestle.that are mutually exclusive of all three alternatives and
were discussed at the public meetings.
• The existing steel rails will be replaced in their current alignment.
• The railing is not an original component of the structure andsince there was no railing
during the active original use of the trestle,there is no historic:,fnaterial tosave and no
design to copy. Current building codes set certain requirements of the railing design upon
the project. At this=time,,staff is intending continuation of the edge railing installed a few
years ago during the Water Street Plaza project, or Semetliing similar to maintain
consistency.
• Some members of the public have suggested the addition of a mid-span pedestrian bridge in
the area of a historical spur railroad line split off the trestle; heading south, approximately
between First and Second;Streets, paralleling both.. The.mid-span pedestrian crossing was
further investigated and,:althoughboth desirable and feasible froth an engineering
standpoint, the estimated costs for planning and design prohibit inclusion into the project at
this time. It is not evaluated in the MND because its cost is prohibitive.
• The fender piles are an existing line of solid timber piles, spaded approximately four feet
apart, and approximately four feet from thetrestle structure 'They are not attached to the
trestle and most of the connections between each fender pile has deteriorated and
disappeared. The original,purpose was to act as a fender to the trestle, in the same manner
as a fender on a car, when barges and boats,docked for goods loading/unloading., Many of
these piles have been tied back to the bank or trestle.as they deteriorate andlean onto the
floating docks. This line offender piles is visible from across the,Turinhg+Basin, however,
they are not required for any structural purpose. .These originalpiles=could be left in place
and removed as they become a.nuisance. This,is'not.recommended however, as working
around any original materials will impact the,construction.process. It;is,staffs intention to
include construction of replacement fender piles as an alternative bid-in the construction
documents. This.will allow City Council to decide on inclusion of the fender piles atthe
time of contract award.
The project for purposes of primary study in the MND is Alternative 1,but Alternatives 2 and 3 are
also considered for informational purposes. A CEQA.initial:study and Mitigated Negative
Page 5 14
Declaration ("MND") have been prepared and published for public,comment„and=is discussed
below. Although the'City Council is the decision Maker-ion-the, ' 1 D, asked to
review it and provide any comments that relate to historical resources,
Staff willpresent the Historic and Cultural Preservation Comm ittee's;recommendation on a specific
alternative and the MIND to the City Council which will act on,the environmental document: Staff
would then provide direction to the engineering design-firm to begin the rehabilitation design
process, as funded by the current`grant,"with completion intended for the end of the calendar year:
The State Coastal Conservancy grant requires close-out by.March431,-201'3.
Funding for construction has not been identified for this project, and'the;construction phase is not
included in the approved CIPbudget for FY 12-13 or the CEP five-year plan: However, approval
and design of an alternative and the completion of environmentaP.review•will allow staff to conduct
a focused search for and apply to,granting agencies for construction funding. It is expected that the
'funding needed would come from multiple sources. The Coastal Conservancy has indicated interest
in providing matching funds provided that:bond funding is available.
•
STAFF ANALYSIS.
GENERAL PLAN
The property is adjacent to Petaluma Historic Commercial District suspended over the Petaluma
River running parallel to the westibank+of the River. The adjacent land use classification is Mixed
Use. Although the trestle is referenced many times in the •General Plan and the subject of
photographs, it is not identified in any of the figures mapping the City,
The project is located within the 'Central Petaluma Specific Plan subarea, which includes the
Turning Basin,and the Petaluma River; and aims to focus on the River as an amenity and linkage
within the City.
The following General Plan Guiding Pnnciples are applicable to the proposed project
• Preserve and enhance Petaluma's historic character.
• Enhance the Petaluma River corridor while providing recreational and entertainment
opportunities, including through active implementation of the Petaluma River Access and
Enhancement.Plan.
• Simulate and.increase,public access and use of,pathways'as alternativectransportation routes
by providing a safe, efficient, and intercounected• railsystem.
The following GeneralPlan policies are applicable to the proposed project:
1-P-44 Develop,the PetalumaRiveras apublicly-accessible green ribbon, fronted by streets,
paths, access points, and.open,spaces, byimplementing the,Petaluma River Access
and Enhancement Plan within'the context of the PRC Design Standards.
2-P-3 Maintain landmarks and aspects of Petaluma's heritage that fosters its unique
identity: Reinforce:the industrial character of the City by adaptively reusing and
preserving industrial landmarks such as... Petaluma arid Santa Rosa Railroad trestle.
15
.Page 6
2-P-1'1 Encourage and :support the rehabilitation and development• of buildings and
structures reflective:of the history of Petaluma's richtagricultural and river-oriented
industrial,past and present,such as the Petaluma and Santa Rosa Railroad trestle as a
boardwalk and/or Trolley line.
2-P-18 Develop Downtown uses and activities that relate,to the City's history: Continue the
Preservation, rehabilitation, and reuse of historically:significant structures within the
Downtown.
2-P-43 Provide additional pedestrian/bicycle access to and along;the riverfront to connect to
existing and future trails toward Downtown.
5-P-53 Support efforts to a local trolley line utilizing the old spur line into the
Downtown area.
The rehabilitation of the trestle will be consistent with, and assist in the implementation of these
guiding principles and policies.
CENTRAL PETALUMA SPECIFIC,PLAN
The property is located adjacent to the Urban.Center (T-5) zoning district as,outlined in Section
2.10 — Zoning Map in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan (CPSP):. :One,,of the primary planning
goals within the CPSP is ito encourage a'stronger link between the city and the river. Further, the
CPSP "encourages the rehabilitation and reuse of architecturally interesting structures:"
The following CPSP policies and goals are applicable to the proposed project:
Policy 3.6 Encourage tlie,developinent of heritage trolley service.
Policy 4.4 Encourage development of heritage trolley service.
Public Space &River Access
Goal 1 Establish a continuous and interconnected system of public spaces,along the river:
Goal 2 Utilizing publicsspaces-to extend the amenity of the waterfront inland.
Goal 3 Provide urban public, spaces that serve multiple services: "The Water Street.
trestle/promenade, on the west side of the Turning Basin, should'be.restored."
Circulation
Policy 3.3 :Establish'a,pedestdan oriented promenade around the Turning Basin.
Historic Preservation
Goal 1 Protect, enhance, perpetuate, and adaptively reuse properties of historic and
architecturahsignificance.
Objective 2 Preserve, the ,industrial and commercial complex: of structures, including the
resources-Within the Petaluma Historic.Commercial District.
BICYCLE:AND PEDESTRIAN'PLAN
The project will assist with usability of the River Trail within,the Area and help further
the completioir,of one+of the five top priority trail projects.'
• 16
Page 7
The State Coastal Conservancy is in the process of establishing"the Bay Area Water Trail which
terminates on the northern end in Petaluma, directly across the T11-filing.Basin froth the trestle.
HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES
The project is"adjacent to the Downtown!Commercial Historic Districts The restoration of the trestle
will provide for the continued presence of this historic element within close proximity to the
Downtown Corniiercial Historic.District.
RIVER ACCESS ANWENHANCEMENT PLAN
This plan was adopted in 1996, after the railroad had ceased sending-freight down the western spur,
but before the trestle was closed to public access.= The references within this plan discuss gaining
ownership of or access to the trestle deck.
Downtown Segment
Policy 1 Provide a continuous.banktop loop trail around the Turning Basin with pedestrian
amenities such as benches and interpretive"signage.
Policy 16 Strengthen and broaden physical relationships between the,river and the downtown.
Policy 16c Promoteenew development., redevelopment and 'activities that will add vitality and
pedestrian activity along the river.
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS
The Historic Resource Evaluation "(Attachment 2) was completed at the outset of the current
project to determine the historic resource eligibility of the downtown trestle to the National Register
of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. In summary; the trestle
appears to be eligible for the Califomia'.Register, but not eligible for the National Register. The
Standards Evaluation'(Attachmenti3) compared the three alternatives developed to the Standards
for the Treatment of Historic :Properties and documented the applicable Standards for each
alternative. Further description of,the potential impacts on historic resources using the Standards is
contained in the MND and the CEQA discussionbelow.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A Public Notice of the City's intent to adopt a mitigated negative declaration`for the.Project and the
public review period on the MND was published in the.Argus•Courier on June"14,2012 and mailed
to owners and occupants within„500 feet of the subject property. Public comments submitted after
the Committee hearing but within the 30-day public-comment period will be considered by the City
Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A 'CEQA initial study and Mitigated Negativ •'Declaration (MND) has been prepared consistent
with guidelines � ew decision m k n theMND, he CPC sasked to revi the document and provide any comments j
ielated to historic resources. This Initial Study has not identified any significant and unavoidable
impacts as a result of the proposed project and therefore•has not°resulted' in,thepreparation of an
Environmental Impact'Report`..(EIR). All project”impacts are able to bedmitigated'to a level of less
than significance., Neither,the"CityEnvironmental Review Guidelines nor CEQA guidelines require
that a MND will,have Planning Commission or Historic and Cultural Preservation Cornmittee
hearings when the,associated,project is at the discretion•of the City Council. However, staff has
•
• 17
Page 8
referred the MND for,theDowntown Railroad Trestle Rehabilitation to the HCPC for their input
and reconrrriehdation on'those,aspects of the document thafrelate'to historicpreservation.
All projects receiving federal funding are required to complete review consistent with the
requirements of National Environmental,Policy Act(NEPA). Althoughconstruction;funding for the
Trestle Rehabilitation'has not been identified at this time, aspotential:grant source could be a federal
agency and therefore,,staff thought it prudent to include NEPA review requirements within the
environmental review document. While CEQA does not require analysis of project alternatives in
an IS-MND, an Environmental,Assessment under NEPA must include discussion of alternatives,
including a No Action Alternative, as required under Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA(42
U.S.C.§4332(2)) and CEQ.Regulations §,1502.14(d). This requirement supported the development
of the three project alternatives for'environmental review and,as<outlined'in the attached IS-MND.
The Draft Conceptual Design for Rehabilitation of Petaluma Trestle included three alternatives for
rehabilitation-of the trestle"structure:;Alternative 1 Rehabilitation,Alternative 2 Trestle
Replacement, and Alternative 3 Complete TrestlerReconstruction. Alternative 1 i the trestle
rehabilitation project as described:in,the EA/IS (the Project).,Alternativel2 would install new piles
adjacent to,the,existing piles, leave the existing piles to deteriorate in place, reuse those parts of the
remaining structure that were inygood condition, and replace in-kind those that were not Alternative
3 would replace all components of the trestle with new components. All other components(slope
stabilization repairs, educational features,etc) of the project would-remain the same between
alternatives.
The Trestle is significant at the national level under National-Register significance Criteria A and B.
Under Criterion A, it is.historically significant because of its association with Petaluma's tirne of
great economic expansion;.when'it was declared the"World''.Egg Basket"-, The Trestle is a
surviving,symbol of the agricultural and cormnercial:strength,that made the city a prosperous
regionahtransportation center for the movement of agricultural and manufacturing,goods through
SonotnaCountyand the greater Bay,Area Under Criterion B, the trestle'is historically significant
for its association with George P: McNear, whose family has left behind an:impressive legacy of
elegant historic buildings;;publicopen spaces, and even,the configuration-of the Petaluma River
itself.
•
In addition to the significance criteria required forNational Registereligibility, a property must also
maintain integrity in order to qualify for listing. There are,seven qualities of integrity; location,
design, setting,.matcrials;.worlonanship, feeling, and association. Although all aspects of integrity
aie,not required for,listing,;a,resource must maintain a strong overall sense of integrityto,,qualifyfor
listing. The;Petaluma Trestle Histonc Resource Evaluation completed.byPreservation Architecture.
in 2011 (Attachment-3)lconcluded that the resource retained integrity,of location, setting,and
association;but not for the other four aspects. Therefore,the evaluation concluded that the trestle
lacks integrityand,does'not individually meet the'criteria'for listing on the National Register.
The Trestle'has=beendetednined eligible:for listing on.the California Register under..Criterion;1 for
its association,withPetaluma's time of growth as the "World's Egg Basket,"under'the themes of
agriculture,industry, commerce;tand'transportation. Additionally, under Criterion 2 the Trestle is
eligible for its association with George P. McNear, who is,indelibly linked to the development of
the Petaluma&;Santa RosaRailroad Company and the subsequent construction of the West
Petaluma,Spur and associated,.Trestle. The California Register does not require"the same finding of
integrityas theNational Register.. The Trestle has been determined to retain potential to yield
Page 9
18
liistoricjinfonnation°and,therefore.maintains eligibility fOr individual li'stin g on,the California
Register-.
As outlined in the IS;,MND the Trestle Rehabilitation Project was determined;to.have a less than
significant impact onthe historic resource because it was designedin accordance with the Secretary
of the Interior's Standardsrfor Rehabilitation. More specifically,the project Will result in the
property being used as;itwas historically; the,historic;character of the;property will be retained and
preserved, the distinctive=materials and construction techniquesthatacharacterize the property will
be preserved, the distinctive historic;features will be repaired rather than replaced, and the related
new construction will be designed to be differentiated from yet compatible with the old. Under
CEQA,projects that are determined°to meetttheSecretary of the Interior's!Standards are considered
to be-mitigatedto a lesa,than significant impact on'the historic,resoiirce:
Although'no archaeological resources were:identified within the;project area, several mitigation
measures.are included in.the MND'to'cover accidental discovery:of Human reinains,,documentatien
of the trestle prior to commencement of construction, and requirement tohave;a qualified
archaeologist on site to+monitor all grading activity. •
A Standards Evaluati'on(Preservation Architecture'2012) (Attachment 4) was prepared to evaluate
the alternatives. Alternative 2'was found-not:to,be consistent with the Standard for the Treatment of
Historic Properties..Therefore, there would have been the potential for Alternative.2 to have a
significant adverse impact or-1'U historic resource:,In addition, because Alternative'2l placed new
piles alongside:existing pileslimpacts to wetlands would potentially be greater: Consequently
Alternative 2 remoVatnith'fitttlief consideration.
The Standards6Evaluation did not reach afinal conclusion on whether.Alternative 3=was consistent
with the;Standards, stating that additional information.regarding`the design,was required for'a final
determination':,Based'on the information provided in the Draft Conceptual Design:it could'°°not be
determined if Alternative 3 would comply with Standard 3 for-Reconstruction: Will the project
include measures to preserve any remaining Iiistonc:materials,features,;and spatial relationships. It
was outside`the scope of the Dr aft' Design;report to identify the outcomeof any
remaining historic materialnfter:dismantling of the'Trestle. Therefore, Alternative 3 is considered
to`have;a greater impact on historic resources'thanthe Project(Alternativel).
The No.ActionAltemativewould:have none;of the environmental impacts described m the analysis,
buf.also would:not fulfill theobjectives in.the Purpose and Statement,which is<to rehabilitate
the Trestle forits historic andriver'-front use=in ordance with:the CitjofPetdlurna'GeiierdLPlki`z
2025!and other,Cityadopted planning documents:
•
RECOMMENDATION
;Staff recomrnends; That the ;Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee recommend the.
rehabilitation alternative:approach (Alternative I) for the Downtown Railroad Trestl'e=Rehabilitation
Project located'on the ,west banhrof the Petaluma=River for Petaluma City Councils consideration.
Staff,also recommends that the Historic and Cultural l-Preservation Committee;recommend the City
Council adopt the,Mitigated Negative Declaration for theproject.
9.
Page 10 I.
ATTACHMENTS
Attaclunentil1 Draft'Resolution
Attachment 2 Trestle Rehabilitation Project Environmental Assessment •and Initial Study /
Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration May 201,2
Attachment 3:. Historic:Resource:Evaluation by=Preservation Architecture, October 7, 2011
Attachment:4: StandardssEvaluation by Preservation Architecture, April 19,2012
Attachment 5: Trestle Existing PileBentElevation •
1 I
20
Page 1 1
•
II
ATTACHMENT I
•
RESOLUTION OF TIE CITY"OF PETALUMA HISTORIC AND CULTURAL
PRESERVATION,COMMITTEE':RECOMMENDING TO THE'CITY:COUNCIL
APPROVAL OK ALTERNATIVE FOR THE DOWNTOWN TRESTLE
REHABILITATION PROJECT:,AND_RECOMMENDING=ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE,DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Downtown Railroad Trestle, built in 1922 on the west bank of the
Petaluma River in downtown'Petaluma, iss currently in poor condition and fenced off from public
use;and
•
WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma is desirous to complete a project to rehabilitate this
structure; and
WHEREAS, the Sonoina::Marin Area Rail Transit agency, the owner of the trestle, is
supportive of the rehabilitation project; and
WHEREAS, the San Francisco Bay Area "'Conservancy Program, administered by the
Coastal Conservancy, has award'ed'$475;000 for planning, design-and-:environmental clearance for
the Downtown Railroad Trdstle Rehabilitation Project(the "Project");:and
WHEREAS, the Project:supports Conservancy goals by improving public access to the Bay
through the connection of land and:Water"based trails and promotes open space accessible to urban
populations for recreational and`educational purposes;
WHEREAS, city staff has worked with an engineering:design consultant to develop design
criteria and alternative rehabilitation and reconstructionapproaches;;and.
WHEREAS, city staff presented,:the alternative approaches at two public,meetings held on
December 14, 2011, and February 6, 2012;. and received support for the rehabilitation approach,
Alternative 1; and
WHEREAS, an Initial ,Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared.
pursuantYto;the requirements of the.California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);and
WHEREAS,;notice of thesCity's intention to adopt an MND and,of the availability of the
MND for a thirty daypublic review and continent:period was.given°on June 14, 2012 in accordance
with CEQA;,and
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2012, the City of Petaluma;Historic, and Cultural Preservation
Corninittee conducted a duly noticed'public hearing to consider and review the Project and the
HIND fora recommendationtto;„theCity Council.
21
Page 12
NOW,.THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Historical and Cultural.Preservation
Committee hereby:
1. Recommends that the Petaluma City Council select Alternative 1,Rehabilitation, for the
Downtown Trestle Rehabilitation Project and approve commencement of design and construction
specifications for Alternative 1; and,
2. Recommends adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project.
•
•
•
22
Page 13
Attachments
RESOLUTION OF THE^CITYOF PETALUMA HISTORIC'AND CULTURAL
PRESERVATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF ALTERNATIVE 1 FOR THE DOWNTOWN TRESTLE
REHABILITATION PROJECT AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION'OF A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Downtown Railroad Trestle, built in 1922 on the west bank of the
Petaluma River in downtown Petahiuna, is currently in poor condition and fenced off from public
use; and
WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma is desirous to complete a project to rehabilitate this
structure; and
WHEREAS, the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit�;+tency,. the owner of the trestle, is
supportive of the rehabilitation project; and
WHEREAS, the San Francisco Bay Area .nservanc >.'rogram, administered by the
Coastal Conservancy, has awarded $475,000 for pl zsrtc design and environmental clearance for
the Downtown Railroad Trestle Rehabilitation ' o'ect .S, "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Project supports .nset y it.als by improving public access to the Bay
through the connection of land and w ye,. d Is and promotes open space accessible to urban
populations for recreational and,edub '',. i. s;
WHEREAS, city sta ,a°a'wo` -. ,'th an engineering design consultant to develop design
criteria+and alternative rehabil on an4 econstruction approaches; and
v`.
WHEREAS, city staff pres-'`;`ed the alternative approaches at two public meetings held on
December 14, 2011, and February 6, 2012, and received support for the rehabilitation approach,
Alternative 1; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared
pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA); and
WHEREAS, notice,of the°City's intention to adopt an MND and of the availability of the
MND for a thirty day public review and comment period was given on June 14, 2012 in accordance
with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2012, the City of Petaluma Historic and Cultural Preservation
Committee conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider and review the Project and the
MND for a recommendation to the City Council.
Page 12
23
NOW, THEIEFORE"BE'IT RESOLVED that the Historical:and Cultural Preservation
Committee hereby:
1. Recommends that the Petaluma"City Council select Alternative 1,Rehabilitation, for the
Downtown Trestle Rehabilitation Project and approve commencement,of design and construction
specifications for Alternative 1; and,
2. Recommends adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project.
ree-
41:1 se
fa
vs
Page 13
- i Attachment 6
. ' ...
b),'EC, EVE o
.11
- JUN 2 6 2012 u
•p i Vs%ifr ' ,A7
PUBLIC WORKS
4
Petaluma Yacht Club
. _
June 21, 2012
DianeiRamirez
Project Manager •
City of Petaluma Public Works!
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Dear Diane,
Thank you so much for notifying me that the Yacht Club was left off the list otateke
holders for'the Trestle-Rehabilitation Project. Please considerithisiajormal request to add The
Petaluma Yacht Clubao'any^correspondence that concerns the Trestle. After reading The
CEQA,EnvironmentatAsaessmentand Initial Study documenaproposing'aMitigatediNegative
Declaration for the Downtown Trestle:Rehabilitation Project we haveicoholuded that further
. ,.
considerations of impacts is essentiel. The report seems incomplete•as.there was not much
real research:reported on the,iniRact.toiCommercaand kecreation. The Petaluma Yacht Club
- was never contactedfttan efforato gather information.
i
The Petaluma Yacht Club would like a few issues explored further before supporting this
project.
1) We believe that the;commercial‘effects that losing 30-60 visiting yacht's on weekends
between the months of Apritto October would t haveionsthadownlown merchants .
restaurant owners and The Petaluma Yacht Club has beeitunderestimated as"Less
than Significant withiMitigation" in the report. We believe that these should have been
rated-as-potentially significant impacts that needitoibaeximinedantlmitiOted. The
r _ _.. .. . .
Petaluma Yacht club is dependent on visiting Yacht Clubs for the-maj_ ority of its annual
operating budget thesaYachaOlubs also come with day or evening yjaitors..byicar,and
other club members utilize local camp grounds and hotele. These clubs sometimes rent
out Wholeirestaurarits for an evening and'inanytbbaters eat every Meal out for 3-4 days.
The economic impadicreated by this activity can be substaritialito locallbUsinesses.
. _ .
2) ThaPetalumaYacht`,ClUb has leased the property at 10..C. St from thetity'Since 1984.
'This areaiis deaeribediftbbrileiad aailbeeted al the nbrthiehd of Firat Street, and bound
e an no a County Assessors iParcel si,8-067-01, 8-067-03,
61 the Pqatur.nPIIIY I dSo m unty . _,. ' _ N5 '
by C.Streetiend,the.Petaluma River. As-suchahe club has ulilizecitthe:eritire property
formore than,25 years as aiboth an entrance to the building'on the prerhiseaarid an
. . _
10 c Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
25
entrance to the docks. 'We'requestthata mutually acceptableiagreementbe entered
into:if:we all agree,that=the'club property will be utilized`•to°accommodate;the proposed
project
3) The proposal to ihatellfternporary;docks•is incomplete_ The:areas:proposed in the
Assessment:would not bealogical;due to the shallow'river depths.unless dredging was,
also provided'. There is also';nomention;of the:availability,of�water and power to the
temporary docks. The report does notmentionthatthe visiting yachts are between'34-
55 feet.long with a beam'of 13-16'ft. so the proposed temporary"-dock space is very
constraining when you ihave sail,,boatsrand..larger yachts that may have`to"park opposite
the barges:in the;construction area. The Petaluma Yacht Club requests that a more
complete proposed".mitigation is,expiored.
4) We would also like;:more information of the effects of noise and vibration on nearby
buildings as:well as birds.and fish.
•
Thank you for your'time in:considering our issues. We treasure our access to downtown by way
of water and have the.good otthe City of Petaluma in'mind as do(theprojectleaders.
Man :thanks.again,
/MAC/
'4../nda;Blue
Commodore
Petaluma Yacht Club
Copy: Iry Piotr'kowski, Esq.
•
10'C Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
26
Attachment 7
a4�4hhi�Y��• CITY OF PETALUMA
POSTOFFICEBox 61
• Z85, P,ETALUMA,CA'`94953-0061
David Glass
'14ayoY. July 2, 2012,
ChrisAlbertson,
TeresaBsrrett.
MileMealy Petaluma YachY@hib •
h1ike llenly � _
eabe Kearney Attn:.Ltnda'Blue, Commodore
Tiffany Renee
Cmmcilmenibers: 10 C,Street
Petaluma;,CA.94952•
•
RE: Trestle; Rehabilitation Project Environmental .Assessment and Initial
Study}proposing a Mitigated Negative Declaration
•
Dear Linda:
Thank you foryour:letter dated;June 21, 2012, outlining your concerns,related to
the environmental assessment: As we talked about at the Jwie 26, 2012,
Historical:and"Cultural,Preservation Committee.meeting, the development of an
environmental assessment process does net:necessarily include interviews with
Pubic Works'it U/i/i/ies local residents and businesses_ The current public reviews process provides the
opportunityfor comment.
City Engineers.
ll English Street.
Petahann CA 94953 I have provided brief°response to your four comments. P in keep mind
Phone(7n7J 778:447;4
Far(707),776 3602 that we have.not.identified construction funding for this project at this^time:
E-Moil: pubfinrorksia
ci.lieta l uma.ca.its
1. The June to October work window was established by the National
Marine Fisheriessas a protection to federally threatened fish species that
Parks&Budding; spawn upstream..in the Petaluma River; We are aware'.that this;allowable_
Maintenance work:fin me'falls within the most:popular season.for the Turning-Basin:and
840 Flnpper`Si Sit. - - - -.,,
Peta/an4 CA94952. will work to minimize'thel impact. The°construction',perib4 will be brief
Phone(707)+778;4303 *comparison to the lifespan�and.amenity•of the'restored Trestle:
Far"(707).778'4437. - - - -- °"-
2. The"tliree stagingjareas "shown m the document arerproposed:areas for
the 'purpose of ,anal zin 'impacts an
otential d; hating, required
y g` P
Trdnsportation services mitigations. Ifiwe were to utilize the parking area at;tire;Yacht;Club'we
555 N Mcppo,vefl Ph4P would discuss the plans in-advance and make'the'.necessary'agreements
Peia/uma CA 94954
Phone(7071778.4421 for the'term of;construction.
Fax(707)776'37?9. 3. The proposed areas for the:floating dock,relocation•due°to construction
are greater than•the amountof dock we have currently so'that the overall
Ofinhes&Fie/d opera/was, potential impacts could be analyzed. Construction.funding,has not`;been
•z02 N:.NcDone/(Hhd; securedlat,this time, however, as we approach the construction phase we
Peratrinin C9 94'46
Phase 17n7)'778i4546. would identify the appropriate locations for the docks.
• Fax(707),``778,4508 4. The .noise and, vibration impacts discussed in the environmental
eern: document will be considerably less as we.are pursuing- an auger head
-ahWioa,ci.petaluma ca.us
steel.pile installed through a torquea'down, method to reduce noise and
27
vibrations that result from impact or vibratory pile ,driving methods.
Therefore, the irnpacts,on birds and fish Will`be less than what is covered
in,ttie environmental docuinentation;
I have added ;your. email to the stakeholders list: If you would like any
additional members added:to the list;,please send,me their email.
Larry Zimmer; 'Capital Improvements Division Manager, and bare available:to
meet to discuss this project with as many members of the PYC who are
interested. You may contact me at 707-776-3658 or
dramirez @ci.petaluma:ca.us or Laity at 707-776=3674 or
lzinuner @ci.petaluma:ca us:.
Sincerely,
Diane-Raniitea, Projeet'Manager
c: lile
S:1CIP\Projects\Tiestle Rehab C1650110 12.10 15Yachl Club 12012.7.2 PYC Response7Doc.
28
2
•
Attachment 8
Ramirez,. Diane:
From: Awan,,Afifa @SLC [Qfifa.Awan @slc.ca.gdv]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 12:45 PM
To: Ramire±hoiane:
Subject; Some of State"Lands Commission Comments on Petaluma Trestle.Rehabilitation Project
Attachments: Petaluma project docx
'Hi Diane,
This e-mail contains the following,information that might be crucial for your Project:
,i. Result from our shipwreck database;(attached).
2. Comments on Cultural Resources,section
Cultural Resources
The document describes the kinds:of cultural resources that might be encountered when digging into
the river channel on p. 33 as "historic debris either from fill, or from sunken ships." A search of the
CSLC Shipwrecks Database indicates five vessels,thatareLpotentially°in the project area. These
vessels include the Pilot, Georgia(or Georgiana), Petaluma #2, Gold, and Agnes Jones The
information from.the database on these vessels.is attached. The records indicate thatthe ships
experienced;explosions or burned. Therefore, remnants di the vessels„vessel parts, or cargo may
still be present You may wish to research,"these incidents from newspaper accounts or contact
others with special knowledge:of'Petaluma's maritime heritage: This could provide additional
information on the likelihood of encountering these'vessels or associated'artifacts before starting
construction.
CSLC staff requests that Mitigation Measure CR-2: Treatment of Previously Undiscovered
Archaeological Materials, include any additional requirement;to:have,any, shipwreck remains,
associated artifacts, or cargo be evaluated"by a qualified"maritime archaeologist. Should any of these
materials be discovered during Projectconstruction on lands under the jurisdiction of the CSLC, and
the find is potentially significant„the-archaeologist shall consult with,OSLC staff concerning treatment
options.
For additional information,on cultural resources under the jurisdiction of'the CSLC, please consult
with'SenjorStaff-:Counsel Pam Griggs at the,contact!information'noted at the end of this letter.
3. Contact.regarding rentcosts>(I e-mailed her"and will let you know if I hear back from her today)
Mary Hays
MaN.hays(&slc.da.gov or9:16-574-1812
4. CSLC Jurisdiction and Public Trust Lands
CSLC Jurisdiction and Public•Trusttands
The CSLC hastjurisdictiori and management authority overall ungranted tidelands, submerged lands,
and the beds•of navigable lakes%and waterways. The CSLC.also has certaim,residual:and review
authority for tidelands and submerged'lands legislativelygranted in trust to local jurisdictions (Pub.
29
Resources Code, §§ 6301;`.6306). All tidelands and submerged,lands;{granted or ungranted, aswell
as•navigable lakes and waterways„ are:subject to the protections ofsthetCommart Law,Public Trust.
As,general background, the State Of California acquired sovereign„ownership of°all'.tidelands and
submerged lands and beds of navigable lakes and waterways upon its admission to the United States
in 1850. The State holds;these lands for the benefit of all people of the State for statewide Public
Trust purposes; which include butare not limited to waterborne commerce, navigation, fisheries,
water-related recreation, habitat:preservation, and open space. On tidal waterways, the State's
sovereign fee,ownership extends landward to the,mean high tide line, except for areas of fill or
artificial accretion or where the boundary has been fixed by agreement or a court. On navigable non-
tidal waterways, including lakes, the State;holds fee ownership,of the'bed of the:waterway landward
to the ordinary low water mark and a'Public Trust,easement,landward to the ordinary high water
mark, except where the boundary has been'fixed by agreement or a court. Such boundaries may not
be readily apparent from present;day site inspections.
A portion of the Petaluma River, over which°the proposed Project will extend, includes State-owned
sovereign land. ,A lease and formal authorization for the use of"sovereign land will be required from
the CSLC for the portion of the,project encroaching on State-owned lands': A lease application may
be found on-our website at,.w*Yslc:cagov.
Hope this helps,
Afifa
Afifa Awan
Environmental Scientist
California StateaandsCommission
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100-South
,Sacramento, CA 95825-8202
;Desk: (916)574-1891
ofifa.awan @slc ca. ov
From: Griggs, Pamela @SLC
;Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 7:Al PM
To: Awan;.Afifa @SLC
,Subject: Petaluma Trestle:Rehab project- cultural resources
Afifa, below isfsuggested languagetfor the cultural resources section;of thecomment letter on the
EA/IS/Proposed MND„ .Attachedarethe results from the shipwrecks database search that should be
attached tothe letter. Let me know if'you have.any questions. "Thanks.
- PamtGriggs. (916) 574-1854
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message andits.contents, together with any attachments, are intended only for;the'use,of the individual to
whom orentity to which iris:addressed, and may contain information'.that:isc legally privileged,'confidential, and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not thejintended recipient of this message; you are
hereby',notified that:'any dissemination, distribution„or copying of this communication and any attachments'or
2
30
other;use?ofe transmission received in error is±strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in
error please notify me immediately at the abovetelephone number orreturntemail and delete this message,
along with,any:attachments,;from your computer. Thank you.
Cultural Resources
The document describes the kinds of cultural resources that might be.encountered when digging into
the river channel on p. 33,..as "historic debris either from fill, or from sunken ships." A search of the
CSLC Shipwrecks Database indicates:five vessels thattare potentially in the project,area These
vessels include the Pilot, Georgia (or Georgiana)„Petaluma#2, Gold, and Agnes Jones. The
information from the database on these'vessels is attached.. The records indicate that the ships
experienced explosions or burned. Therefore, remnants of the vessels, vessel parts, or cargo may
still be present You may wish to research these incidents from newspaper accounts or contact
others with special knowledge of Petaluma's maritime heritage: Thisycould provide;additional
information on the likelihood of encountering these vessels or associated artifacts before starting
construction.
CSLC staff requests that Mitigation Measure CR-2,; Treatment<of Previously Undiscovered
Archaeological Materials, include an additional requirement to have any:,shipwreck remains,
associated artifacts, or cargo be evaluated by a qualified maritime+archaeologist. Should any of these
materials be discovered,during Project constructionron lands under the,jurisdiction of the CSLC, and
the find is potentially significant; the archaeologist shall"consult with CSLC staff concerning treatment
options.
For additional information-on cultural'resources under the jurisdiction of theiCSLC, please consult,
with Senior Staff Counsel Pam Griggs atthe..contact'information noted at the end of this letter.
3
31
Results Of.California State Lands Commission Shipwrecks Database Search
C ity of Petaluma Trestle Rehabilitation'Project
June 26, 2012
Georgia'::(Georgiana)
ID.Number=:1484
Pilot Ship_s_Nam=.Georgia(Georgiana) Petaluma#2
Type=.Sifewheel Steamboat
ID Number=1465 RegNo= ID Number="598
Ship_s_Nam=Pilot Year'Built=1850 Ship_s_Nam=Petaluma#2.
Type=Steamship Year_Bunk=9855 'Type=Sidewheel Steamboat
RegNo= Dale_Sunk=11/2311855 RegNo=
Year_Built=;1869 Cause'Boiler explosion. Year_Built=1884
Year Sunk=1883 Owner,=Wagner and Kehler Year_Sunk=1914
Date_Sunk=5/2511883 captain=Thompson J. Date_Sunk=312211914
Cause=Explosion Length=75 feet Cause Burned
Owner=. Beam= Owner=
Captain=Graves Tonnage=30 Captain=
Length=122 feet Engine= Length:-
• Beam=25feet County=Napa Beam
Tonnage=200 State Wate° yes Tonnage=204
Engine= :Latitude=38deg 1412'N Engine=
County=Napa 'Longitude s122deg38'36W County
State Wate= 'DecLat=38:2367 State.:Wate=
Latitude=38deg 14'121N DiecLon'g 122.643 Latitude,=38deg 14'12'N
Longitude=122deg 3036W Depth=0 '.Longitude;=`122deg 38'36W
DecLat=38.2367 Quad= DecLat=38.2367
Declong=-122.643. Descriptio=at Petaluma landing. DecLong=-122.643
Depth=0 LocRadius=750. Depth.=0
Quad= File_;-1 Quad=
Descriptio=Petaluma Creek Comments First ship to navigate up the San Joaquin Descriptio=at Petaluma wharf
LocRadius=0 Rnter;goingoas.far as Firebaugh.Explosion resulted from .LocRadius=0
File_=0 captain'siieing down the saflyxalve.He was last File_='0
Comments= running through the streets of Petaluma, running like het'. Comments=ex Resolute ,
Directions.To here-From here Directions:To here-From here Directions:To here-From here 1
Gold Agnes Jones
ID.Number=441 ID Number=.440 '
Ship_s_Nam=Gold Stiip_s_Nam=Agnes Jones
Type=Sternwheel Steamboat Ty'pe'=Scow schooner
RegNo= RegNo=:
Year_Built=1883 Year•Built=0
Year_Sunk=41920 Year_Sunk=1389
Date_Sunk=1118/1920 Date'Sunk
Cause=Burned Cause=Burned_
Owner= Owner,
Captain= Captain
Length= Length=
Beam.= Beam=
'Tonnage=324. Tonnage=
Engine= Engine:.=sail.
County_Sonoma County.=Sonoma
State-Wate State_Wate=
,Latitude=38deg 14'08'N Latitude.=38deg 14'08'N
.LOngitude':122deg 3815W Longitude=122deg 381 511.W
DecLat=38.2356 DecLat=38.2356.
DecLong==122.638 Declong=.2122.638
.Depth=`0 Depth=0
Quad=Petaluma Quad=Petaluma
Descriptio=at Petaluma Descriptio=at Petaluma
LocRadius=1000 LocRadius'=1000
File =0 File =0
Comments= Chrriinents=
Directions'T o here-From here' Directions to here-From here
32