HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.C 9/10/2012 Age/114a/ Itenyv-#5..C
S
280,
DATE: September 10, 2012
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager
FROM: Dan St. John, F.ASCE—Director, Public Works and Utilities
Larry Zimmer, P.E."—Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution Adopting:a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Downtown Trestle
Rehabilitation Project and Selecting Alternative'l to Rehabilitate the Trestle
Structure
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the Revised and Recirculated.Environmental
Assessment and Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring.and Reporting Programfor.the Downtown Trestle-Rehabilitation Project dated
August 8, 2012 ("Revised MND") and designate Alternative 1 as the preferred alternative to
rehabilitate the trestle structure.
BACKGROUND •
In December 2010, the State Coastal Conservancy awarded $475000 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 has
made no formal commitments towards the future ownership or maintenance of the improved
trestle structure. Ownership and maintenance responsibility currently reside with SMART.
On December 14,2011, the City held a public meeting to present"the:project, the results of the
preliminary,analysis of the'trestle:structure, and three alternatives to rehabilitate or reconstruct
the trestle.: Workshop attendees were in favor Of restoring the trestle as opposed to removal and
replacethent Opinions differed between a full replacement project (Alternative 3) and the
rehabilitation,project that maintains as much ofthe existing structure as feasible (Alternative 1).
At"the February'6,:2012 City Council meeting,staff presented the project and a summary of the
public con menta°from the December public meeting to City Council. The Council indicated a
preference for Alternative 1 —Rehabilitation and a desire to maintain as much of the existing
structure as feasible: Accordingly, staff while working with state holders, has focused on
developing Alternative 1 and completing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
environmental document.
Agenda Review >
City Attorney "\.M^ Finance Director City Manager
On June 26, 2012, staff presented the project to''the Historical and Cultural Preservation
Committee (HCPC) which unanimously recommended that the Council select Alternative l and
adopt the Revised MND.
DISCUSSION
The"preferred"project for purposes of primary study in the Revised MND is Alternative 1. As
the governing body, the CounciLis responsible-for adopting the Revised MND. The City
Council is also'asked to designate the preferred alternative for proceeding with project design.
Environmental Review
After an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and published for public
comment in June 2012, comment wassreceived from the Petaluma Yacht Club, the State Lands
Commission and the Department of Fish and Game. An additional fish species, the longfin
smelt, was identified and additional 'review and revisionswerelmade to the Revised MND in
response. Changes were also:madeto remove a construction staging area from the project, in
response to concerns of the Yacht Club. Staff re-circulated the Revised MND for a second
public review period from August 9 to September 10; 2012, with appropriate CEQA noticing and
referral to state and other agencies.
Public notice of the document's-availability was,mailed to all property owners within a 500 foot
radius of the project site on August 2,2012 and posted at the_project site on August 8, 2012. The
public notice was also published:in the Argus Courier'on August 9, 2012 as the MND was
distributed to the State Clearinghouse. On August 8; 2012,the project stakeholders were notified
via email of the Revised MND availability and the document was made available on the City's
website. Comment letters on the first MND are attached as Appendix D to the RevisedMND.
The comment letters'have been responded to either in writing or through direct discussion.
Comments received since publication of the Revised MND are attached as Attachment 6 to this
report.
Project Summary
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 structurally inadequate materials will be
replaced with-woodrmaterials of 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
above to best maintain the original trestle design. The project proposes to rehabilitate'the existing
structure to address safety issues and create a pedestrian 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; however, much of the superstructure would be replaced in-kind.
Attachment 2 Project Summary, are described in detail in detail in the attached Alternatives
Memo. At the time these alternatives were developed, the construction estimates were $3.65
million and $4.16 million, respectively. Since Council expressed a strong interest in Alternative
2
1 in February 2012 these estimates`have not been revised. The recommended rehabilitation
alternative is currently estimated to cost $4.4 million, whichincludes the evaluation and reuse of
as much of the existing trestle components as is feasible.
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.
Staff recommends that Council adopt the Revised MND and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program and authorize staff to begin detailed design for the Project, Alternative 1.
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 Capital Improvements goal to "Plan for and implement
priority capital projects as funding permits"by making the pursuit of funding for Trestle
restoration a priority.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The study and design project is within the prior°approved'budget for work. With,the completion
of environmental clearances, staff will,pursue granting agencies for construction,funding. The
Coastal Conservancy may contribute up to another$500,000'toward the construction phase
subject to funding availability and ranking of the City's grant application. Staff is also seeking
other grant opportunities and defining discrete project elements that could be separately funded.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
2. Alternatives Memo
3. Trestle Existing Pile Bent Elevation
4. Historic and Cultural Preservation Cominittee Staff Report
5. Historical and Cultural Preservation CommitteeResolution
6. Petaluma,Downtown Trestle Rehabilitation presentation
7. Comment Letters on Revised MND (if any)
Z Items listed below are large in volume and are not attached to this report,but may be viewed in the
City Clerk's office.
8. Recirculated Environmental Assessment.and Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration
9. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Appendix A to the Recirculated
Environmental Assessment and Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration
3
Attachment 2
RESOLUTION:ADOPTING A MITIGATED,NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
DOWNTOWN TRESTLE REHABILITATION PROJECT, SELECTING
ALTERNATIVE l TO REHABILITATE THE TRESTLE 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 (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; and
WHEREAS, staff has worked with anengineering 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, the Revised and Recirculated Environmental Assessment and Initial
Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Downtown Trestle Rehabilitation Project
dated August 8, 2012 ("Revised 'MND") was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and, concludes that there is no substantial
evidence that the Project as mitigated, will have'asignificant adverse effect on the environment;
and
WHEREAS, an Historic Resource Evaluation was completed for the Project which.
concludes that the trestle appears to be eligible`for the California Register of Historic Resources,
but not eligible for the National Register of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, a mitigation and monitoring plan incorporating all mitigation measures
identified in the Revised MND has been-prepared for the Project and set forth as Appendix A to
the Revised MND;and.
WHEREAS;;a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project
providing for a 30-day public comment period in compliance with CEQA, and a notice of public
meeting to be held on September 10, 2010 before the City Council was published in the Argus-
4
Courier on August 9, 2012,,posted with the Sonoma County Clerk and the State.Clearing House,
and mailed'to all persons within 500 feet of the Project,as well to all persons having-requested
special notice of said proceedings; and
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2012, at a duly noticed public meeting, the Historical and
Cultural Preservation Committee (HCPC) completed its review of the Project;and all comments
and documents, including but not limited to thelRevised MND, and recommended to the City
Council that it adopt the Revised MND, and the proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, select Alternative 1, Rehabilitation, for the Project and approve the initiation of the
design and specification documents; and
WHEREAS; on Septethber 10, 2012, at a duly noticed public meeting, the Petaluma City
Council reviewed the Revised MND, all supporting documents including but not limited to the
Revised MND, the recommendation of the HCPC, staff reports and related materials, and all
public comments and evidence presented at or before the meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Revised MND, supporting
studies, comment letters, staff reports and other related Projectrand,environmental documents
("the Record") are available for-review in the City Public Works and Utilities Depaitalent at
Petaluma City Hall, during,normal business,:hours. The custodian of the documents and other
materials which constitute the•record of proceedings for the proposed project is•the,City of
Petaluma Public Works and Utilities Department, 11 English_Street, Petaluma, CA 94952, Attn:
Larry Zimmer, Capital Improvements Division;Manager.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City hereby
finds that:
1. The City Council has reviewed the Revised MND.and considered all comments
made at or prior to the public meeting on the Project.
2. The Revised MND reflectsthe independent judgment and analysis of the City as
lead agency for the Project. •
3. The Revised MND identifies mitigation measures which are imposed upon the
Project as conditions of approval.
4. A Mitigation Monitoring and ReportingProgram is included as Appendix A to the
Revised MND to ensure compliance with adopted,mitigation measures.
5. The Project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List
compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government
Code.
6. On the basis of the entire'Record, all potential impacts can be avoided or reduced
to a level of insignificance by mitigation measures which are incorporated into the
Project and/or attached'to the Project as conditions of approval and there is no
substantial evidence•that,the-Project, as conditioned, will have a significant effect
on the environment.
5
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that:
1. The Revised MND is hereby adopted.
2. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program presented herewith as
Appendix A to the Revised MND:is'hereby adopted.
3. Staff is directed to proceed"with design and specification documentation for the
Project, Altemative'1, Rehabilitation.
6
Attachment 2
City of Petaluma, California
Memorandum
Public Works and Utilities,li English Street,Petaluma, CA 94952
(707) 778-4474 Fax(707)'776-3602 E-mail ipublicworks@cipetaluma.ca.us
DATE: August 16, 2012
TO: Trestle Rehab Project File (C16501101)
FROM: Diane Ramirez, Capital Improvements Project Manager
SUBJECT: Trestle Rehabilitation Project Alternatives
The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the three,alternatives considered in the initial
phase of the project. Since the completion of the Conceptual Design Report in.November 2012
further investigation of the alternatives, particularly the rehabilitation or replacement of the piles,
has been pursued.
The overall projectobjectiveis torestore the historic trestle and provide a riverfront pedestrian
amenity, while maintaining.the.railroad tracks. Further, the direction of City Council is to meet
this objective while maintaining as much of the original structure as feasible.
Alternative 1 —Rehabilitation Approach
The objective of Alternative 1 is to retain as much of the original structure as possible.
Components of the existing trestle may be both repaired and retained as part of the rehabilitated
structure, and for those that are too deteriorated, replaced with similar material. 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 piles cannot withstand full loads and will
require strengthening or replacement.
Five rehabilitation scenarios were developed for the piles:
Rehabilitation Scenario A: Timber piles to be repaired with a 20" diameter 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 MI-IHW, anew timber pile section
would be spliced using a steel sleeve with mechanical connections. The remainder of the piles
will have a 20" diameter high-density polyethylene (HDPE) sleeve installed to provide visual
consistency.
Rehabilitation Scenario B: Timber piles to be repaired with a 20" diameter steel pipe sleeve
extending to MHHW and new timber pile section spliced with mechanical connections to
7
support the bent cap. Theremainder of the.piles will have a 20" diameter high-density
polyethylene (HDPE) sleeve installed to provide visual consi"stency.
Rehabilitation.Scenario C: Timber piles to be replaced,would be removed and a new coated
timber pile would he,installed. Timber,piles-in good condition and able to be preserved must be
wrapped with poly-vinyl chloride (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 adjacentbuil'dings.
Rehabilitation Scenario D Three timber piles per bent would be replaced using.a 16" diameter
steel sleeve augured into the ground using a.torque-down.method with anew timber pile section
extending from MHHW to the,bent;cap. The reinaining, now non-load bearing, piles will have a
16" diameter (HDPE) sleeve installed to provide visual consistency.
RECOMMENDED - Rehabilitation Scenario E:Three timber:piles per bent would be replaced
using a 16" diameter steel sleeve augured into the grourid using a torque-down method with a
new timber pile section=extending from MHHW=to the bent cap. The remaining, now non-load
bearing, piles will have a 16"-diameter steel'sleeve installed to provide visual consistency.
At the initiation of the environmental assessment,staff considered,option C to be the preferred
method,since new wood piles would provide the desired original look whileinstalling new
timber that is treated for installation within waterways to modem:best-management-practices
(BMP's) acceptable to environmental protection agencies. However, the impact related to pile
driving and the resulting vibration may pose-a risk:Of damage"to the adjacent historic downtown
buildings that may be too greatifor the City to'thitigate. In light'of this, staff considers the repair
option (E) to be the best project approach to'mitigate risks to adjacent buildings and provide a
structurally sound and aesthetically pleasing project solution while maintaining the historic
materials and integrity.
It should be noted, 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 in
scenarios A, B, and C is to replace these,piles with steel pipe 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 piles, unlike wood piles can be augured in to greatly reduce ground vibration.
It is not possible to precisely identify which part of the trestle above the piles would be repaired
and retained and those that would require replacement due to the unknown timeframe for actual
construction. 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. Wood components`that have deteriorated will be replaced in-kind. The
deck boards and joists are unusable and will be completely replaced.
Alternative 2 —Replacement Approach
8
Alternative 2, Trestle Replacement, is to construct a new trestle support structure between the
existing bents to bear the weight while maintaining or reusing;existing corriponents,above the
piles and allowing existing piles to remain in place,in their existingicondition to deteriorate in
place. This alternative would reuse those parts Of remaining structure that were in good
condition and replace in-kind those that were not.
In Alternative 2, 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 than pile driving to the adjacentbusinesses due to the torque-down method of
installation. Additionally, any treated wood utilized in 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 rot. In Alternative•2, the wood components above
the piles would be replaced with.treated wood or colored and textured concrete.
In Alternative 2, the wood components-above the piles would be replaced with wood, colored
and textured concrete, or other:appropriate materials. 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 coiponents are not accessible to be tested from all angles, and some are not reachable
such as the stringers, reasonable assumptions must be madeabout their condition. The actual
condition would not be known until the time that the Trestleis dismantled.
The Trestle is considered eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources. Therefore
a Standards Evaluation for the three alternatives was prepared by our consultant, Preservation
Architecture. Alternative 2, Trestle Replacement, was found not to be consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Therefore,
Alternative 2 would have an adverse impact on a historic resource. In addition, because
Alternative 2 placed new piles alongside existing piles,, the degree of impacts to waters of the
U.S. would be great. Consequently Alternative 2 was removed from further consideration.
Alternative 3 —Complete Reconstruction
Alternative 3, Trestle Reconstruction, is a full replacement of the trestle to appear similar to the
original but with more modem materials and construction methods which will provide for a
longer expected life.
In Alternative 3, steel piles were suggested to replaee.the timber piles for structural integrity,
longevity, ease of installation and future maintenance. The auger-head style steel piles would be
less disturbing than pile driving to the adjacent businesses due to the torque-down method of
installation. Additionally, any treated wood utilized in 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 rot. In this alternative, the wood components
above the piles would be replaced with wood, colored and textured concrete, or other appropriate
material. .
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
9
be tested from:all angles; and some are notreachable'such as the stringers, reasonable
assumptions mustbe'made.about their condition. The actual condition would not be known until
the time that the Trestle is dismantled.
The engineering opinion favored this alternative since complete;replacement would provide a
structure with a more uniform appearance and would appear more similar to the original design
of the trestle. Additionally, replacement would provide a longer life and reduce maintenance.
The Standards Evaluation did not reach a final conclusion on whether Alternative 3, Complete
Trestle Reconstruction, was consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties, stating that additional information regarding the design was
required before a final determination could be made. Alternative 3 would have the same
footprint as identified for Alternative 1, Rehabilitation, and the construction methods for
Alternative 3 would be similar-to those for replacing trestle piles. Therefore, in general, impacts
for Alternative 3 would be the Sane as for Alternative 1. The exception to this is that Alternative
3 does not include the reuse of creosote-treated wood in the aquatic environment.
Additional'Components
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 stricture 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 requirements of the railing design
upon the project. At this time, staff is intending continuation of the 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 mid-spaw crossing is covered in the environmental document, so if
funding becomes available it can be constructed.
• The fender piles are a line of 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 structural purpose. 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.
Construction Estimates
10
The following construction estimates are based on preliminary design assumptions and uniform
approach. The estimate will be revised diming Me design-documentation phase as project details
are refined. The estimates for Alternates 2 and 3 have not been updated since Council expressed
a preference for the rehabilitation scenario, Alternative 1.
Alternative Construction Date of
Estimate Estimate
Alternative )A $3,540,813 5/4/12
Alternative lB $3,891,565 5/4/12
Alternative 1C $3,417,306 5/4/12
Alternative ID $4,338,967 6/26/12.
Alternative 1E $4,411,317 6/26/12
Alternative 2 $3,648,226 11/23/12
Alternative 3 $4,165,782 11/23/12
c: S:\CIP\Projects\Trestle Rehab C16501101\Design\330.05 CEQA Redux\2012.8.15 Alternatives Memo.Doc
•
11
•
M N
C
N
F.
0
ctl z,
0 0, z
...c.c.? m F <
J'>
K U sy Q w Q;w W
I— J f0w d W 0 W Z Q
Z 7 L. -Z < ,Q;W ® a D C-W O
w 0 w 2 m n
re I— Z ° Z ? OLL v rp .� -4 Ili 0O
C tom- v �.W H <.W 0 <U < W..1- H
io 0 < O ml< W LL ,- x Z
x x> x g O
Q W
Z <
W N w N ii-.N `W O w al Q
O
O
i � Q,a
( \ t_,_. \ \\. \ \
ra ~\ \ \ ;%r Q W 1"
05 0 0 \ 1 \ \ ‘ \al J i I — '\ / _I 1-1 Z
m \ / o 0 _1! LJ W
0
W
i � _ Z
S
/ . — ��
o x W
�
� to
/ W
/ — °; Ce
_i f
ia U ., T
0 w.w
d J
W<
Ni
I
•
Attachment 4
CITY OF PETALUMA
STAFF REPORT
Community Development Department,Planning Division,11 EnglislrStreet,-Petaluma, CA 94952
(707) 778-4301 Fax(707).778-4498 E-mail:petalumaplanning @cLpetaluma: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 RRehabilitation Project
_ 11
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 Mann 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 atthe terminus of Western Street 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
Page 1 13
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
BACKGROUND
The downtown trestle begins-at.the tetra inus of Western Street,runs along the Water Street.side of
the Great Petaluma Mill and the intersection of I3.and Second Streets, and ends near the Yacht Club. F
The 90-year old structure is owned by the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit(SMART). In recent
years it has become unsafe for pedestrian use and is fenced off.
In 2002, as part ofthe River Enhancement.Project, a City consultant developed a"Preliminary
Study of the Water Street Trestle Evaluation and Replacement." The study gave 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 completed to: research the origins of the trestle, create a
chronology of railroad ownership, and perform preliminary engineering and rehabilitation cost
estimation for both pedestrian and trolley loading. Although engineering analysis for the current
project reached a different conclusion, as discussed below, the"Treatment Recommendations"
section in the 2007 report statedthat rehabilitation for pedestrians only would retain more of the
trestle's historic fabric and original'construction,but that rehabilitation to allow trolley 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.
In 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 engineering fnin.. The work
to date has comprised of a historical evaluation to determine eligibility, engineering analysis to
develop alternative project approaches, Secretary of the 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. Alternative 1 will
maintain as much of the existing structure as feasible. Alternative 3 is.a full replacement, or
reconstruction of the trestle to appear similar to the original butwith modern materials and
construction methods to provide for a longer expected life. Alternative 2 is a,compromise between
the Alternative1 and Alternative 3, and involves constructing new trestle support structure while
maintaining or reusing existing components, and allowing existing,piles to remain in place, in their
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 method of
installation,rather than impact pile driving. Additionally, any treated wood utilized in 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 rot. In Alternatives 2
Page 2 14
and 3, the wood components above the piles wouldbereplaced 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 not change 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
I
On December 14, 2011, a public nieeting was held to present the process to date, share the results of
the preliminary analysis of the trestle structure„and outline the,three 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 comments,'this alternative wonldbe 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 existing materials. 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 new 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 historical integrity.
The discussion about loss of the original materials led to a discussion 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 15
•
DESCRIPTION
The objective of this p ro j ect'and develo p mentof Alternative mativea 'Reha bilitation is to retain as
much of the original structure as possible in order to maintainthe historic integrity of the trestle and
provide a pedestrian amenity and connection for the downtown area In general, 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 few trestle 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 70% of the piles were identified as being in"fair"or
"beyond poor" condition with significant sections,loss due to microbial decay and dry rot. The
majority of the piles cannot withstand full 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, Ammoniacal
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 cycles 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 under
construction methods below),the existing component would be replicated in design, color, texture,
and where feasible, materials.
The current Alternative 1 has been modified to uniformly treat the piles to create a consistent
appearance in response to previous'concerns expressed 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 condition and 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 wrap 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 IvtIFIW and filled with grout to provide structural
integrity. If the section of the existing pile is found to be deteriorated,above MHHW, 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 impactor
vibratory hammer and'crane barge would be used to 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 for actual construction. The trestle
Page 4 16
is deteriorated,and, as time passes, the deterioration rate could increase; what,may be repairable
today would need to be replaced in a few years.
The existing trade 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
AIternative 1, the stringers and bent caps would be 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. The actual 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 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 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 something similar to maintain
consistency.
• Some members of thepublic have suggested the additionofa 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, although both desirable and feasible from 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,spaced approximately four feet
apart, and approximately four feet from the trestle 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 of fender piles is visible from across,the Turning Basin,however,
they are not required for any structural purpose. These;original piles 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 at the
time of contract award.
The project for purposes of primary study in the MND is.Altemative 1,but Alternatives 2 and 3 are
also considered for informational purposes: A CEQA initial study and Mitigated Negative
Page5 17
■
Declaration ("MND") have been prepared and published for public comment, and isdiscussed
below. Although the City Council is the decision maker.on the MND,the Committee is asked to
review it and provide any comments that relate to historical resources,
Staff will present the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee's recommendation on a specific
alternative and the MND 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 grantreqUires close-out by March 31, 2013.
Funding for construction has not been identified for this project, and the construction phase is not
included in the approved CIP budget for FY 12-13 or the CIP five-year plan. However, approval
and design of an alternative and the completion of environmental 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 west bank 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 Principles 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 alternative transportation routes
by providing a safe, efficient, and'interconnected'trail system.
The following General Plan policies are applicable to the proposed project:
1-P-44 Develop the Petaluma River as a publicly-accessible green:ribbon, fronted by streets,
paths, access points, and open spaces, byimplementing the Petaluma River Access
and Enhancement Plan within the context'ofthe PRCDesign 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 and Santa Rosa Railroad trestle.
Page 6 18
2-P-11 Encourage and support the rehabilitation and development of buildings and
structures reflective of the history of Petaluma's rich agricultural 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 re-establish 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 PETALUNIA 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 to 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 the development 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 public spaces 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 pedestrian oriented promenade around,the Turning Basin.
Historic Preservation
Goal 1 Protect, enhance, perpetuate, and adaptively reuse properties of historic and
architectural significance.
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 Downtown Area and help further
the completion of one of the five top priority trail projects.
I
Pagel 19
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 Turning Basin from the trestle.
HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES
The project is adjacent to the Downtown Commercial,Historic District. The restoration of the trestle
will provide for the continued presence of this historic element within close proximity to the
Downtown Commercial Historic District.
RIVER ACCESS AND ENHANCEMENT 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 Promote new 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 California Register,but not eligible far.the National Register. The
Standards Evaluation (Attachment 3) 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 discussion below.
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 Azle 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,RE VIEW
A CEQA initial study 'and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared consistent
with CEQA guidelines and published for public comment. Although the City Council is the
decision MND, the HCPC isaskedto review the document and provide any comments
related 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 the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report (ER). All project impacts are able to be mitigated to a level of less
than significance. Neither the City Environmental Review Guidelines nor CEQA guidelines require
that a MND will have Planning Commission or Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee
hearings when the associated project is at the discretion of the City Council. However, staff has
Page 8 20
referred the MND for the Downtown Railroad Trestle;Rehabilitation to the HCPC for their input
and recommendation on those aspects of the document that relate to-historic preservation.
All projects receiving federal funding are required;to complete review consistent with the
requirements-of National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA). Although construction:funding for the
Trestle Rehabilitation has not been identified at this time, a potential grant source could be a federal
agency and therefore, staff thought it prudent to include NEPA review requirements within the 1
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 Trestle Reconstruction. Alternative 1 is the trestle
rehabilitation project as described in the EAIIS (the Project). Alternative 2 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 in good 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 ofits.association with Petaluma's time of
great economic expansion when it was declared the"World's Egg Basket". The Trestle is a
surviving symbol of the agricultural and-commercial strength that made the city a prosperous
regional transportation center for the movement of agricultural and manufacturing goods through
Sonoma'County and the greater Bay Area. Under Criterion B, the trestle is historically significant
for its association with George P. McNear,whosefamilyhas left behind an impressive legacy of
elegant historic buildings, public-open spaces, and even the configuration of the Petaluma River
itself.
hi addition to the significance criteria required for-National Register eligibility, a property must also
maintain integrity in order to qualify for listing. There are seven qualities of integrity; location,
design, setting,materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Although all aspects of integrity
are not required for listing, a resource-must maintain a strong overall sense of integrity to qualify for
listing. The Petaluma Trestle Historic Resource Evaluation completed by Preservation Architecture
in 2011 (Attachment 3) concluded 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 integrity-and does not individually meet the criteria for'listing on the National Register.
The Trestle has.been determined eligible;-for listing on the California Register under Criterion 1 for
its association with Petaluma's time of growth as the "World's Egg Basket," under the themes of
agriculture, industry, commerce, and 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 Rosa Railroad Company and the subsequent construction of the West
Petaluma Spur and associated Trestle. The California Register does not require the same finding of
integrity as the National Register. The Trestle has been determined to retain potential to yield
Page 9 21
II
historic information and therefore maintains eligibility for individual listing onthe California
Register.
As outlined in the IS-MND the Trestle Rehabilitation Project was determined to have a less than
significant impact on the historic resource because it was designed in accordance with the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards for:Rehabilitation. More specifically,the project will result in the
property being used as it was historically,the historic character of the property will be retained and
preserved, the distinctive materials-and construction techniques that characterize 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 meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards are considered
to be mitigated to a less than significant impact on the historic resource.
Although no archaeological resources were identified within the project area, several mitigation
measures are included in the MND to cover accidental discovery of human remains, documentation
of the trestle prior to commencementbf construction, and requirement to have a qualified
archaeologist on site to monitor all grading activity.
A Standards Evaluation(Preservation Architecture 2012) (Attachment 4)was prepared to evaluate
the alternatives. Alternative 2 was found not to be consistentwith the Standard for the Treatment of
Historic Properties. Therefore, there would have been the potential-for Alternative 2 to have a
significant adverse impact on a`historic'resource. In addition,because Alternative 2 placed new
piles alongside existing piles impacts to wetlands would potentially be greater. Consequently
Alternative 2 was removed from further consideration.
The Standards Evaluation did not reach a final 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 ConceptualDesign it could not be
determined if Alternative 3 would comply with Standard 3 for Reconstruction: will theproject
include measures to preserve any remaining,historic materials, features, and spatial relationships. It
was outside the scope of the Draft Conceptual Design report to identify the outcome of any
remaining historic materials after dismantling of the Trestle. Therefore, Alternative 3 is considered
to have a greater impact on historic resources than the Project(Alternativel).
The No Action Alternative would have none of the environmental impacts described in the analysis,
but also would not fulfill the objectives in the Purpose and Need Statement which is to rehabilitate
the Trestle for its historic and riverfront use in accordance with the City of Petaluma General Plan
2025 and other City adopted planning documents.
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.
Page 10 22
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Draft Resolution
Attachment 2: Trestle Rehabilitation Project Environmental Assessment and Initial Study /
.Proposed MitigatedNegative Declaration May 2012
Attachment 3: Historic Resource Evaluation by Preservation Architecture, October 7, 2011
Attachment 4: Standards Evaluation by Preservation Architecture, April 19, 2012
Attachment 5: Trestle Existing Pile Bent Elevation
Page 11 23
Attachment 5
RESOLUTION NO: 2012-03
CITY OF 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 Petaluma, is currently in poor condition and fenced off from public use; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma is desirous to complete a project io 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 for planning, design and environmental clearance for the
Downtown Railroad Trestle 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; and;
WHEREAS, city 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 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 (WIND) was prepared pursuant to
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and,
24
HCPC Resolution'•o.2012-03 Page 1
WHEREAS, notice of the City's intention to adopt an MND and of the availability of the MND fora
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.
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 Declaratioh.tor the Project.
ADOPTED this 26th day of June, 2012,by the following vote:
Committee Member s —Aye No Absent: Abstain'`
Abercrombie X
Elias X
Herries X
Chair Johansen - X •
Kearney X
Vice Chair Pierre X
Wolpert X
Kosewic X
Noriet X
Curtis Johar•', Chair
25
HCPC Resolution No. 2012-03 Page 2
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Heather
H f-s, Commitie= Secretary Leslie Thomsen, Assistant City Attorney
•
r
26
HCPC Resolution No.2012-03 Page 3
-t 4•P 4 . r ,. . I +rta 1
�Sy -�'. - `y`—._1 h1 N UJi 3 . ,
C Via'�� -4' ,'� .71 j �g. co' _3. _
4-0 i ', -l.. ,.. ,r .. i_ , r.;�4 sh�® „zf t, .y. "T -. -"c am T F xY.
® '4a 't as di r ... _. mss
ID j t i r -: le; t yip T - ',i ,ay -� 'dY
1 y1 "'v- I� e .> i 1 .4- r., , s v� .r.
�^
C '- • r4, I; _I'�S � •�� 1 -.� t
a '.h -z,:-c--' •� t,1�;R--: 1 " 'v— ia. V{ 4u¢i � -.J
ri. 4 ,irs .1-_ --: .'T
J W. h �'
j
a) 2 -- l Ip ice F4•t
(n > w 1 pia. '
r i
C - - L'e of l
C r 5.::� 1 -,ae1 /wer r
e--'�C�'mow^°' 1 'r'"f•"'_°" "^q : 5 r�`'Rf!
® s1Yr �g'� RryFrtz �i r`e�ir • ; .�
sen! �,
u
9 I ct• -r -'-�' "
, � dG
y.dM` a .
®
CO
E
CO per, }� ,, r
" x
CCD Alla
�I� r
I••L �1 ,
-�� its - a
f -. 4, 7�n y , rys a n 'I
1 r" ti,#, • , •1.. •r try.
{fCti yj� I1� a !.y 1S Q jj J `}
K #�t ,,,, } r + r t ' `t-1 `'p 'al f. ,t-• .:' ,i .t :ft fir] -:�.
v Wit. .41!4k.- , - .-1v. . - ' 1'�' [k) y e, ..NIA i i l ". t l .- -',t 1 }
b y iii •"•;,,..f. :
-ryr ', , � b��t 9ilFCil : . '3;17' i �r! . t ,.:- •�1 1 1 ,
.,`4 5 1'}}� iy L.4 ` s'�i, ,, `+, �r'4, v r}�Yµ 1Y w ; z"�.�t + .(: i':
, 1 .` T.1� jrt'4jti T.94j '� ;i:( ;, ; �1';�,F;0),f iIl ,'�,�'( l ' y ' f J ' 1
{ r , ', ' ' 1I 7f k ':
r -.,,t� s Y i1` i.,t^ ] ; .1:11'� ai ' fir "�cc
I' l r�c; ?•i 4t: 1 t 11 S),, 4
t lt�tr. '�P}. k it ✓N' ' t! n : '' .Q '-`� ,i 1 0 !. tl ._
f,�d
t is 3{ � t , J . i a' II ^
p¢ r
• - 1 -7c.:Lkv A 1 iI 3,1').
' �� ',,1
q � �
x l '�f' r 'yY , , 'I a��V t 41 .l ri' "�)"'w'a
'- w
' �, � : -� ;',[y� 1 .; : , ' , ,•
ate ' r.
- � �
7v' � I < 'L r"r - .2' °- , t I 1 'e i� F �F f iQ: . �'t �k?t � l+W ls i. , p%.‘ it r t1 f- I pyv r ,�
�
� m1 il y7 t �r '9 h 16 4 \ y', t ' k. ,
I
I.11" ' ] I S �' ' I 't \ I R "-'\y( l ff l } 14", 11 �L M1- l:?" A ! li rL y L. r r. x•' d . k y4 ',� . 2,.. " , � , .
,tart' il 3 `' 1t,'�� I:4. n '� `.
- C s .: ,1 .1t °r- 1t t L `i'74:,'-=°t_ p:k' ••'.r,n�
,t ' r ,':.. . , F
tqt•'I,y,,j ? JeI]Cr\ qty .a;�pp� .7 (� kt.. r` - ...._:
1s fit.
1)� t'7.:1R4.,•-?..41`;'
a O aO
C
C Q <
CD', rQ
N .Q Q.•U w m.
or U - � < or z < w to
w
Z z •U G Si C -1 D W 2 Q
C:. Q ly C Li
'r WO w z:p: g KmN
co _ a w
F-
cn
? o Z > O.L - —0 w -.00
.7 t -s w _ 0 0 C �..w - y 1-
b0 i�. - w H w I-
xw co et2 O.0 cn < N O
G C p Q K ; �. LL r be O V- W Z
-J
n 1 �w v z �� a 2 Z
Li 0 l l
Er ILI 111 EL
l w3
1 \ 11 t \ a Q
�!" �\ ,,� \\ \ \ . r`. >
1
\
w C \ \ o J
z - \ ` W:
\ \ \ 1 i a
m 1 F / �::j) I_ __I W
LU
u_,. <-->r5. A\— 0
\ / Z
// 1:1/4 ;IS'
LU CY ) .."-H*. I / L
m
f V_ LL Le
d' J- .. / 0. i� 1-
i —
.Ns •
I!- -si 1,.7.-"'
e� t °J. - -, H. r,.t; i, ac k r J h"."..:."/"'`r Y t 'L.' i. �V ar 1 4'''''r0 , i .4
i
r w 4 , �
P n tl,�' ' ?„!
i j( � to ▪r 4x 4 I• a „ >
T t ' .
n`; ' -• ;'
J1 w
- r,4- .,:c�,• i .a,. %i „ " L r rf• H i_� a
il
4 it K' t *ty i - C•LJ, +ti,t 'yh:
4.;,,..,-, ! t .� Jr ,� , 1f/r
I.w 1 �; ----- VyIh- 1 .fyl , 0 It _
w t , ��) Il x ,M t i',ii /f:�j"''+(� {'�p4} y t•' , '1)1 )tip-F1 ;: .c �i, ;f!. F ri. I' 1
fir - t
- F �-;1' r i _ .3y ,�C• v r fir- r*. .
` k ab.>.. s t!-- iT' ♦ . Y
1 ata leb1r , 71- ; rT k'ilsr, -•__ {mr r - '"tia
IL � M .14% xda (;ia nsX{__ _�F r �"
5 S is Ai r
- 1 '-tS ''F 4r x' -1 - --
- 4 1. ti � r-.
t " n ,• -t5 r 1, �au1^ '
4 ._i - - 4 i
t4 ,..it.:, .,,,i •,,,:,:i.
1....-E,T% -4#--"-` 5. -; -,-Vti,;.: ja. �_' b "1
•
f x
,fi r;^ 7 L i '',.".'"t•-__,': i its': b J°y LE, i lM j �IJ $...).2r
11 l t ty I \ r 44.1 ( �.
��. •♦ F p 4 '� ' £ ` ,, 31 II 1 j LS.r] • . Y Y
1 'M 'C4 ,f n� 1 i -�. ,..T, rf .1!:-.2t. yl z
7 .�y �. � J � i1 r tit!VC, -}4i. �' r k lick qh„ t s•
IC 4i � b * �� r `� {- 'r� `r��,pY.� .�a � fl" .{• �Sii+' L'F '`.f r
-_ `--L •'G _._ I' .-�faT/' 'q -` 'I r�` ,1 C45.t - -sue �U5''7 x:i•t ♦-r.54 ', i^
. '1'}K ♦S,'y '1�.po _,
�; _ • t �'S .. a -r ,y 11 'r' r,� �yr tm .1 c
=yc5 e s std
I 11 r ra `r1 A� .�,�, i i.-- S y .:,...::::),_.:-4-',.4-#.-,, �c
a 14^ r v'• vi ^ -4•L - s _ 4 9 a Z
,...;:slit yy i' \�il" - . w =.. '-^' `� -.%3I ,„:,,..r:-,-.,.....r..i:"'' ' ii-r"� : : r� 'l.
t 1 tl
•4fV `{• r1 A r f 44, 11 q� l y Y,y i Sg 7 I r..* 1Y's .b1. -4'
-1 �1 - � _ . b ra ,
q yy Y �► , 1 Fil• 1' Iy��� I .i ye).{. i-ys,, r - -;'1 �p - 4. � 3r 31..1�'-
r vt,- FYI 1 'I .. I •r V 1 a : '111r-:.'. 1.1 , r -.▪ i.
K �y •����,�.�( x 4 1T,,', �r �' 4 ■"�' rye-t-'7,4--,', � A p„ .� � ,i''‘',•�
Ny4x1� 4. .. E i ♦ J • L
.. tie 1. t� -”214.ti. Y,i..�. .• 1: ... _l�i��,.-s-:' S, i:,� 1 . '�k
ra- r SAf lire ss.� • '▪- : c yy
'�, '•S J I � _. In 0 1 7 , S: .- 4+,t iYL,-..-ii,:.;: .._,.;','.
y�l S 91
1•_•
, c
t ,` .
{
i 1
c 1
s N h
H
fl P
F " r c �
�st , `"t
_ t
_..
r_ „P104- k
j
rte, .w
/ill `fs, -,,, -3 , T '.
�� ��
'�i
Y I�
` r - `' d -
L
1 � 't tatt !•
y` r'ff s 1;
i M ' l3 4 l .� Y 1 yg °v �1, `�
F d ' uy
)
E P
r r r�
, lh 3 �i
t �
. .Tri .: ,,, ,i, df,_ir il. ma , am �2
"4. .t t 13 a h( ` dy
�! ` 1� � = „k f .,, -,_j
rt' M 5 .a '17'
tr
, .
y e — e
'Y w gr.fkti a - rig 1 !,!. t .•✓`� `w-v i 3- .mot i fa AA.* d t f -1 , 11`� 1 r1 a t Y2 ' i, , .)
I 1 m;'A"`w ° lea_ T , �-{s [ f, i.-J i n.r.l 41
a Mty,-1 F tiGnr ,�(fit,
_ (, t 9 •v G�k L1 �4 Y1� ,Ailr, ..,,..-,.L l I d i ��
p -_ t ). yy 4.�1 r i . a -` i?
S S.wt VT �l ,3 , . • 1 l 5
F? -, . 1 "Y L' st; ' r 1 w..wr.w'�R rrn ��t
'fir NK H 4 Hr ! _ :
A„.
77
fff JJJ -C - s,. a y c-4,
i',rs 11' 1, 1
(I x .sy3A aio. i
- ' f� i YID � 'SI ! �� 11 I
E•
rte ' i�1.f' '>i
� 1'G
Ca �t ins 4- .•
-r.-5 n' �'L9 hr L. a. ` ' rte fl, ra� , yy a'\ .l �j
fie - A*- I_ .. 7 1 .L,�
} a
.u...–.-11..
y
t .. ♦ i s :,' -v }q
�' �-- ' n2, _.
�L . " r r- . l-(' r . y f.{;•
{ ;t w rf T'� `'- .�.� k�y`'N., 'F'y k.'14 ` x? f n 647 -� s•
F,
'L2riy'...' i;.a_.rs 14r r. _ nxx��ss �
�t, x• �, �1 i�l "•,.."
^!t ` {� • :1 {j�' ? F t. Ur t_ J J .
:....1:1:4:7
i .. ^i•
�J A' r t , .f',14 ^i4',T.. • , 11„_�,.
1! L L: F ka'l �Y F , t Vf lT I ` W:
f • T t 1
/ x.
t F '
7 ]�yr
m. ,
!L :r J -1 .-a
� T'x P r
� x �
.. a 1. .:d+;='.•�q" '-a 41 ',-
rat' Y .'6
/T•' --C, �t�i ` p. }fey. k '-J Y 1
'1 �y r
� N � •_a, � ..4
e
E _., .: 4 1- r ' i r 4,__ . .--, J -C:a.,,,,,ii
Q
�W 1 f,� -,f IrS,. `1 - Le j d
1
r�S Iljj I S'
r r r.
ill
Y9 PP i '�di
= f c Yt �.
P ",ire iph.}I r �
'7.1t>._
II ® p v._ S S.y� : r }�t� 7'I':,'+GI & 5 dr"rs'-'yy.
xra 6'..._F.
® - J. , 49. f a3 — thd f
�� I
. • a.
II
='cam e ,t ,' ,c _',•
1.41L• z ` •• v*+. 7 - i; '•.?t • x
' 3 ! ' I.Fe vii;:Y.;; y.. ., 7, A� f ! ,rr‘r
a`di.•,fir V a r L ,
I .
.., ,,, ;
t Y ''4^:[ , j )ry A- c+... ,=r ; I I `4
-_ _
w I
z
m s
z, k-
E c _T ig
Z K
0 -
NOI1VA313 g
L., e
I I s
w
z e4 w � wlr u o
¢�" Ic c wn 8
4
iu Li al ii: s
.� o al Ia ew z; .za k' c Iw
`i 6� i ,ea "52V'w gsx re ono ld sre f ¢ E
1 ' u riww mz no zlwjo 0 'w
% ' I- in o
r ¢'' N ~ xw 13 O,N-� rc
V'- N�w � o`N O IN a f
w5 NN 1\ HI 1 If I � ! 4 I I I IliF
,... u.? i, ..., ii , . , „ , ,,,,, ,1 , ...,,c_
€ u
I Iw .. tv Ia°
m u 3 L �®A� wp F
�5. , `�I (y I` I J n g O
z I
w °o w'� a �.= 1 n '�`�_j LLI 1Ow''a
LI`L I ®L illIa I I I I ,'°
1. w '
=w w
n• f 9 w ,C wl is
Th. q ►j®®®`� I 14 I_ I I I 6
4 u ws , ■ I I j I 17 Q—°71 4
J 90
y'- �Ji 1 Q%' i LJ ,
NL ; 0
"' nzg - poi I / I ! @ .
�¢ Z,Q / ' Y � ° 2
2sg zae
I p, I
tt ®,
�uw I
1 I II 1=rn °- gg
x
w
! i' I I I ;
a -, a
NOIIVA3 -
31
k
i
k
_ _ r II r .LVY . } w .
_ ' T!tl- ilk:i} -f P ,n '– !� � ..�^q:,n
,:c,.',-,.; _.�_'1 �1 i.y �°" �'r dip . g _
: { f � �E� > r t { 1411
, , 1...
a
r:
I r- —
�� jay, �Y �I a �' . µ kls � IPA
' ;i�. .'I. .'- LLB' ! ' . �rytf
‘,C _ I,fJ 4 .f,1 p yrr} a ,y, ,7. f. •1 �.
S\ 1 r 47-1,-:- T�A 1f
1I
lei— tl
{. ',' =_nJ.� .. ` .-:r • 1.a.- �_ _ .-ill. t..
. � � H j
� i F p ' f 1
lr:: ��r
y Z L S
- i s riJ C.
rS; f F - d! 1 `�/ x_52
k 4 ittt r - •
IL t zf -I iI b 'tir �Y" -
� z
�� _mo
‘,',,,-,-7-#7,c.-x 07 Jl Y � m
7 k (]I IA A it - 4•I�AV� ' • �P �
sM iC .18 q-I (' ' i1 f ikl ,,.. Pp* -
]_ [F iTT
c 1i ! _ref Qd f
�a , y 1,
��: G �,-I fIL F4
tJ i ;
_�� W
a s �' � '
kr
i a N fli' .i r ` J" irJ n
,•'� 1.,-i,7-1-4.1 F
�t• 1 I y �f,1 E • �' �7.
I •. a • �, i o F
iI 1iper f i I 1 k +.,
- OFF- .z ' I ,. L
s z
7
_ J1"• T g
,7`tt r t41,--7:, j .r�' t t � )
1 " I' P-+4' �—, �c s i
- -.. tY r 6 ' J °^i° F�uj._: hies • +C i,r ° J
'1��. mss k'T ""• F \1 ,- r '/ .
~ +�
i� b II K :_ii It i ., ,� �r ._ .',1 l r.
c • ■ '`'^k'�` .'- r 11 ,`rv'r"I"y'YM 2, -.„,...---„:j'� ' . y, a t '1S p'$
14 l ( r
r r � ..
1
Cam"_ S I -2,;'-'7"-'71 :\,,,,,',1,R,:. sit
(r- �.7, j) �r' l'-',4?
.-_� _`I ,L+ ' 9 _.p fir ' _ 2-: 7..4/,,•. 11 ,, ,
-T_ T IJ✓ v r E`1 �- �,.�Yk 1Y'r r_� 'rrtHl t`yr-; is,•
�I • : .7u y, 21 t t' I ' .. .
I 4..
II
(I TY"
T t` .l-z.:.: )I L 1 ham - r ' t � r , _
r > 1 � n rte � _�I � I ,)�
, r -_ i -4;i n J-rZ i w� t7 , d r
✓ �Y� r It✓1�n))� �fr A A k f Ik YV s 4�.- pt r I
1 .. r inn f_ b ;� hi,;' .
L.,-,•-,, �N r .1 .
1 , \. -' 1� r °l
; 4
t �I f Z uts,
J �
1
,
r } ', . i'
' "
Q 11 l • 7L ,.:7 Z :Fir _ -
-TT?,L.. ; c. - k
r fl ,
5,`''G1i ,t 't. mss,yF_ .,+ .
a