::: COMMUNITY NEWS

CSD approves bridge project, sends it to next step

First published Wednesday, January 5, 2005
Expanded Sunday, January 9, 2005

The pedestrian bridge proposed to connect North and South cleared a major hurdle Tuesday when the Community Services District board of directors exercised its authority as the lead agency for the project and approved a resolution adopting the environmental document for the project.

The unanimous vote came after presentations by the district's consultant, who prepared the initial study and the proposed mitigated negative declaration, and the district's legal counsel. The board's approval means the project can now move to the next phase, obtaining permits from government agencies with jurisdiction over the project.

The bridge is scheduled to be built by the end of the year.

At the special hour-long board meeting, CSD General Manager Ed Crouse reviewed the 14-year history of the county requirement for the river crossing and unsuccessful attempts to satisfy it by using the Yellow Bridge or a low-flow crossing situated below Granlees Dam.

The South developer was required to have the crossing in place before the 601st building permit could be issued. When South developer Reynen & Bardis reached that threshold in 2003, the county imposed a building moratorium. To resolve the impasse and continue development on the South, Reynen & Bardis entered into an agreement with the county and the Rancho Murieta Association that obligated the developer to provide $1.5 million in funding for a pedestrian bridge to link North and South.

The bridge is a project of the Parks Committee and will belong to the Rancho Murieta Association when it is completed.

In 2004, the Parks Committee entered into a design/build contract with Viking Construction to construct the bridge.

The proposed bridge has three spans and is made of treated timber trusses supported by concrete piers and concrete abutments. The structure of the bridge is described by the manufacturer of the trusses as virtually maintenance-free. At 12 feet wide, the bridge satisfies the crossing requirement by accommodating bikes, pedestrians and golf carts.

The CSD took on the role of lead agency for the project last summer. The role required the district to prepare and accept an environmental document that complies with the California Environmental Quality Act.

The document was prepared by consultant EIP Associates and made available for a 30-day public comment period, which ran from Nov. 2 to Dec. 2.

At Tuesday's meeting, Rick Hanson, senior project manager for EIP, explained the parts of the study -- an introduction that summarizes the history of the project, a project description that includes its location, details of construction, and a list of permits that are likely to be required to implement it, and the environmental review checklist.

Hanson described the checklist as the "meat" of the study. It sets forth the environmental factors that could be affected by the project, and requires a determination of what impact the project will have on these factors. The impacts are evaluated with designations ranging from "potentially significant impact" to "no impact."

"Based on the results of the environmental review, a mitigated negative declaration is indeed appropriate to meet CEQA requirements," Hanson told the board. Mitigation measures proposed in the initial study would reduce potential impacts to "a less than significant level and support the declaration of negative impact," he said.

A mitigated negative declaration means an initial study has determined the project will have no significant environmental impact because the project has been revised or mitigation steps will be taken to address any problems.

Consultant Rick Hanson addressed issues raised in public comments.

The RMA board and the Parks Committee previously accepted and agreed to carry out the mitigation measures identified in the study. These commitments were part of a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan included in the CSD resolution to adopt the mitigated negative declaration.

Hanson pointed out that some revisions were made to the project description as a result of comments made during the comment period, but none of the revisions altered the mitigated negative declaration. The letters that were received during the comment period and the responses prepared by EIP were included in the meeting packet for the resolution.

Because there had been no time for a written response, Hanson addressed several comments made in a letter from resident Brad Sample that EIP received the day before the meeting, about a month after the close of the 30-day comment period. Hanson said most of Sample's comments had been addressed in responses to other letters, although he commented on several issues Sample raised.

He responded to Sample's comment that the initial study was inadequate because it didn't address alternatives to the proposed project. Hanson said an analysis of alternatives wasn't required since "the purpose of alternatives is to reduce the potential impacts of the proposed project. … Because the initial study supports a mitigated negative declaration, there are no identified significant impacts."

It was Sample's comment about the environmental effects of the preservative-treated wood bridge structure that drew questions from board members. The laminated wood trusses form the upper structure of the bridge and are supported by two concrete piers situated in the river channel, and concrete abutments on the river banks. Hanson said the trusses are pressure-treated with oil-based wood preservative during manufacture and pre-cut and pre-drilled for assembly at the bridge site. Once assembled, they would be lifted into place by crane.

Hanson emphasized that the trusses are maintenance-free. Since the wood won't be painted, it won't be subject to the type of maintenance required by the Yellow Bridge, which was sandblasted and repainted in 2000. Director Dick Taylor noted that the proposed bridge sits high above the river and the wood won't be in contact with the water. Hanson said the wood was not evaluated for leaching.

The consultant also discussed Sample's concern about the potential need for levee modifications. Hanson referred to a mitigation measure in the initial study that states levees will be enhanced if detailed analysis indicates "potentially significant flood impacts due to the proposed project." No significant impacts are indicated in the document.

According to the study, flood flows "should be adequately retained" after the bridge is built, but "discontinuities, breaches, and non-uniform levee elevations could result in inadequate performance and potential flooding. These can be mitigated through enhancing the levee structures where necessary."

This section of the environmental checklist states that the bridge structure "is designed to minimize flood risk potential" and will not increase storm water run-off or exceed drainage system capacities. Also, the bridge is not considered to be located within an area subject to dam failure, tsunamis, or mud slides.

"We don't anticipate that there will be a significant impact," said Hanson, although he termed the data this hydrologic analysis is based on "a little rough."

Jim Foster, senior engineer with Quincy Engineering Inc., characterized the analysis in the environment document as preliminary and said he expects a final study "will verify the findings of the preliminary analysis." He expects the report to be available "in the very near future."

Quincy Engineering provides engineering services to Viking Construction. The firm supplied the studies on which the environmental document is based, although EIP acted independently to produce the environmental document and propose the mitigated negative declaration.

Foster said the final analysis is based on a modeling of the bridge system done to the same standards as Caltrans bridge projects. "This is the typical process we follow for the development of a bridge," he said.

Hanson said comments received from state agencies focused on permitting requirements for the bridge, although Caltrans expressed support for the project. The project should help to keep pedestrians off Highway 16 and might reduce the number of car trips between North and South.

The agencies and residents who made written comments about the project were not represented at the meeting and no members of the public spoke. RMA General Manager Greg Vorster and RMA President Paul Gumbinger were among about a half-dozen people who attended the meeting.

After adopting the mitigated negative declaration, the CSD board approved three other resolutions related to the bridge project.

The first two reflected changes in the parks master plan and park development agreements brought about by the bridge project.

The board approved changing Exhibit E of the Parks Agreement to combine the Yellow Bridge and Granlees Dam river crossings into one river crossing located at a mid-point between the two.

The board also approved modifying the trail system to accommodate access to the bridge.

A third resolution approved the use of the levees encumbered by district levee easements for use as a community trail.