City ‘neutral’ in bridge debate

Healdsburg city officials repeatedly declared their “neutrality”
over the issue of whether to repair or replace the 89-year-old
Memorial Bridge Wednesday night in front of a room full of vocal
partisan supporters who want to save the old bridge for historical
and sentimental reasons.
The session held at City Hall was the third in a recent series
of consultant-led open houses, workshops and public hearings on an
ongoing engineering, environmental and cost analysis. The study was
triggered by a recent Caltrans demand for the city to update
findings over the steel truss bridge’s structural integrity,
seismic fitness and overall safety ratings.
Based on the outcome of several engineering calculations — due
in a few weeks — the city-owned bridge may be eligible for either
renovation or replacement grants, or both.
The city acquired the bridge in 1980 from the county when it
annexed adjacent land. Since then, minor seismic repairs have been
made and slower speed and lower weight limits have been imposed on
traffic. Partial studies have been completed over time about the
health and fate of the bridge.
Then, two years ago, Caltrans told the city it would not be
eligible for the California Highway Bridge Program where any bridge
replacement or repair project could win as much as 82 percent state
funding without a more complete study.
Preliminary Caltrans’ estimates say it would cost about $9
million to renovate the old bridge and as much as $23 – $43 million
to build a new one.
Older Caltrans engineering studies once rated the bridge as
“failing” with a “zero” weight capacity. Healdsburg resident Mel
Amato, a leader in the effort to “Save Our Bridge,”  proved the
Caltrans calculations to be wrong and the bridge is now rated close
or just above a rating that would support a major renovation.
The early Caltrans miscalculations and the current study that
includes several replacement options have raised the suspicions of
many citizens that city officials are scheming to tear the old
bridge down.
“I can tell you we have no pre-conceived opinion on any option
that is being considered,” Mayor Jim Wood told the crowd of about
40 bridge supporters on Wednesday. “We are neutral. No alternative
has been selected or favored.”
Wood told the audience the city is undergoing the full-blown,
all-option study in an attempt to “maximize” state funding for
whatever eventual project might be pursued for the busy Russian
River crossing at Memorial Beach.
Only Wood and Council member Tom Chambers attended the Wednesday
session, led by city staff and the consultant team from Omni Means
Ltd.
The City Council is anticipating making a formal “preferred
concept” choice in August which would be followed by months of
Environmental Impact Report reviews and hearings before a Final
Project could be approved in early 2011.
Public Works Director Mike Kirn said a “do nothing” option is
not likely, even though EIR rules require it be considered as a
future option. On Wednesday he confirmed that the current bridge
built in 1921 must either be rehabilitated or replaced, due to
safety, structural and seismic concerns.
If the city does not complete the current study process or fails
to identify a project to improve the public safety for a river
crossing — old or new — it could lose all future state funds and
could be forced to go it alone, Kirn confirmed on Wednesday.
Over a dozen options to save, retrofit or replace the bridge
were sketched out during two recent “open house” sessions. Some of
these included making the old bridge pedestrian-use only or
converting it to one-way only or single-lane with traffic signals
at each end.
Other citizen recommendations favored total replacement with a
new, wider bridge on the same alignment or on new right-of-ways
either just up or down river.
The Omni Means consultants presented all 13 options without pro
or con comments or findings on Wednesday.
But there was unanimous support from the audience to only favor
the options that included saving the old bridge.
“I can’t understand why we’re talking about this,” said one
citizen who identified himself as a ‘member of the silent
majority’. “The bridge is functional. We don’t need a new
bridge.”
Another man, calling himself a ‘young, old fart,’ said “this is
a waste of time and money. I understand you (the city) must jump
through all these hoops but let’s just fix it.”
Healdsburg Museum worker Holly Hoods said she drives over the
old bridge every day on her way to the museum. “Let’s preserve and
appreciate what we have,” she said in support of renovating the old
bridge.
Amato, a retired electrical engineer, came prepared with his
latest set of calculations that he said will support a positive
rating to make the old bridge fully eligible for government
replacement funds.
The current bridge’s width does not meet more modern safety
standards and a retrofit project might include widening the traffic
lanes. Currently, the bridge has pedestrian sidewalks on each side.
A retrofit project would also include seismic improvements and
probably riverbed peer replacements or stabilization.
Healdsburg resident Poss Pragoff wanted the mayor and council to
pass a resolution officially declaring their neutrality, but was
told he would need to attend a regular council meeting with a
quorum of the council in attendance.
“There’s a perception” the council and city staff is biased in
favor of a new bridge, Pragoff alleged. “Perceptions can become
truths,” he warned.
In response Mayor Wood reaffirmed his neutrality for the third
time in the evening. “I’m pretty sure none of the council members
have any biases, either,” he also said.
Other citizens favored “preserving the scenic byway,” making the
old bridge safer, studying a “sister span” to the adjacent railroad
bridge and adding a plaque on the underside of the old bridge in
tribute to Mel Amato.
Richard Burg asked, “should the (old) bridge be made safer or is
it safe enough?”
Ray Holley favored rehabilitating the old bridge “in place” and
officially renaming it “Memorial Bridge” while completing a master
plan for the surrounding area.