Caltrans will likely unveil final plans to replace the Green Bridge in Point Reyes Station this summer, despite the ongoing call from many community members for the agency to reconsider the project, some of whom are preparing to sue. A draft environmental impact report released last spring outlined several replacement options for the 90-year-old bridge, which engineers determined in 2015 does not meet modern standards for earthquake resistance.
At that time, residents questioned why Caltrans had not provided a retrofit option, which many thought would be less impactful to the community. But the agency’s engineers defended the need for a replacement, arguing that a retrofit would be just as time consuming, create more environmental impacts and, ultimately, result in a less safe structure.
During a comment period for the draft impact report that closed last summer, many continued to urge the agency to explore a retrofit and even to withdraw the project altogether. In December, the Point Reyes Station Village Association sent a letter to Caltrans that demanded to know how the agency planned to incorporate the feedback. The letter, sent six months after Caltrans held its last public meeting, cited the agency’s lack of communication and requested an update on the planning process.
“In the light of [the] overwhelming opposition to Caltrans’ proposal, we are very concerned about Caltrans’ silence,” the association’s letter stated. “We fear that one of these days Caltrans will simply issue a final decision without any further dialogue with the community and without any advance notice, and that such decision will be to implement the D.E.I.R. proposal (or one of the other tear-down-and-replace options) despite the community’s opposition to it.”
On behalf of concerned residents, Assemblyman Marc Levine’s staff intervened to ask Caltrans to address the concerns.
This month, Caltrans finally answered the village association’s letter with arguments that were echoed in a newsletter sent to local residents. Caltrans explained that it plans to respond to comments and to revise the design alternatives in the final environmental impact report, which will likely come out this summer.
The newsletter highlighted common themes from comments, including concerns that a retrofit was not one of the proposed alternatives, along with support for a no-build alternative and a preference to consolidate staging and protect the Point Reyes Animal Hospital, whose parking lot was originally designated as a key site for construction staging.
The newsletter also said many commentators had asked to minimize the duration of construction and impact to the tourist season, and to maintain road accessibility in order not to exacerbate traffic. Many comments also expressed the feeling that the “proposed bridge alternatives are out of the scale with the community setting.”
The newsletter addressed some of these concerns, assuring that Caltrans could get the job done in a year rather than the original three years, and had reduced the project area.
Temporary construction will still take place in front of and within a strip of the animal hospital’s parking lot, though the owners say even that will prevent the use of their septic system.
The newsletter also explicitly shot down the retrofit, which it stated “would far exceed the duration of construction, environmental impacts, and risks [unforeseen] construction difficulties when compared to the accelerating bridge construction alternatives.”
It also rejected the idea of implementing an earthquake ShakeAlert system, another idea put forth by community members including Inverness resident Bob Johnston, a former University of California, Davis, professor who specialized in the California Environmental Quality Act.
Mr. Johnston is spearheading a community group—dubbed the Friends of the Green Bridge—that is preparing to file a lawsuit once Caltrans releases the final environmental report. A 30-day window following the release is the only opportunity for residents to intervene legally before the plans move forward.
The basis of that suit will likely be that Caltrans violated CEQA by not adequately evaluating a full range of the alternatives, especially the retrofit, Mr. Johnston explained. “We believe that the analysis showing that they can’t retrofit the bridge is not true at the technical level,” he said. “Caltrans never seriously considered a retrofit, has changed their reasons over time why it isn’t possible, and may have even set up the bridge to look worse than it really is by not painting it for the last 15 years to support a replacement.”
At stake, Mr. Johnston said, is that all the proposed designs are for a larger bridge, which can lead to more traffic and more development in the area.
By law, Caltrans’s final environmental impact report cannot present alternatives that were not included in the draft, though it can make alterations to those options. The final report will also indicate the agency’s recommended alternative.
Mary and Dave Whitney, owners of the Point Reyes Animal Hospital, have joined Mr. Johnston’s efforts, and claim that their livelihood is threatened by the plans.
Though he is not part of the group that intends to sue, David Moser, who owns property near the bridge and has advocated for a retrofit throughout the planning process, has recently filed a Public Records Act request with Caltrans for any documents related to the project since the comment period ended last June.
“What have they been doing for the last year?” Mr. Moser asked. “I think they had a predetermined conclusion to demolish and replace the bridge… But after the public comment period wrapped up last year, they had a lot of work to do to evaluate those comments and I want to find out, through the information that they don’t put on the website, what they have been working on.”
In the coming months, Caltrans must receive a biological opinion from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, after which it will determine whether its environmental assessment provides sufficient evidence for a finding of no significant impact, or FONSI, or whether it must prepare a more in-depth impact statement to comply with CEQA.