Agenda packet, regular meeting — Ukiah City Council, July 17, 2024 (part 2 of 10)

5 of 12
14) Acknowledgement by Owner of Receipt of Notice to Owner. You acknowledge that you have received a copy of the “Notice to Owner” (attached) as specified by Section 7081.5 of the California Business and Professions Code. 15) Arbitration of Disputes. Contractor and the Owner agree that any and all disputes, claims or controversies arising out of or relating to this contract that are not resolved by their mutual agreement, or within the jurisdictional limits of the small claims court, or enforcement of any mechanics lien, shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration before JAMS/ENDISPUTE, or its successor, pursuant to the United States Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Sec. 1 et seq. Either the Owner or Contractor may commence the arbitration process called for in this contract by filing a written demand for arbitration with JAMS/ENDISPUTE, with a copy to the other party. The arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the provisions of JAMS/ENDISPUTE’s Arbitration Rules (“Arbitration Rules”) in effect at the time of filing of the demand for arbitration, and California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1282 et seq. (the “Code”), as amended. Specifically, the rights of discovery shall be governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1283.05. To the extent there exists an inconsistency between the Arbitration Rules and the Code, the Code shall apply. Contractor and the Owner will cooperate with JAMS/ENDISPUTE and with one another in selecting an arbitrator from JAMS/ENDISPUTE’s panel of neutrals, and in scheduling the arbitration proceedings. Contractor and the Owner covenant that they shall participate in the arbitration in good faith, and that they shall share equally in its costs. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary provided in the Arbitration Rules, the arbitrator shall issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law, in accordance with California law. The provisions of this Paragraph may be enforced by any Court of competent jurisdiction, and the party seeking enforcement shall be entitled to an award of all costs, fees, and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, to be paid by the party against whom enforcement is ordered.

Page 267 of 1534 ends

6 of 12

ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES
"NOTICE: BY INITIALING IN THE SPACE BELOW YOU ARE AGREEING TO HAVE ANY DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF THE MATTERS INCLUDED IN THE ‘ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES' PROVISION DECIDED BY

NEUTRAL ARBITRATION AS PROVIDED BY CALIFORNIA LAW AND YOU ARE GIVING UP ANY RIGHTS YOU MIGHT POSSESS TO HAVE THE DISPUTE LITIGATED IN A COURT OR JURY TRIAL. BY INITIALING IN THE

SPACE BELOW YOU ARE GIVING UP YOUR JUDICIAL RIGHTS TO DISCOVERY AND APPEAL, UNLESS THOSE RIGHTS ARE SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED IN THE ‘ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES' PROVISION. IF YOU

REFUSE TO SUBMIT TO ARBITRATION AFTER AGREEING TO THIS PROVISION, YOU MAY BE COMPELLED

TO ARBITRATE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE OR OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS. YOUR AGREEMENT TO THIS ARBITRATION PROVISION ISVOLUNTARY.
"WE HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE FOREGOING AND AGREE TO SUBMIT DISPUTES ARISING OUT OFTHE MATTERS INCLUDED IN THE ‘ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES' PROVISION TO NEUTRAL ARBITRATION."
Contractor Initial: Owner Initial:

Weeks Drilling and Pump Co.: Owner:

By: By:

Date: Date:

Mailing Address:

Phone:

Home:

Cell:

Work:

Fax:
"You, the buyer, may cancel this transaction at any time prior to midnight of the third business day after the date of this transaction. See the attached Notice of Cancellation form for an explanation of this right."

Page 268 of 1534 ends

7 of 12

NOTICE TO OWNER
"Under the California Mechanics' Lien Law, any contractor, subcontractor, laborer, supplier, or other person or entity who helps to improve your property, but is not paid for his or her work or supplies, has a right to place a lien on your home, land, or property where the work was performed and to sue you in court to obtain payment. This means that after a court hearing, your home, land, and property could be sold by a court officer and the proceeds of the sale used to satisfy what you owe. This can happen even if you have paid your contractor in full if the contractor's subcontractors, laborers, or suppliers remain unpaid. To preserve their rights to file a claim or lien against your property, certain claimants such as subcontractors or material suppliers are each required to provide you with a document called a "Preliminary Notice." Contractors and laborers who contract with owners directly do not have to provide such notice since you are aware of their existence as an owner. A preliminary notice is not a lien against your property. Its purpose is to notify you of persons or entities that may have a right to file a lien against your property if they are not paid. In order to perfect their lien rights, a contractor, subcontractor, supplier, or laborer must file a mechanics' lien with the county recorder which then becomes a recorded lien against your property. Generally, the maximum time allowed for filing a mechanics' lien against your property is 90 days after substantial completion of your project. TO INSURE EXTRA PROTECTION FOR YOURSELF AND YOUR PROPERTY, YOU MAY WISH TO TAKE ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING STEPS:
(1) Require that your contractor supply you with a payment and performance bond (not a license bond), which provides that the bonding company will either complete the project or pay damages up to the amount of the bond. This payment and performance bond as well as a copy of the construction contract should be filed with the county recorder for your further protection. The payment and performance bond will usually cost from 1 to 5 percent of the contract amount depending on the contractor's bonding ability. If a contractor cannot obtain such bonding, it may indicate his or her financial incapacity. (2) Require that payments be made directly to subcontractors and material suppliers through a joint control. Funding services may be available, for a fee, in your area which will establish voucher or other means of payment to your contractor. These services may also provide you with lien waivers and other forms of protection. Any joint control agreement should include the addendum approved by the registrar. (3) Issue joint checks for payment, made out to both your contractor and subcontractors or material suppliers involved in the project. The joint checks should be made payable to the persons or entities which send preliminary notices to you. Those persons or entities have indicated that they may have lien rights on your property, therefore you need to protect yourself. This will help to insure that all persons due payment are actually paid.
(4) Upon making payment on any completed phase of the project, and before making any further payments, require your contractor to provide you with unconditional "Waiver and Release" forms signed by each material supplier, subcontractor, and laborer involved in that portion of the work for which payment was made. The statutory lien releases are set forth in exact language in Section 3262 of the Civil Code. Most stationery stores will sell the "Waiver and Release" forms if your contractor does not have them. The material suppliers, subcontractors, and laborers that you obtain releases from are those persons or entities who have filed preliminary notices with you. If you are not certain of the material suppliers, subcontractors, and laborers working on your project, you may obtain a list from your contractor. On projects involving improvements to a single-family residence or a duplex owned by the individuals, the persons signing these releases lose the right to file a mechanics' lien claim against your property. In other types of construction, this protection may still be important, but may not be as complete. To protect yourself under this option, you must be certain that all material suppliers, subcontractors, and laborers have signed the "Waiver and Release" form. If a mechanics' lien has been filed against your property, it can only be voluntarily released by a recorded "Release of Mechanics' Lien" signed by the person or entity that filed the mechanics' lien against your property unless the lawsuit to enforce the lien was not timely filed. You should not make any final payments until any and all such liens are removed. You should consult an attorney if a lien is filed against your property." (Rev. 4/9)
Weeks Drilling and Pump Co.: Owner:

By:

Date:

By:

Date:

Page 269 of 1534 ends

8 of 12

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO CANCEL
Notice of Cancellation
(enter date you signed the contract)
You may cancel this transaction, without any penalty or obligation, within three business days from the above date.

If you cancel, any property traded in, any payments made by you under the contract or sale, and any negotiable instrument executed by you will be returned within 10 days following receipt by the seller of your cancellation notice, and any security interest arising out of the transaction will be canceled.

If you cancel, you must make available to the seller at your residence, in substantially as good condition as when received, any goods delivered to you under this contract or sale, or you may, if you wish, comply with the instructions of the seller regarding the return shipment of the goods at the seller's expense and risk.

If you do make the goods available to the seller and the seller does not pick them up within 20 days of the date of your notice of cancellation, you may retain or dispose of the goods without any further obligation.

If you fail to make the goods available to the seller, or if you agree to return the goods to the seller and fail to do so, then you remain liable for performance of all obligations under the contract. To cancel this transaction, mail or deliver a signed and dated copy of this cancellation notice, or any other written notice, or send a telegram or fax to:

Weeks Drilling & Pump Co. P.O. Box 176 Sebastopol, CA 95472 Fax 707-823-4258
Not later than midnight of:
(three business days from the above date)
I hereby cancel this transaction:
(today’s date)
(buyer's signature)

Page 270 of 1534 ends

9 of 12

Page 271 of 1534 ends

10 of 12

ESTIMATE

STEWART WELL LOGGING

SERVICE
18166 Mallard St
Woodland, CA 95695
[email protected]
+1 (530) 908-6928
GHD Inc.

Bill to
Ryan Crawford
Ghd Inc.
2235 Mercury Way Ste 150
Santa Rosa, CA 95407
United States
Ship to
Ryan Crawford
Ghd Inc.
2235 Mercury Way Ste 150
Santa Rosa, CA 95407
United States
Estimate details
Estimate no.: 0977
Estimate date: 03/27/2024
JOB NAME: City of Ukiah
JOB #: Geophysical Log
# Date Product or service Description Qty Rate Amount

1. Service charge Logging Services charge trip per well 1 $750.00 $750.00

2. Electric Log Minimum Charge to 1000 Feet 1 $800.00 $800.00

3. Mileage Charge Charge Per Mile 220 $1.50 $330.00
Total $1,880.00
Attachment 5 Page 272 of 1534
Attachment 6 Page 273 of 1534

Page 274 of 1534 ends

1360 No. Dutton Ave., Suite 150 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Phone (707) 542-6268 Fax (707) 542-2106  BOUNDARY  TOPOGRAPHIC  CONSTRUCTION
 RAILROAD  INFRASTRUCTURE  HYDROGRAPHIC
CINQUINI & PASSARINO,INC.

LAND SURVEYING

EXHIBIT C

HOURLY FEE SCHEDULE
MARCH 1, 2024 TO FEBRUARY 28, 2025

OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL
Professional Land Surveyor (4 HOUR MINIMUM) $510.00 per hour

TRIALS, TESTIMONY &DEPOSITIONS
Professional Land Surveyor $300.00 per hour

CONSULTATION, LEGAL RESEARCH & COURT EXHIBITS
Principal Professional Land Surveyor
Professional Land Surveyor
Staff Surveyor
Survey Technician
Chief Hydrographer Surveyor
Assistant Hydrographer
GIS Specialist
Remote Pilot

INCLUDES MISSION PLANNING, MILEAGE & MATERIAL
Administrative Assistance
$300.00 per hour
$200.00 - $230.00 per hour
$165.00 - $220.00 per hour
$150.00 - $185.00 per hour
$260.00 per hour
$195.00 per hour
$160.00 per hour
$230.00 - $300.00 per hour
$120.00 - $180.00 per hour

WORD PROCESSING, CLERICAL AND DELIVERIES

FIELD CREWS

THE FOLLOWING INCLUDES VEHICLES, EQUIPMENT, MILEAGE & MATERIAL 1 Person Field Party $220.00 per hour
1 Person GPS Party $250.00 per hour
2 Person Field Party $350.00 per hour

FIELD CREW CONSISTS OF PARTY CHIEF & CHAINMAN
3 Person Field Party $480.00 per hour
FIELD CREWS CONSIST OF PARTY CHIEF, 2 CHAINMEN OR CHAINMAN &FLAGPERSON.

SUPPLEMENTAL ITEMS
Outside Contract Work Cost plus 15%
Overtime Work 1.2 x base rate
Over 8 Hours on Saturday, all day on Sundays or Holiday 1.4 x base crew rate Night Work (shifts starting after 4 PM or before 5 AM) 10% additional over base rates Travel Time for 2-Person Crew $152.00 per hour
(beyond 1 hour of travel outside an 8 hour workday)
GEDO Scan Equipment $1,000.00 per day
UAS Equipment $750.00 per day
Multibeam Survey Vessel Equipment $1,500 per day
Singlebeam Survey Vessel Equipment $1,000 per day
Schedule 2024/2025

Page 275 of 1534 ends

ID Task Name Duration Start Finish
0 Groundwater Well Feasibility and Design Project (NTP) 206 days Wed 7/24/24 Wed 5/7/25 1 Project Initiation and Coordination 197 days Wed 7/24/24 Thu 4/24/25 2 Project Management Plan 5 days Wed 7/24/24 Tue 7/30/24 3 Project Quality Plan 5 days Wed 7/24/24 Tue 7/30/24
4 Monthly Project Schedule Updates 197 days Wed 7/24/24 Thu 4/24/25 15 Kick-off Meeting 0 days Tue 7/30/24 Tue 7/30/24
16 Phase 1: Well Feasibility and Siting Study 45 days Wed 7/24/24 Tue 9/24/24 17 Task 1.1 - Review Existing Well Siting Study 10 days Wed 7/24/24 Tue 8/6/24 18 Task 1.2 - Assess Hydrogeology 10 days Wed 7/24/24 Tue 8/6/24 19 Task 1.3 - Evaluate Physical Parameter Characteristics 10 days Wed 7/31/24 Tue 8/13/24 20 Task 1.4 - Conduct Environmental Check 15 days Wed 7/31/24 Tue 8/20/24 21 Task 1.5 - Prepare Summary Report 15 days Wed 8/14/24 Tue 9/3/24 22 Submit Draft Recommendation Summary Report 0 days Tue 9/3/24 Tue 9/3/24 23 City Review of Draft Summary Report 10 days Wed 9/4/24 Tue 9/17/24 24 Review Meeting and Finalize Report 5 days Wed 9/18/24 Tue 9/24/24 25 Phase 2: Test Well Drilling, Construction, and Sampling 105 days Wed 8/14/24 Tue 1/7/25 26 Task 2.1 - Develop Drilling Work Plan / Bid Support Services 30 days Wed 8/14/24 Tue 9/24/24 27 Task 2.2 - Observe and Supervise Test Well Drilling and Construction 45 days Wed 9/25/24 Tue 11/26/24 28 Task 2.3 - Prepare and Draft Record / Recommendation Summary Report 15 days Wed 11/27/24 Tue 12/17/24 29 Submit Draft Record / Recommendation Summary Report 0 days Tue 12/17/24 Tue 12/17/24 30 City Review Draft Record / Recommendation Summary Report 10 days Wed 12/18/24 Tue 12/31/24 31 Review Meeting and Finalize Record /Recommendations Summary Report 5 days Wed 1/1/25 Tue 1/7/25 32 Phase 3: Wellhead Development 86 days Wed 1/8/25 Wed 5/7/25 33 Task 3.1 - Design Permanent Wellhead / Pump Equipment 83 days Wed 1/8/25 Fri 5/2/25 34 Design Workshop and Draft BOD Report 1 day Wed 1/8/25 Wed 1/8/25 35 3.1.1 Topographic and Boundary Survey 20 days Wed 1/8/25 Tue 2/4/25 36 3.1.2 Geotechnical Investigation 40 days Wed 1/8/25 Tue 3/4/25 37 3.1.3 Engineering and Construction Documents 83 days Wed 1/8/25 Fri 5/2/25 38 Develop 50% PS&E + BOD 20 days Wed 1/8/25 Tue 2/4/25 39 Submit 50% PS&E + BOD 0 days Tue 2/4/25 Tue 2/4/25
40 City Review 50% PS&E + BOD 10 days Wed 2/5/25 Tue 2/18/25 41 50% PS&E Review Meeting 1 day Wed 2/19/25 Wed 2/19/25 42 Develop 90% PS&E + BOD 25 days Thu 2/20/25 Wed 3/26/25 43 Submit 90% PS&E + BOD 0 days Wed 3/26/25 Wed 3/26/25 44 City Review 90% PS&E + BOD 10 days Thu 3/27/25 Wed 4/9/25 45 90% PS&E Review Meeting 1 day Thu 4/10/25 Thu 4/10/25 46 Develop 100% PS&E + BOD 15 days Fri 4/11/25 Thu 5/1/25 47 Submit 100% PS&E + BOD 1 day Fri 5/2/25 Fri 5/2/25
48 Task 3.2 - Design Treatment System (if necessary) 83 days Wed 1/8/25 Fri 5/2/25 49 Develop 50% Treatment PS&E 20 days Wed 1/8/25 Tue 2/4/25 50 Submit 50% Treatment PS&E 0 days Tue 2/4/25 Tue 2/4/25 51 City Review Treatment 50% PS&E 10 days Wed 2/5/25 Tue 2/18/25 52 50% PS&E Review Meeting 1 day Wed 2/19/25 Wed 2/19/25 53 Develop 90% Treatment PS&E 25 days Thu 2/20/25 Wed 3/26/25 54 Submit 90% Treatment PS&E 0 days Wed 3/26/25 Wed 3/26/25 55 City Review 90% Treatment PS&E 10 days Thu 3/27/25 Wed 4/9/25 56 90% Treatment PS&E Review Meeting 1 day Thu 4/10/25 Thu 4/10/25 57 Develop 100% Treatment PS&E 15 days Fri 4/11/25 Thu 5/1/25 58 Submit 100% Treatment PS&E 1 day Fri 5/2/25 Fri 5/2/25 59 Task 3.3 - Complete DHS Permit Requirements and Summary Report 54 days Fri 2/21/25 Wed 5/7/25 60 Deliverable - DHS Permit Application Package 5 days Fri 4/11/25 Thu 4/17/25 61 Deliverable - Presentation to City Officials 5 days Fri 2/21/25 Wed 5/7/25 7/30
9/3
12/17
2/4
3/26
2/4
3/26
Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Qtr 3, 2024 Qtr 4, 2024 Qtr 1, 2025 Qtr 2, 2025

Page 1 ends

Attachment 7 Page 276 of 1534
GHD | City of Ukiah | 12638677 | Groundwater Well Feasibility and Design 4 ghd.com The Power of Commitment

Page 277 of 1534 ends

Page 1 of 3 ends

Agenda Item No: 13.d.

MEETING DATE/TIME: 7/17/2024

ITEM NO: 2024-349

AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: Receive Report of Change Order for Orr Street Bridge and Approve Associated Budget Amendment; Provide Direction to Staff Regarding Future Use of Bridge DEPARTMENT: Public Works PREPARED BY: Tim Eriksen, Public Works Director/City Engineer PRESENTER: Tim Eriksen, City Engineer
ATTACHMENTS:

1. CCO1

2. Orr Street Bridge Feasibility Study

3. 13d Correspondence Received - Crispin Hollinshead

4. 13d Correspondence Received - Ann Kelly

5. 13d Correspondence Received - Linda Sanders

6. 13d Correspondence Received - Eileen Mitro

7. 13d Correspondence Received - Cathy Monroe
Summary: Council will receive a report of a change order for the Orr Street Bridge and consider the options for the future use of the bridge.

Background: The Orr Street Bridge has been closed to vehicular traffic since 2009 due to deteriorating conditions. It was a wood-deck bridge and was not prioritized for maintenance by the City. By 2022, the surface of the bridge had deteriorated to a point where the decking needed to be removed for safety reasons.

Also in 2022, the City of Ukiah was awarded a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) to develop a study of the Orr Street corridor, including the bridge, that would provide the analysis for future decisions regarding this corridor. Additionally, the City Council provided direction to replace the surface of the bridge to vehicular and pedestrian/bicycle standards.

The City Council approved the plans and specifications (originally developed in 2019) for replacing the deck on the Orr Street Bridge, and a request for bid was released on August 11, 2023.

On September 20, 2023, the City Council awarded the bid for the Orr Street Bridge reconstruction to Gregg Simpson Trucking. The bid notice was distributed to the Builder's Exchanges and contractors on the Qualified Bidder's list. A mandatory pre-bid meeting was held on August 22, 2023.

Discussion: This staff report will address two matters; a report to Council regarding a change order related to bridge construction and its associated budget amendment, and seeking direction regarding the future use of the bridge.

First: Construction on the bridge, originally scheduled for fall 2023, was delayed due to the unavailability of materials; therefore, it was suspended for the winter of 2023/2024. During this pause, the contractor submitted several Requests for Information (RFIs) to City staff regarding the lack of design detail of the approved plans.

Given the expertise of the contractor and points identified in the RFI process, City staff concurred that the construction documents lacked sufficient construction details. Staff met with the contractor regarding the needed adjustments/additions and worked to develop the appropriate change order for the project to move

Page 278 of 1534 ends

Page 2 of 3 ends

forward. Change Order 1 (Attachment #1) requests an additional $61,759.33 in material and labor costs for the fabrication and welding of additional bars that will act as shims to provide a level surface for the bridge deck in addition to a few other items detailed in the attachment. The revised contract amount with Change Order 1 will be $291,168.43. As of the writing of this Agenda Staff Report (ASR), the bridge structure is nearly complete.

Second: The current Council has not yet provided direction regarding the future use of the bridge. The most significant unresolved issue is the bridge terminus on both the south and north ends, currently dead ends. Orr Street was originally designed as a “normal” street. In 2008, before the extension of the Orchard Avenue Bridge, the neighborhood was concerned about cut-through traffic on Orr Street, which often occurred, as Orchard Avenue had not yet been extended to Brush Street. Staff believed that the addition of the Orchard Avenue Bridge would address much of the cut-through traffic. However, this was never tested as the City Council directed the closure of the Orr Street Bridge before the Orchard Avenue Bridge opened.

The CDBG-funded corridor study (Attachment 2) provides detailed analysis of three alternatives for the Orr Street Bridge:
• Bridge closed to traffic (except emergency vehicles); open for bicycles and pedestrians only • A two-lane bridge, open to vehicular traffic
• A one-lane bridge, open to vehicular traffic
The study reflects significant neighborhood advocacy for a bike and pedestrian-only bridge. This option would eliminate vehicle traffic; however, to comply with State Fire Code and other issues, it would require the addition of turnaround areas on both sides of the bridge. This is a critical safety issue, as currently, garbage trucks, delivery trucks, and more must back 450 feet out of the south side of Orr Street and onto Ford Street.

The City does not own the property required for these turnarounds. Additionally, pedestrians and bicyclists now have the more appropriate alternative of the Great Redwood Trail, which runs directly parallel to Orr Street.

The two-lane bridge alternative is the most expensive, would cause the most environmental impacts, and is the least preferred alternative by the community and Staff. Further, the bridge is not wide enough for two travel lanes and a bike lane.

Of the three studied alternatives, a one-lane bridge that is open to vehicular traffic is the least expensive, least invasive in terms of private property impacts, creates the fewest environmental impacts, and provides access for all modes of transportation.

City Staff recommends the one-lane bridge alternative, along with speed bumps on both ends. This would allow controlled traffic in both directions, and provide additional width on the bridge for bicycles and pedestrians. The City Engineering Department would monitor the bridge traffic, collecting vehicle data for further analysis. Though there is very little data from Orr Street before the bridge was closed, that data could be compared to other similar residential streets for review and further consideration.

Budget Adjustment
The City maintains small reserve balances for various capital improvement projects, some of which are unassigned. Finance recommends using these available-but-unassigned capital project funds to finance additional costs for the Orr Street Bridge reconstruction project, including the current change order. The revised contract amount for the project is $291,168.43, which includes Change Order 1 (CCO1) for additional material and labor costs amounting to $61,759.33.

Current Project Summary:
- CIP Reserve for Project: $254,438
- Original Contract Amount: $229,409.10

Page 279 of 1534 ends

Page 3 of 3 ends

- Change Order 1: $61,759.33
- Revised Contract Amount: $291,168.43
Note, additional change orders are expected to address items that were not answered in the bid documents, like whether the railings should be painted and other additional finishing items. These may be the subject of a future change order.

Recommended Action: 1) Receive report regarding change order and approve associated budget amendment. 2) Direct City Staff to open the bridge to single-lane traffic in both directions and install one speed hump on each terminus of the bridge approach.

BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes
CURRENT BUDGET AMOUNT: 25124210.80230.18065: $229.409.10 PROPOSED BUDGET AMOUNT: 25124210.80230.18065: $291,168.43 FINANCING SOURCE: Available and unassigned capital project funds PREVIOUS CONTRACT/PURCHASE ORDER NO.: 2324104
COORDINATED WITH: Finance, Purchasing
DIVERSITY-EQUITY INITIATIVES (DEI): n/a
CLIMATE INITIATIVES (CI): 2b – Encourage active transportation as a viable alternative to automobiles.

GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS (GP): A3 - Mobility Element GP-A4 - Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element

Page 280 of 1534 ends

Invoice
DATE
7/3/2024
INVOICE #
11397

BILL TO
City of Ukiah
Accounts Payable
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
Gregg Simpson Trucking
11 Highland Ct
Ukiah, CA 95482
707-468-1654
CA Lic # 650339
P.O. NO.

CCO #1
TERMS
Net 30

FINANCE CHARGES ARE COMPUTED ON AMOUNTS THAT ARE PAST DUE AT THE PERIODIC RATE OF 1.5% PER MONTH WHICH IS AN ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE OF 18%
Phone #
707-468-1654
Fax #
707-468-7448
E-mail
[email protected]
Total
Balance Due
Payments/Credits

SERVICED TAG DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNITS RATE AMOUNT
7/1/2024 CCO #1 - Bid
Items #22&25
Per site reviews at Orr St - unforseen site
conditions have been noted and Simpson
has been working with City to correct.
1 LS 61,759.33 61,759.33
Current bridge beams on site are not level
this caused all materials to not sit level.

Fabrication and materials used to correct
bridge beams. This inlcuded welding flat
bars at each beam to shim and make a level
work area for placement of materials. Place
and weld 4"x8" square tubing at north and
south end to brace decking. Includes
materials of bolts that are not on plans
Fabricate extensions at h-beams for railing,
drill holes by hand due to no scaling on
plans
SALES TAX 7.875% 0.00
$61,759.33
$61,759.33
$0.00
ATTACHMENT 1

Page 281 of 1534 ends

Orr Street Bridge &
Corridor Study
Draft Report

CITY OF UKIAH
May 20, 2024
The Power of Commitment
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 282 of 1534 ends

The Power of Commitment
This document is and shall remain the property of GHD. The document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Contract for the commission. Unauthorized use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

Project name Orr Street Bridge and Transportation Corridor Study Document title Orr Street Bridge & Corridor Study | Draft Report Project number 12571956
File name Orr Street Bridge Feasibility Study_Final.docx Status
Code
Revision Author Reviewer Approved for issue
Initials Signature Name Signature Date
S0 1 Ramon Plaza-Martinez
S0 2 Rosanna Southern
S0 3 Patrick Lewis
S3 4 Rosanna Southern MK M. Kennedy Rosanna RS 4/11/24
S4 5 Client Review SR Shannon Riley Rosanna RS 5/20/24
S4 6 Final Report RS RS 5/20/24
GHD Inc.
2235 Mercury Way, Suite 150
Santa Rosa, California 95407, United States
T +1 707 523 1010 | F +1 707 527 8679 | E [email protected] | ghd.com © GHD 2024

Page 283 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Orr Street Bridge & Corridor Study i Executive Summary
The Orr Street Bridge and Corridor Study was initiated by the City of Ukiah to look at various options, alignments, and typical cross-sections for replacement of the Orr Street Bridge over Orrs Creek, and to upgrade the local roadway to a complete street design including multimodal accommodations, travel lanes, parking and improved access for City emergency and maintenance services. This Study has been funded by a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). Current conditions of the bridge are damaged and deteriorating, and the bridge has been closed to vehicle traffic since 2009. The project will provide improved walkability, bike friendliness and access across the creek within the local community. Improvements such as sidewalks, curbs, gutter, on-street parking, traffic calming measures (including speed bumps and/or bulb outs), additional lighting, and connectivity with existing and planned city road and trail networks were evaluated in the proposed design alternatives. In addition, various options for the bridge replacement were considered and presented to the public for input, including:

1. Two-lane bridge with one lane in each direction, bike lanes and sidewalks.

2. Single-lane bridge with sidewalks to discourage non-local traffic.

3. Single-lane bridge primarily used for bikes and pedestrians, but equipped with removable bollards to allow movement for emergency vehicles and City maintenance services only.

4. Bike and pedestrian only bridge, with emergency vehicle access.

5. Remove the bridge without replacement.

This Study presents the preliminary stages of the project to evaluate the corridor to determine viable alternatives, an evaluation of environmental considerations, a hydraulics study to determine 100-year water surface elevation and scour, an Advance Planning Study to determine preliminary structural elements of the new bridge, potential impacts to adjacent properties, utilities, and right-of-way, and preliminary cost estimates. The findings of the study include identification of alternatives determined in coordination with the City and public, which will be utilized in later phases including preliminary design and environmental clearance, final design and right-of-way clearances, and then construction.

Three of the above five bridge alternatives were considered by the City and brought to the public and neighborhood groups for consideration. Two public meetings were held to engage the neighbors and stakeholders regarding the possible replacement of the bridge in April 2022 and August 2022.

Page 284 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Orr Street Bridge & Corridor Study ii Contents

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Project Purpose 1

1.2 Project Background 1

1.3 Project Goals 1

1.4 Project Process 2

2. Background Conditions 3

2.1 Roadway Characteristics 3

2.1.1 Local Roadway Network 3

2.1.2 Traffic Operations 3

2.2 Deficiencies 3

3. Community Outreach 4

3.1 Community Input 5

3.2 Community Issues and Concerns Summary 7

4. Improvement Alternatives 8

5. Environmental Analysis 13

6. Hydraulics Analysis 13

7. Alternatives Comparison 14

8. Advance Planning Study for Bridge 15

9. Cost Estimates 15

10. Funding / Next Steps 16

11. Conclusion 18
Table index
Table 7-1 Design Concept Alternatives Comparison 14
Table 9-1 Preliminary Cost Estimates by Alternative 15
Figure index
Figure 1 Workshop 1 - Community Preference on Orr Street Bridge Alternatives 6 Figure 2 Workshop 2 - Community Preference on Orr Street Bridge Alternatives 6 Figure 3 Alternative 1 (Two-Lane Vehicular Bridge) 9
Figure 4 Alternative 2 (Single-Lane Vehicular Bridge) 10

Page 285 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Orr Street Bridge & Corridor Study iii Figure 5 Alternative 3A (Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Emergency Vehicle Bridge Only with Culde-Sacs) 11 Figure 6 Alternative 3B (Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Emergency Vehicle Bridge Only with TTurnaround) 12 Appendices
Appendix A Workshop #1 Memorandum
Appendix B Workshop #2 Memorandum
Appendix C Preliminary Environmental Overview Memorandum Appendix D Hydraulics Analysis Memorandum
Appendix E Advance Planning Study
Appendix F Preliminary Cost Estimates

Page 286 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Orr Street Bridge & Corridor Study 1

1. Introduction

1.1 Project Purpose
The Orr Street Bridge and Corridor Study is a comprehensive corridor plan proposing improvements along Orr Street and replacement of the bridge across Orr Creek in Ukiah, CA. The bridge structure is damaged due to cracks in the abutments and has been deteriorating. The bridge was closed to vehicle traffic in 2009, and the bridge deck was removed and street barricades and fencing installed in the last couple of years. This study evaluates various options, alignments and cross-sections of replacing the Orr Street Bridge and improvements to Orr Street including multimodal access to improve the walkability, bike friendliness, and access for emergency vehicles, delivery and city services.

The goal of the study is to analyze corridor improvement and bridge replacement options, propose community-driven alternatives, and identify alternatives that maximize the beneficial uses, scenery, and public services along Orrs Creek while protecting the environment. The City has considered options for rehabilitation or complete replacement, possibly through the Caltrans administered Highway Bridge Program (HBP). The HBP is a safety program that provides federal aid to Local Public Agencies (LPAs) to replace and rehabilitate structurally deficient, locally owned public highway bridges or to complete preventive maintenance on bridges that are not deficient.

1.2 Project Background
Ukiah, California, the county seat and largest city in Mendocino County, has a population of over 16,000 people. The city is located along US Route 101 (US 101) and acts as a regional hub for commerce, trade, and tourism for both Mendocino County and northern Lake County. Located in the Russian River Valley, Ukiah’s economy relies in part on the tourism draw of both its viticulture industry as well as its location in the redwoods. US 101 is a major north-south highway that connects the San Francisco Bay Area and neighboring wine regions in the south through Ukiah all the way to the state border with Oregon in the north.

Orr Street, an approximately 850 feet long north-south local street, is located between Brush Street to the north and Ford Street to the south. It is located northeast of Ukiah’s main downtown street, North State Street, as well as approximately 1,500 feet west of US 101. Orr Street once crossed Orrs Creek, a seasonal waterway and tributary to the nearby Russian River, however the existing bridge is in disrepair and has been closed to traffic since 2009.

Replacing the Orr Street bridge across Orrs Creek and reconnecting this north-south corridor will provide improved connectivity for active transportation users as well as for emergency vehicles, particularly to and for the destinations and neighborhoods east of North State Street. Orr Street parallels North State Street – a four lane arterial – and, at project completion, will provide a lower stress alternative north-south route for people bicycling, walking, or rolling, as well as an alternative north-south route for emergency vehicles during emergencies, particularly in cases of significant road congestion along North State Street.

1.3 Project Goals
The goal of the Project is to meet complete street designs to provide improved walkability, bike friendliness and access across Orrs Creek within the local community. Emergency vehicle access across the creek is also a priority.

The bridge replacement and the complete street design includes multimodal access considerations, vehicular access and parking, and improved access for City emergency and maintenance services. Gaining consensus amongst the community and stakeholders on the concepts was also a priority. Minimizing environmental impacts and impacts to property (right-of-way) were important in identifying design elements. In summary, the project goals are:
– Improvements that incorporate Complete Street elements and access; – Maintaining emergency vehicle access;
– Improving access for City services (i.e., trash collection); – Public consensus and support on the concepts for the bridge and street improvements;

Page 287 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Orr Street Bridge & Corridor Study 2 – Maintaining on-street parking for residents;
– Minimize impacts to the environment and to adjacent properties.

1.4 Project Process
Concepts
Refined

Page 288 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Orr Street Bridge & Corridor Study 3

2. Background Conditions
This Chapter presents
the information
pertaining to existing and
background conditions
for Orr Street and the
surrounding area.

2.1 Roadway Characteristics

2.1.1 Local Roadway Network
Orr Street is an approximately 850 foot long north-south local street located in the northeast part of the City, between Brush Street to the north and Ford Street to the south, and approximately 1,500 feet west of US 101. Orr Street crosses Orrs Creek, a perennial waterway and tributary to the nearby Russian River. However, the existing bridge is in disrepair and has been closed to vehicle traffic since 2009. The bridge deck remained open for people walking or biking across it, however, in the last couple of years the City removed the bridge deck and installed barricades and fencing due to concerns of safety and blight. Orr Street south of the bridge is a narrow street serving residential homes with sidewalk on the west side for the majority of the street, but there is no sidewalk for about 225 feet to connection to Ford Street. There are utility poles on both sides, fences fronting most properties, and cars parked on both sides of the street. There are several multi-family dwellings on the west side of Orr Street, just south of the bridge. Garbage trucks and emergency vehicles have no place to turn around or continue through with the bridge closed. Orr Street north of the bridge is also a narrow residential street, with sidewalk on both sides of the street, on-street parallel parking on the west side, and perpendicular parking for the tenants on the east side. These sidewalks and parking areas have recently been constructed with the development of an 80-unit multi-family senior housing project northeast of the bridge, along with an adjacent bike path which connects just north of the bridge to Orchard Avenue to the east.

2.1.2 Traffic Operations
Vehicle traffic on Orr Street, on either side of the bridge, is relatively low and uncongested during peak periods. The corridor study considers various options for allowing vehicle travel across the Orr Street bridge, and options for restricting vehicle travel to one direction northbound, or no access, apart from emergency vehicles. Allowing full access across the bridge in both directions of travel would result in more vehicles along Orr Street, and the potential for some cut-through traffic. Allowing one direction of travel northbound would allow egress for vehicles wanting to travel north, and potentially add a small amount of vehicles to cut-through Orr Street. Restricting access to any vehicles would result in no change in existing travel patterns, as the bridge has been closed to vehicular traffic since 2009. The parallel route, North State Street, does become congested at times and delays will likely increase with future growth in the area. Opening the bridge to vehicular traffic would likely shift some traffic from Ford Street to Brush Street. However, people can currently get around to Brush Street via North State Street to the west or Orchard Avenue to the east. It is important to note that the Orr Street Bridge was closed to traffic prior to Orchard Avenue being extended to Brush Street; the two streets have never been open at the same time.

2.2 Deficiencies
Through the corridor study, several deficiencies were identified along the corridor and at the bridge. There are access deficiencies along the Orr Street corridor for people walking, biking, and rolling, and ADA deficiencies. There is a gap in the sidewalk network on the north side of Ford Street connecting to Orr Street. With the bridge closed completely,

Page 289 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Orr Street Bridge & Corridor Study 4 there currently are several deficiencies with access across Orrs Creek that provide convenient and efficient means of travel for active modes and deficiencies for City services including emergency vehicles access, as these larger vehicles have no means of turning around on the southern side of Orr Street. All of the adjacent properties are privately owned. There are structural deficiencies in the bridge, including a large vertical crack in the northern abutment underneath the bridge, and adjacent concrete along the embankment and within the channel is also deteriorating.

3. Community Outreach
Robust public engagement and community outreach was conducted as part of the Orr Street Bridge and Corridor Study. Two public meetings were held to engage the neighbors and stakeholders regarding the possible replacement of the existing Orr Street Bridge over Orrs Creek. The full summary and comments received from Workshop1 are included in Appendix A, and from Workshop 2 are included in Appendix B.

Workshop 1 - April 23, 2022
On Saturday April 23, 2022, the first public meeting was held on the north side of the Orr Street Bridge from 10:00 am to 2:00 pm. The purpose was to share project information and timeline, solicit feedback about the replacement of the current bridge, and better understand stakeholder concerns and desires within the project area. More than 65 people attended during the four-hour period. Most attendees were 40+ years of age and were residents of the Wagenseller neighborhood. Other stakeholders in attendance included representatives of the nearby Orthodox church as well as residents of the adjacent Brush Meadow Apartments. Two City Councilmembers, Planning Commissioners, Public Works employees, and representatives from the Ukiah Daily Journal were also in attendance. Spanish language interpretation services were provided by Daniel Flores from the City of Ukiah Public Works.

The public shared views about bridge replacement types, the accommodation of various transportation modes that may be included in a replacement bridge, as well as their visions for the future of Orr Street. The public was also informed that the next public workshop would include different design alternatives to gather additional feedback, followed later by the City’s determination on “recommended” improvements, with a final design recommendation at a later date. Attendees were able to participate in discussions, ask questions, and leave comments on comment cards.

The project team received more than 60 comments during the meeting. A summary is provided in the Community Input section.

Workshop 1 held on the north side of Orr Street Bridge

Page 290 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Orr Street Bridge & Corridor Study 5 Workshop 2 - August 23, 2022
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022, the second public meeting was held at the Ukiah Valley Conference Center from 5:30 pm to 8:00 pm. The purpose was to showcase three potential design alternatives for the replacement of the current bridge over Orrs Creek. Two stations were set up with all three design alternatives – Two-Lane Vehicular Bridge (Alternative 1); Single-Lane Vehicular Bridge (Alternative 2); and Bridge Open to Pedestrians, Bikes and Emergency Vehicles (ERV) Only (Alternative 3) – along with an exhibit description for each alternative. These three design alternatives are further described in Chapter 4. The public was able to ask questions, voice opinions, and provide comments on all three alternatives. More than 30 people attended during the 2.5-hour period. Like the prior meeting, most attendees were 40+ years of age and were residents of the Wagenseller neighborhood. Other stakeholders included representatives of the nearby Orthodox church as well as residents of the adjacent Brush Meadow Apartments. City staff from Public Works and the City Manager’s office were also in attendance to review the project alternatives and to speak with the community members at the workshop.

The public was informed about and shared views on the three different design alternatives, which would help to inform the City’s determination on “recommended” improvements, with a final design recommendation at a later date.

Attendees were requested to use a sign-in sheet, although not all felt comfortable doing so. Attendees were able to participate in discussions, ask questions, and leave comments on comment cards. The project team received more than 15 comments during the meeting. A summary is provided in the Community Input section.

Workshop 2 held at the Ukiah Valley Conference Center

3.1 Community Input
The following chart represents the opinion breakdown of the feedback received from the community at Workshop 1 on April 23, 2022. Over two-thirds of attendees preferred a bike and pedestrian bridge only, while 27 percent of attendees preferred a two-lane vehicular bridge. Five percent of attendees preferred a single lane bridge with emergency/City services access only.

Page 291 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Orr Street Bridge & Corridor Study 6 Figure 1 Workshop 1 - Community Preference on Orr Street Bridge Alternatives The following chart represents the opinion breakdown of the feedback received from the community at Workshop 2 on August 23, 2022. Over two-thirds of attendees preferred Alternative 3, which featured a bridge open to pedestrians, bikes, and emergency vehicles only. The next most chosen option was “Other” at 16 percent (including preferences for “no bridge” option), followed by Alternative 2 (single-lane vehicular bridge) at 11 percent and Alternative 1 (two-lane vehicular bridge) at 5 percent.

Figure 2 Workshop 2 - Community Preference on Orr Street Bridge Alternatives 27%
5% 68%
Two lane Vehicular
Bridge
Single Lane Bridge with
Emergency / City
Services Access Only
Bike and Pedestrian Only
Bridge
5%
11%
68%
16%
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Other

Page 292 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Orr Street Bridge & Corridor Study 7

3.2 Community Issues and Concerns Summary
In addition to general discussion about the bridge structure at each public meeting, the community also highlighted the following issues and concerns:

Workshop 1 - April 23, 2022
– Concerns about abandoned vehicles and undesirable activities at the bridge and adjacent private properties. – Need for benches and other rest areas near the creek crossing. – Desire for additional lighting along Orr Street, especially near the creek. – Adding garbage and recycling containers near the bridge to reduce litter and debris from entering the creek. – Support for measures to reduce the speed of vehicles, like speed bumps, on Orr and Ford Streets. – Need for ADA and accessibility compliance, especially for nearby residents. – Request that emergency services not take Orr Street to access the hospital, continuing current routes. – Concerns about traffic safety and the impact of additional traffic on children who play on Orr Street, as the roadway is narrow.

Workshop 2 - August 23, 2022
– On Alternative 3, most attendees supported the pedestrian, bike, and ERV access, but did not support the turnarounds (cul-de-sac) on the north and south ends of the bridge. – Desire for an alternative like Alternative 3, but without a cul-de-sac on the north end and replacing cul-de-sac on the south end with a T-turnaround or Hammerhead.
– Request to keep existing church structures and walnut tree. – Interest in 10’ travel lanes and bike lanes on the entire length of the roadway. – Request to implement City of Ukiah Climate Emergency Resolution in design to accommodate alternative transportation.
– Interest in more information about the pros and cons of each alternative. – Desire to review FEMA Hydraulics report.
– Belief that there should be an alternative with no emergency access to reduce costs. – Belief that a “No Bridge” alternative should have been considered, where the creek is restored to its natural state and the roadway is repaired but left as a dead-end.

Page 293 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Orr Street Bridge & Corridor Study 8

4. Improvement Alternatives
In coordination with the City, three alternative concept designs for replacement of the Orr Street Bridge and multimodal improvements to Orr Street were developed. The proposed design alternatives are intended to meet the project goals by improving walkability, bike friendliness, and access along the Orr Street corridor and across Orrs Creek. The three proposed design alternatives for the bridge are as follows:
– Design Alternative 1: Two-Lane Vehicular Bridge – Allows two (2) lanes for vehicular traffic, bicycle, and pedestrian access along the Orr Street Bridge corridor. The cross-section on the bridge includes 12’ wide vehicular traffic lanes as well as 5’ wide pedestrian sidewalks and 4’ bicycle lanes on both sides. Additionally, this alternative proposes installing speed humps along Orr Street south of Brush Street and mid-way between Ford Street and the bridge.
– Design Alternative 2: Single-Lane Vehicular Bridge – Allows one (1) lane for vehicular traffic, bicycle, and pedestrian access along the Orr Street Bridge corridor. This design allows vehicles to cross the Orr Street Bridge with a single lane (vehicles take turns via stop control). The cross-section includes a 16’ wide lane that is shared between vehicular traffic and bicyclists, and 5’ wide pedestrian sidewalks on both sides of the bridge. – Design Alternative 3A: Bridge Open to Pedestrians, Bicycles, and Emergency Vehicles Only – Allows bicycles, pedestrians, and emergency vehicles (police, fire) only. The bridge cross-section would be approximately 14’ wide to allow bicycle and pedestrian access across the Orr Street Bridge. Removable bollards would be placed at each end of the road to prevent vehicular access. This alternative also proposes cul-de-sacs at both ends of Orr Street just before the Orr Street Bridge for vehicles (including City trash collection trucks and delivery vehicles) to turn around to meet City fire code. The cul-de-sacs would have impacts to adjacent properties and require rightof-way acquisition. Through feedback from the community and City, this original concept was modified to consider different turnaround options rather than cul-de-sacs that would be less invasive to private property (see Alternative 3B).
– Design Alternative 3B: Bridge Open to Pedestrians, Bicycles, and Emergency Vehicles Only – This is the same as Alternative 3A, except instead of proposing cul-de-sacs, alternative turnaround options were further considered. First, on the north side of the bridge, implementing a cul-de-sac here would require removal of a structure and displace residents. With the new senior housing development on the north side, there is an access driveway just north of the bridge that can be used to provide a way for vehicles to turn around. Therefore, the proposed cul-de-sac on the north side has been removed in this Alternative. On the south side, however, there are no other access for vehicles to turn around. Therefore, this alternative considered either a “T-turnaround” or a “Hammerhead” turnaround, rather than a cul-de-sac because these would require less area and significantly reduce impacts to private property. A “T-turnaround” was ultimately proposed as it would impact less properties.

For all three alternatives, the improvements along Orr Street south of the bridge would be generally consistent. Along the roadway the width varies based on site constraints. The following cross-section widths and configurations are proposed.
– The section along Orr Street near Ford Street would consist of a 4’ wide pedestrian sidewalk along the west side of Orr Street, a 12’ wide southbound lane, and a 10’ wide northbound lane. – A 4’ wide pedestrian sidewalk is proposed along the north side of Ford Street to connect to the proposed sidewalk along Orr Street, and connect to the existing sidewalk along Ford Street, filling in the sidewalk gap. ADAcompliant pedestrian ramps would be installed at the intersection of Ford Street and Orr Street. – The section along Orr Street as you travel north and approach the Orr Street Bridge would consist of a 4’ wide pedestrian sidewalk on the west side of Orr Street, an 8’ wide parking lane along the west side of Orr Street, a 12’ wide southbound lane, and a 12’ wide northbound lane. The amount of available parking space is reduced with Alternative 3A and 3B due to the turnaround options.

The following Figures present the layout of the design alternatives.

Page 294 of 1534 ends

This document and the ideas and designs incorporated herein, as an instrument of professional service, is the property of GHD. This document may only be used by GHD’s client (and any other person who GHD has agreed can use this document) for the purpose for which it was prepared and must not be used by any other person or for any other purpose. www.ghd.com
Title
1"
No. Issue Checked
Design Check
Project Manager
Conditions of Use
Scale
ANSI D
Size

PRELIMINARY

CITY OF UKIAHORR STREET BRIDGE AND CORRIDOR

IMPROVEMENTS
DANIEL KEHRERMATT KENEDY 12571956 7/22/2022
GHD Inc.
4080 Plaza Goldorado Circle Suite B
Cameron Park California 95682 USA
T 1 530 677 5515

DANIEL KEHRER
DESIGN ALTERNATIVE 1
(CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS WITH

TWO-LANE BRIDGE)
1"=30' Figure 3

MANROOP NARWALMANROOP NARWAL

DANIEL KEHRERDANIEL KEHRER
a

Page 295 of 1534 ends

DANIEL KEHRER
DESIGN ALTERNATIVE 2

CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS WITH
(SINGLE-LANE BRIDGE)
1"=30'

MANROOP NARWALMANROOP NARWAL

DANIEL KEHRERDANIEL KEHRER
ProjectClient
Plot Date: 17 October 2023 - 4:14 PM Plotted By: Rosanna Southern \\ghdnet\ghd\US\Roseville\Projects\561\12571956\Digital_Design\CI\C3D\Model\12571956-GHD-0000-RWY-CI-R102_v4.dwg 0 Bar is one inch on
original size sheet
Approved Date
Author Drafting Check
Designer Project Director
Project No. Date
Filename:

PRELIMINARY

CITY OF UKIAHORR STREET BRIDGE AND CORRIDOR

IMPROVEMENTS
DANIEL KEHRERMATT KENEDY 12571956 7/22/2022
GHD Inc.
4080 Plaza Goldorado Circle Suite B
Cameron Park California 95682 USA
T 1 530 677 5515
Figure 4

Page 296 of 1534 ends

DANIEL KEHRER
DESIGN ALTERNATIVE 3A
(CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS WITH

BIKE, PEDESTRIANS AND EV

ACCESS BRIDGE)
1"=30'

MANROOP NARWALMANROOP NARWAL

DANIEL KEHRERDANIEL KEHRER
ProjectClient
Plot Date: 29 July 2022 - 9:59 AM Plotted By: Manroop Narwal N:\US\Roseville\Projects\561\12571956\Digital_Design\CI\C3D\Model\12571956-GHD-0000-RWY-CI-R102.dwg 0 Bar is one inch on
original size sheet
Approved Date
Author Drafting Check
Designer Project Director
Project No. Date
Filename:

PRELIMINARY

CITY OF UKIAHORR STREET BRIDGE AND CORRIDOR

IMPROVEMENTS
DANIEL KEHRERMATT KENEDY 12571956 7/22/2022
GHD Inc.
4080 Plaza Goldorado Circle Suite B
Cameron Park California 95682 USA
T 1 530 677 5515
Figure 5

Page 297 of 1534 ends

50+00
51+00
52+00
53+00
54+00 55+00 56+00 57+00 58+00 58+65
PI: 54+49.65
PI: 54+79.61
PI: 55+54.61
PI: 55+84.61
ProjectClient
Plot Date: 19 October 2023 - 7:10 AM Plotted By: Danny Aguas C:\Users\daguas\OneDrive - GHD\GHD\US-Roseville-561-12571956-Orr Street Bridge\Digital_Design\ACAD\Sheets\12571956-GHD-0000-DWG-CI-0100-0101.dwg 0 Bar is one inch on
original size sheet
Approved Date
Author Drafting Check
Designer Project Director
Project No. Date
Filename:

Title
1"
No. Issue Checked
Design Check
Project Manager Scale
ANSI D
Size

PRELIMINARY

CITY OF UKIAH

ORR STREET BRIDGE AND CORRIDOR

IMPROVEMENTS
R. SOUTHERNM. KENEDY 12571956 9/29/2023
DESIGN ALTERNATIVE 3B(CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS WITH BIKE, PEDESTRIANS AND EV ACCESS BRIDGE) D.AGUAS AS SHOWN Figure 6
N
KEY NOTES:
0 30' 60'
SCALE 1"=60' (11x17 SHEET)

LOCATION AND SITE MAP
SCALE: 1" = 60'
4'
8'
12'
12'
60'
20'

13.50'

Page 298 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Orr Street Bridge & Corridor Study 13

5. Environmental Analysis
A preliminary evaluation and overview of environmental considerations has been conducted as part of this study, and is documented in a separate memorandum attached in Appendix C. The evaluation considered three alternatives based on the outcome of the first round of public meetings: a two-lane bridge with sidewalks and bike lanes (Alternative 1), a single-lane bridge with sidewalks and bike lanes (Alternative 2), and a Pedestrian/Bicycle access bridge (Alternative 3).

The environmental overview evaluates a creek crossing and other potentially affected waterbodies, floodplain encroachment, existing land cover types, recorded occurrences of special-status plant and wildlife species, critical habitat, prime farmland, Williamson Act contracts, and the potential for contaminated soil or groundwater.

The Project area includes Orrs Creek, which is classified as a freshwater forested/shrub wetland and is a tributary to the Russian River, located 0.04 miles east of Orr Street. Each of the design alternatives involve construction within the FEMA Regulatory Floodway. Alternative 3 would have the lowest potential to impact the Orrs Creek floodplain and aquatic resources as it is the narrowest bridge proposed. Alternative 1 would have the highest potential for impacts as it is the widest bridge crossing. All three alternatives are not anticipated to have impacts on important farmland resources. The special-status special evaluation identified four federally-listed wildlife species and three federallylisted plant species with potential to occur within the Project vicinity. Again, Alternative 1 would have the greatest potential for impacts to special-status species as it has the largest footprint, while Alternative 3 would have the least potential for impacts, in addition to impacts associated with vehicles (i.e., road runoff). The Project area does not contain any critical habitat, however cumulative runoff from the Project area could have indirect impacts to critical habitat downstream.

In regard to cultural resources, the presence of known archaeological and historical sites throughout the County and the proximity of the Project to the Russian River suggests that the area is sensitive for prehistoric and historic cultural resources. A preliminary evaluation of soil and groundwater contamination within 0.25 miles of the Project area resulted in a very low anticipation to encounter contaminated groundwater or soil during construction. However, additional field evaluations may be necessary to detect levels of contaminants, if any, prior to the construction of the Project.

The environmental analysis also describes the anticipated level of CEQA review for each Alternative. Alternative 1 would likely require an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), while both Alternatives 2 and 3 may meet a Class 2 Categorical Exemption or IS/MND. The Class 2 Categorical Exemption covers replacement or reconstruction of existing structures or facilities where the new structure will be located at the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced. As part of a review for exemption, the City of Ukiah would need to evaluate the project against the list of exceptions outlined in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines.

6. Hydraulics Analysis
A hydraulics analysis was conducted of Orrs Creek to evaluate the conceptual alternative designs of the planned Orr Street Bridge improvements for the Project. The analysis provides a hydraulic assessment to estimate water surface profile, flow depth, and flow velocity in the Orrs Creek in the vicinity of the Project for the pre-project and post-project conditions, and an evaluation of the bridge scour for the post-project conditions. This section presents a summary of the findings. The full Hydraulics Report in contained within Appendix D.

Page 299 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Orr Street Bridge & Corridor Study 14 The hydraulic model used for this study was the model developed as a part of the FEMA Preliminary Flood Insurance Study (FIS) completed for Mendocino County (FEMA, 2022). The Preliminary FIS analysis included updated survey information of key structures including the Orr St. Bridge. The FEMA modeling was completed in the ACOE HEC-RAS software platform. Updated topographic information was obtained within the channel in in February and March 2022 and was used for this study.

Orrs Creek at the Project location is located within a FEMA Regulatory Floodway and Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Zone AE (2011). Zone AE represents areas which are subject to inundation by the 1-percent-annual flood (100-yr flood) also known as the Base Flood.

Each alternative was assumed to have the same abutment layout and location, along with identical Bridge Deck and thickness dimensions. Alternatives varied in bridge width and approach designs. Because the proposed alternatives all had soffit elevations placed one foot above the Existing 100-year water surface elevation (WSE), the varying spans and approaches did not hydraulically affect the performance of each alternative. The model results presented a “postProject” WSE of 611.36 feet upstream and 611.32 feet downstream of the bridge. The proposed bridge soffit was determined based on the average of these two plus one foot to meet a “no rise” certification.

Preliminary bridge scour analyses were conducted as part of this study and included two primary components:
contraction scour at the bridge, and local scour at the abutments. The sum of these two represents the total bridge scour. The results presented contraction scour being minimal depth, and abutment scour being much larger. Total scour was estimated to be 9.68 feet at the left abutment and 12.48 feet at the right abutment, looking downstream.

The right abutment is estimated to have a deeper scour because it obstructs a higher flow area. The preliminary scour analysis indicates that scour revetments would need to be included in the future design phases of this Project. The above scour analysis was based on conceptual designs of the Alternatives without channel-specific geotechnical information. Design specific analyses and site-specific geotechnical information may result in varying scour calculations and mitigations.

7. Alternatives Comparison
The below table compares the three design alternatives to meeting the project goals.

Table 7-1 Design Concept Alternatives Comparison
Project Goal
Criteria
Alternative 1
(Two-Lane Bridge)
Alternative 2
(Single-Lane Bridge)
Alternative 3A and 3B
(Ped/Bike, ERV Only Bridge)
Multimodal Access Provides access for all modes.

Dedicated bike lanes. Least
space for active modes.

Provides access for all modes.

More space for cyclists, however
shared with vehicles crossing the
bridge.

Provides the highest quality of
service for pedestrians and
bicyclists across the bridge.

City Services &
ERV Access
Eliminates need for vehicles to
back out or turn around. Does
not limit vehicular or ERV
access.

Eliminates need for vehicles to
back out or turn around. Limits
access for vehicles and ERV to
one direction across the bridge.

Requires a way for vehicles and
City services to turn around.

Allows access to ERV via
removable bollards.

Parking Impacts Maintains all existing on-street
parking.

Removes 2 parking spaces on
the north side and 2-3 spaces on
the south side.

Removes 5 parking spaces on
the north side, and approximately
5 spaces on the south side.

Property Impacts Less invasive. Requires very
little private property acquisition
to install sidewalk and widen
road.

Least invasive. Requires very
little private property acquisition
to install sidewalk and widen
road.

Most invasive. T-turnaround
would be less invasive than culde-sac, but still requires some acquisition of one adjacent
property.

Page 300 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Orr Street Bridge & Corridor Study 15 Project Goal
Criteria
Alternative 1
(Two-Lane Bridge)
Alternative 2
(Single-Lane Bridge)
Alternative 3A and 3B
(Ped/Bike, ERV Only Bridge)
Public Support Somewhat supported from
Workshop #1. Least supported
from Workshop #2. Community
concerns with additional traffic
and speeding.

Little support from community.

Concerns with additional traffic
and safety.

Most preferred option from both
workshops, but without the culde-sacs.

Environmental
Impacts
Requires the widest bridge.

Highest potential for
environmental impacts.

Medium potential for
environmental impacts.

Potential impacts to trees.

Lowest potential for
environmental impacts.

Cost Middle-priced option. Lowest price of three options. Highest price option.

8. Advance Planning Study for Bridge
An advance planning study (APS) was performed for the bridge structure. The APS contains the preliminary design considerations for the proposed bridge structure including an evaluation of various structure types and associated factors. The full report is included in Appendix E. The APS identifies a recommended structure type based on various factors including constructability and staging, estimated construction duration, estimated cost, utilities, drainage, approach types, aesthetics, and falsework. The APS provides a preliminary cost estimate of the bridge, a plan and profile of Alternative 3. Bridge types that were evaluated include: a precast prestressed (PC/PS) box beam, cast-inplace prestressed box girder, pre-engineered steel truss, and structural streel girder bridges. The recommended bridge structure is the precast prestressed box beam girders with ultra high-performance concrete (UHPC) polymer deck slab as this option reduces bridge superstructure depth while being cost-efficient and reduces overall impacts to the approaches and adjacent parcels.

9. Cost Estimates
Preliminary cost estimates were developed based on unit-cost and quantities for the three alternatives. The full breakdown of the cost estimates are provided in Appendix F. The preliminary costs for each alternative are presented in Table 9-1 below.

Table 9-1 Preliminary Cost Estimates by Alternative
Alternative Construction Cost Support Costs Total Cost (Rounded) Alternative 1
(Two Lane Vehicular Bridge)
$4,930,000 $2,240,000 $7,170,000
Alternative 2
(One Lane Vehicular Bridge) $3,970,000 $1,750,000 $5,720,000 Alternative 3a
(Ped & Bike Only w/ERV and
cul-de-sacs)
$3,220,000 $1,540,000 $4,760,000
Alternative 3b
(Ped & Bike Only w/ERV and
T-turnaround)
$3,100,000 $1,500,000 $4,600,000

Page 301 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Orr Street Bridge & Corridor Study 16

10. Funding / Next Steps
Bridge Investment Program (BIP)
The Bridge Investment Program (BIP) is a competitive, discretionary program administered by FHWA that focuses on existing bridges to reduce the overall number of bridges in poor condition, or in fair condition at risk of falling into poor condition. It also expands applicant eligibilities to create opportunity for all levels of government to be direct recipients of program funds. Alongside states and federal lands management agencies, metropolitan planning organizations and local and tribal governments can also apply directly to FHWA, making it easier to advance projects at the local level that meet community needs. Bridge Project Grants under the Bridge Investment Program are available for bridges with total eligible project costs up to $100 million, with minimum grant awards of $2.5 million, and maximum grant awards of 80 percent of the total eligible project costs.

Highway Bridge Program (HBP)
The City has considered options for rehabilitation or complete replacement of the Orr Street bridge, possibly through the Caltrans administered Highway Bridge Program (HBP). The HBP is a safety program that provides federal aid to Local Public Agencies (LPAs) to replace and rehabilitate structurally deficient, locally owned public highway bridges or to complete preventive maintenance on bridges that are not deficient. To be eligible to receive HBP funds, a bridge must be owned and maintained by a California LPA, be open to public travel, in the National Bridge Inventory, be in poor condition, be seismically vulnerable, scour critical or have a PCI below 70%. The information must be obtained from the most current Bridge Inspection Report.

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program was implemented to support surface transportation projects and other related efforts that contribute air quality improvements and provide congestion relief. Funds are directed to transportation projects and programs, which contribute to the attainment and maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards in nonattainment or air quality maintenance areas for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter under provisions in the Federal Clean Air Act. Eligible CMAQ projects include public transit improvements; high occupancy vehicle lanes; Intelligent Transportation System Infrastructure; traffic management and traveler information systems (i.e., electric toll collection systems); employer-based transportation management plans and incentives; traffic flow improvement programs (signal coordination); fringe parking facilities serving multiple occupancy vehicles; shared ride services; bicycle and pedestrian facilities; flexible work-hour programs; outreach activities establishing Transportation Management Associations; fare/fee subsidy programs; and under certain conditions, Particulate Matter improvement projects.

Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP)
Surface Transportation Block Grant Program funds are apportioned to States to provide flexible funding that may be used by States and localities for projects to preserve or improve conditions and performance on any Federal-Aid highway, bridge projects on any public road, facilities for active transportation, transit capital projects and public bus terminals and facilities. Fifty percent of a State’s funds are to be distributed to areas based on population, known as Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds. In addition, a portion of its RSTP funds is to be set aside for bridges not on Federal-Aid highways. Furthermore, a special rule is provided to allow a portion of funds reserved for rural areas to be spent on rural minor collectors. Examples of projects eligible for RSTP include highway projects; bridges (including construction, reconstruction, seismic retrofit, and painting); transit capital improvements; carpool, parking, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities; safety improvements and hazard elimination; research; traffic management systems; surface transportation planning; transportation enhancement activities and control measures; and wetland and other environmental mitigation.

Page 302 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Orr Street Bridge & Corridor Study 17 Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG)
The STBG is a program under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and has the most flexible eligibilities among all Federal-Aid highway programs. The STBG promotes flexibility in State and local transportation decisions and provides flexible funding to best address State and local transportation needs. (See RSTP) State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) The State Highway Operating and Protection Plan (SHOPP) is a four‐year program of projects that have the purpose of collision reduction, major damage restoration, bridge preservation, roadway preservation, roadside preservation, mobility enhancement, and preservation of other transportation facilities related to the state highway system. Non‐ capital projects are programmed through the SHOPP. The SHOPP is adopted simultaneously with the STIP every two years. While SLOCOG is allowed input to the SHOPP, the State has sole discretionary authority over the use of SHOPP funds. The SHOPP program includes projects designed to maintain the safety and operational integrity of the state highway system. Most of the projects are for pavement rehabilitation, bridge rehabilitation, and traffic safety improvements. Other projects may include such things as operational improvements (e.g., traffic signalization) and roadside rest areas. It does not include projects to add through lanes to increase capacity.

Reconnecting Communities: Highways to Boulevards (RC:H2B) Program The RC:H2B program was established, to be administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), with guidance from the California State Transportation Agency, and in consultation with the California Transportation Commission, the Department of Housing and Community Development, the Strategic Growth Council, and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, to provide funding, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the purpose of awarding competitive grants to eligible entities, in partnership with Caltrans, for planning or implementing the conversion or transformation of underutilized state highways into multimodal corridors that serve residents of underserved communities. The primary goal of the RC:H2B Pilot Program is to reconnect communities harmed by transportation infrastructure, through community-supported planning activities and capital construction projects that are championed by those communities.

Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG)
Regional grants from MCOG may be a viable source of funding for the pedestrian and access improvements and possibly the bridge replacement, if available, or at least a portion of the costs. If regional grants (or local grants also) are pursued as a portion of the cost, they could potentially be used as leverage funds for seeking federal or state grants.

Additional Grant Programs
Additional grant programs that may fund active transportation improvements like those included in this Plan include:
– Clean Mobility Options
– Local Partnership Program
– Office of Traffic Safety Grant Program
– Solutions for Congested Corridors
– Sustainable Transportation Equity Project
– Transformative Climate Communities
– Transportation Development Act Funding

Page 303 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Orr Street Bridge & Corridor Study 18

11. Conclusion
The Orr Street Bridge and Corridor Study identified three potential alternatives for consideration of the bridge replacement over Orrs Creek and street improvements to accommodate multimodal access for a complete street design concept. The three alternatives evaluated were: (1) a two-lane vehicular bridge; (2) a single-lane vehicular bridge; and (3) a pedestrian and bicycle only bridge with emergency access. All three alternatives considered improved access and connectivity for people walking and biking along the Orr Street corridor and across the Orr Street bridge with continued sidewalks and bicycle facilities. The three alternatives were presented to the public and neighborhood groups for consideration and feedback in April and August of 2022.

The three alternatives were evaluated for preliminary environmental considerations. Alternative 1 would have the highest potential for impacts and Alternative 3 would have the least potential for impacts to the environment.

Alternative 3 may meet Class 2 Categorical Exemption, however the City would need to evaluate the project against the list of exceptions outlined in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines. A hydraulics study was conducted to evaluate changes to the water flow depth and velocity with the proposed bridge alternatives, and determine the water surface elevation and scour within Orrs Creek. However, a geotechnical study has not been conducted, and sitespecific information may likely result in varying calculation results. A geotechnical investigation will be needed to design the final project. An APS for the bridge superstructure was performed to identify a recommended bridge structure and profile. The APS recommends the bridge have PC/PS box beam girders with a UHPC polymer deck slab to reduce bridge depth, costs, and overall impacts. Preliminary costs were estimated for each alternative. Funding for the construction of the bridge and Orr Street improvements could be from grant funds including CMAQ, HBP, or RSTP. Other federal, state, or regional grants may also be available.

Page 304 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Orr Street Bridge & Corridor Study 19 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Appendices

Page 305 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Orr Street Bridge & Corridor Study 20 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Appendix A
Workshop #1 Memorandum

Page 306 of 1534 ends

O
Orr Street Bridge and Corridor Study

COMMUNITY

WORKSHOP
April 23, 2022 10am -2 pm

Page 307 of 1534 ends

Project Background and Study Components
The Orr Street Bridge and Corridor Feasibility Study was initiated to look at various options, alignments, and typical cross sections for replacements of the Orr Street Bridge and upgrade the local roadway to a complete street design including multi-modal accommodations, travel lanes, parking and improved access for City emergency and maintenance services. Complete street designs will provide improved walkability, bike friendliness and access across the creek within the local community. Improvements such as sidewalks, curbs, gutter, public parking lane, widened travelled way, traffic calming measures (including speed bumps and/or bulb outs), additional lighting, and connectivity with existing and planned City road and trail networks will be evaluated in the proposed design alternatives in addition to various options for the bridge replacement including:

1. Complete street bridge with one lane in each direction, bike lanes and sidewalks

2. Bike and pedestrian only bridge

3. Single lane bridge with sidewalks to discourage non-local traffic

4. Single lane bridge primarily used for bikes and pedestrians, but equipped with knock down bollards to allow movement for emergency and City maintenance services only.

5. Remove the bridge without replacement
Public Meeting Notifications
The project team implemented a robust notification plan to spread the word about the community workshop/meeting. Notification mailers were sent to community members who live within a 700 foot radius of the project by mail to (240+ individual property owners and residents were sent a direct mailer). The City of Ukiah also posted the meeting notice to the City’s website and directed the project team to post fliers around the City on poster boards and other public locations to encourage additional attendance. A social pinpoint website developed by the project team was created to allow residents to review draft materials, receive notifications, and post comments for additional access for input and comment for those who may not be able to attend the meeting inperson and the link to this site was printed on every mailer and flier that was sent during the notification period as-well.

Meeting Venue and Attendees
The public meeting was held on April 23, 2022 (Saturday) on the north side of the Bridge from 10am to 2 pm. More than 65 people showed up for the public meeting during the four hour period (redacted sign-in sheet provided in the appendix of this summary, it should be noted that not all

Page 308 of 1534 ends

attendees felt comfortable putting their information down and were present to hear the City’s vision). Majority of the attendees were 40+ of age and were residents of the Wagenseller neighborhood; in addition to representatives of the nearby Orthodox church, residents of the adjacent Brush Meadow Apartments presented critical arguments about their vision for the future Orr Street. Two City council members, Planning Commissioners and Public Works employees, and representatives from the Ukiah Daily Journal were also in attendance. Daniel Flores, from City of Ukiah public works also acted as a Spanish translator for those residents that English was not the preferred language, which included residents who live on Orr Street itself.

Meeting Format
The project team purpose of this on-site public meeting was to listen to public opinion about the replacement of the current bridge over the Orrs Creek. Our team targeted on understanding what people of this neighborhood wanted and what are the problem that they are facing due to the closure of this existing bridge. Moreover, listening to public views about vehicular bridge vs bike friendly pedestrian bridge was the main topic of discussion for this meeting. The public was made aware that currently GHD is at the initial stage of conducting this feasibility study and to follow up on this suggestion different design alternative will be presented to them in Summer.

Timeline of project’s schedule was disclosed to all the attendees. Everyone at the meeting was informed that GHD will be holding another public workshop in summer of this year to present various design alternative and collect public’s opinion on them. Based on the public’s responses and City of Ukiah’s determination on “recommended” improvements, GHD is tasked to make a final design recommendation for this project to City Council by the end of 2022.

Every attendee was requested to optionally mark their presence on the sign in sheet (not everyone felt comfortable). After verbal exchange of opinion, everyone in attendance was asked to write down their comments on a comment card and put them in the comment box stationed at the booth.

The feedback collected in the virtual workshop is represented in this summary through various graphics and comments submitted. The project team received more than 60+ responses during the meeting, a summary is provided in the next section of, actual comments are included in the appendix of this report.

Feedback / Comment Summary
Below is a numerical analysis of the feedback received from the community on the type of structure that is desired.

Page 309 of 1534 ends

In addition to the structure type discussions, the community also highlighted these additional concerns:

1. Need for additional policing to remove abandoned vehicles and undesirable activities at the bridge and the adjacent private properties.

2. Benches and other rest areas near the creek crossing.

3. Additional lighting along the Orr Street, especially near the creek.

4. Adding garbage/recycling containers near the bridge to reduce litter and debris from entering the creek.

5. Measures to reduce the speed of vehicles such as speed bumps on Orr and Ford Streets.

6. ADA and walkability compliance for the elderly and mobility challenged residents who live nearby.

7. Emergency services should not take Orr Street to arrive at the hospital, they should continue with current routes.

8. Children play on Orr Street and additional traffic is a safety concern in a narrow roadway.

On the following page are the digital scans of public’s physically submitted comments during the public meeting.
27%
5%
68%
Two lane Vehicular
Bridge
Single Lane Bridge with
Emergency / City
Services Access Only
Bike and Pedestrian Only Bridge

Page 310 of 1534 ends

Appendices

1. (Redacted information) Sign in sheets for 4/23/2022 meeting

2. (Redacted information) Comment Cards from 4/23/2022 meeting

3. Comments from social pinpoint webpage and City Email

4. Photos of the event taken by the project team during the meeting Note: Personal information of all the attendees have been redacted to respect privacy.

Page 311 of 1534 ends

Page 312 of 1534 ends

Page 313 of 1534 ends

Page 314 of 1534 ends

Page 315 of 1534 ends

Page 316 of 1534 ends

Page 317 of 1534 ends

Page 318 of 1534 ends

Page 319 of 1534 ends

Page 320 of 1534 ends

Page 321 of 1534 ends

Page 322 of 1534 ends

Page 323 of 1534 ends

Page 324 of 1534 ends

Page 325 of 1534 ends

Page 326 of 1534 ends

Page 327 of 1534 ends

Page 328 of 1534 ends

Page 329 of 1534 ends

Page 330 of 1534 ends

Page 331 of 1534 ends

Page 332 of 1534 ends

Page 333 of 1534 ends

Page 334 of 1534 ends

Page 335 of 1534 ends

Page 336 of 1534 ends

Page 337 of 1534 ends

Page 338 of 1534 ends

April 28, 2022
City of Ukiah
Orr Street Bridge Project
Greetings,
I have lived at Oak and Morris Streets, a 15 minute walk to the Orr St. Bridge, for 21 years. I have attended numerous community events on the bridge. It is a special place with a lovely view of a bend in Orr Creek, a major tributary extending from Ukiah’s golf course to the Russian River.

I was unable to attend the event at the Orr St. Bridge on April 23, 2022, and so offer here my comments about the bridge’s future.

I strongly want to have the bridge be dedicated for pedestrian and bike use only.

Making the bridge available for emergency use does not make sense because any vehicular route to the bridge would be such a circuitous one that the preferable route would most likely remain via State St. or Orchard St.

Providing for an emergency over providing for community recreation, relaxation, pedestrian/bike fun and safety has not been the goal for past community planning decisions. So why for this community alone should emergency trump current usage?
This historic neighborhood was promised this particular bridge as a gathering community spot just the way it has been used for the past 20+ years. The decision was con7rmed by the City Council. The neighborhood deserves and needs traf7c calming not traf7c increases.

Thank you for your attention.

Pinky Kushner
504 N. Oak St.

Ukiah, CA
510 459-8289 mobile

Page 339 of 1534 ends

1 Wagenseller Neighborhood Meeting Goals/Needs
March 17, 2018 Responses and Priorities
2018 Priorities

1. New Park
o Location: Mason and Clara Street
High need for children’s play area, gathering for picnics, recreation Good use of blighted area, help limit vandalism of kiosk, graffiti, garbage, abandoned vehicles currently on site
Accessible, large, and connected to rail trail
Desired Uses:
• BBQ pits, picnics
• Play options – older and younger play structures that are artistic and iconic like rocket ship, etc. (incl. teeter-totter, slides) • Exercise equipment – circuit training
• Community Garden
• Chess tables
o Timing – High Priority! How to Fast Track?
o Neighborhood residents have been trying to work with the City on this for 25 years

2. Speeding, Road Conditions, Street Lighting
o Issues: Safety hazard for pedestrians, children playing, backing out of driveways Priority streets for attention – Clara and Ford Streets • Continual issue of speeding. Occasional use of digital sign helps only when present
• Roads are in desperate need of paving
• Street lights along Sidnie St and Sidnie Ct. and along eastern Ford St. and Clara St. poor functioning and insufficient. Some residents don’t feel safe at night walking
o Suggested Solutions:
Increased law enforcement patrols
Posting speed limits
Traffic slowing measures
Prioritize for repaving
Repair/replace/increase number of street lights

3. Orr Street Bridge
o Issues: Vast majority of residents want it to remain closed as it has been for past 9 years
Safer for children and pedestrians
Limits traffic problems
The more bridge is used for recreational use, the less attraction for illegal activity
However, . . .

Page 340 of 1534 ends

2 • Problem of homeless and others gathering with drug use, garbage in creeks, encampments
• Additional concern of providing evacuation route for Orr St. resident o Suggested Solutions:
More law enforcement patrols
Homeless solution?
Continued neighborhood clean-ups
Create more attractive/community-oriented space/bridge to deter negative activities, particularly renovation to invite safer pedestrian/bike use Ensure evacuation route (for residents or emergency vehicles) What We Like about the Neighborhood
Nice and friendly neighbors
Culturally and Economically diverse neighborhood
Relatively affordable with larger lots
Historic/Hidden Gem
Very dense, yet still has open spaces/creeks/lots of trees/gardens Traffic has improved with Orchard/Brush St. Bridge and closing of Orr St. Bridge Gang situation has improved on eastern Ford/Sidnie Streets Book kiosks are gathering places and generally well taken care of Great relationship with Ford Street Project and RCHDC Lots of community volunteers around Rail Trail
City is starting to give the neighborhood more attention (developing plans for park, trails, bridge, sidewalks)
What We Want Changed/Improved (in addition to Priorities for 2018 listed above) More neighbors knowing/trusting each other
MCAVHN not a good neighbor – needle waste and drug problems around neighborhood need to be managed
Consequences for neighbors that don’t maintain properties/collect junk in yards Incentivize neighborhood garbage clean up/less littering with neighborhood clean ups and more public trash receptacles
Homeless encampments
Hamilton Street car/RV camping
Barking dogs
Stolen shopping carts that are abandoned. Collecting service helping, but still a problem Relationship with police – more involved with neighborhood and neighbors Relationship/responsiveness of Hospital with neighborhood (construction noise, round-up sprayed along adjacent property owners lots, helicopter noise) Public Works responsiveness (street paving, general maintenance) Bottleneck at Ford and State Streets (too narrow) – make safer for pedestrians, turning

Page 341 of 1534 ends

1 III. Partial Chronology of Events re Orr Street Bridge August 2008
Wagenseller Neighborhood Association (WNA) representatives speak to the Ukiah City Council about the dangerous amount of vehicle traffic coming off the Orr Street Bridge and into their neighborhood.

Early 2009
The Orr Street Bridge is closed to vehicle traffic. The WNA begins discussions with City of Ukiah Public Works Director, Tim Eriksen who states favoring re-opening the bridge to vehicles but promises that new asphalt and guardrails will be installed by the summer of 2009 to allow safe pedestrian crossing.

September 17, 2009
WNA member Ann Kelly writes to the Ukiah City Council regarding concerns of the WNA, particularly the future of the bridge. She describes the WNA’s proposal to keep the bridge closed to traffic except for emergency vehicles.

Late September 2009
WNA members speak at Ukiah City Council meeting to request that the Bridge refurbishment focus on pedestrian and bicycle use only.

April 2010
WNA members Susan Sher and the late Diane Zucker write then Mayor Benj Thomas of concerns re their neighborhood including keeping the Orr Street Bridge closed to vehicle traffic.

Early October 2010
In its Special Revenue Budget, Special Projects Reserve for Fiscal Year 2010-2011, under the category of Public Works Projects, the City of Ukiah approves the amount of $125,000 for Orr Creek [sic] Bridge Reconstruction.

October 6, 2010
The future of the Orr Street Bridge is included as a Ukiah City Council agenda item.

Thirteen residents and community leaders speak in support of closing the bridge to traffic; one speaks in opposition. The Council directs staff “to move forward with the Wagenseller’s community concepts and produce a cost estimate with pros and cons of

Page 342 of 1534 ends

2 making the bridge a pedestrian and bike bridge while retaining its capacity for future use.”
Late 2014 or early 2015
The City Council approves an allocation of a total of $254,438 for the bridge refurbishment. Some council members, however, state their preference for using these funds for street improvement.

August 19, 2015
WNA member Ann Kelly writes to remind then Mayor Doug Crane and Council Members that these funds were promised to improve the deck and railings of the bridge.

In her letter, Kelly goes as far as to suggest that the WNA would be amenable to a reduced allocation of funds for this project.

June 2016
At City of Ukiah budget hearings, in response to audience questions about the status of the bridge improvements, Public Works Director Eriksen states there are no plans to renovate the bridge.

April 27, 2017
With no progress made and the apparent position of the Public Works Department that there are no plans to work on the bridge, Susan Sher and Ann Kelly write City Manager, Sage Sangiacomo inquiring of the status of promised improvements to the bridge.

May 22, 2017
Craig Schlatter, the City’s Director of Community Development and Planning responds on behalf of Mr. Sangiocomo. He acknowledges that “[f]unds have been budgeted for some kind of treatment to the bridge” but goes on to say that “staff, however, has been unclear on approach.” Mr. Schlatter suggests that the WNA contact Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works to discuss this issue. 1
1 This exchange of correspondence also discuss the long-promised plans for a park in the Wagenseller Neighborhood. For approximately 25 years, the WNA has been in discussion with a parade of City officials about the need for a park in our densely populated neighborhood. The closest action that was taken was a feasibility analysis started in 2016 which was apparently not completed. There have been no updates provided to the WNA regarding the future of a park.

Page 343 of 1534 ends

3 July 7, 2017
Susan Sher, Ann Kelly and Neil Davis, director of Walk and Bike Mendocino meet with Tim Eriksen and then Deputy Public Works Director, Rick Seanor. Eriksen explains that the plans to renovate the bridge will now cost between $300,000 and $400,000, with only $100,000 set aside and the remainder hopefully to come from Measure Y funds.

Eriksen continues to argue that the bridge should be opened to vehicles; his arguments appear to be based on the facts that once a week a garbage truck needs to turn around and emergency vehicles need to go over the bridge. Eriksen promises to bring a cost analysis to the City Council at its August 16, 2017 meeting, the same cost analysis that the Council directed him to do in October 2010.

August 16, 2017
The current status of the bridge or a cost analysis does not appear on the Council’s agenda and no action is taken by the Public Works Department regarding the bridge.

January 25, 2018
In response to an email from Susan Sher, then Ukiah Police Chief Chris Dewey explains that keeping the bridge closed to traffic would not negatively impact traffic in the neighborhood; in fact he states that traffic now flows better with vehicles using the Orchard Avenue Extension. The Chief goes on to say that he “cannot think of any circumstances where we have utilized the bridge for an emergency response.” February 21, 2018
Hearing nothing further, Susan Sher and Ann Kelly prepare and give a power point presentation to the Ukiah City Council on the deplorable state of the bridge and their fruitless efforts to get a response from City staff. Eight other City residents speak in support; none speak in favor of opening the bridge to vehicles. At the meeting, Eriksen once again argues for opening the bridge to vehicles. The City Council gives direction to staff similar to what it gave over seven years earlier: develop option for a pedestrian/bike bridge with access for emergency vehicles; look into options for a turnaround on the south side; get cost estimates for decking; and work with the WNA re design options and budget.

April 9, 2018
Hearing nothing from staff, Susan Sher and Ann Kelly email then mayor Kevin Doble regarding staff’s failure to act on the Council’s second directive.

Page 344 of 1534 ends

4 May 18, 2018
Susan Sher and Ann Kelly meet with Tim Eriksen who promises to put a new budget request for the bridge repair on the City’s budget hearing agenda the following month and to let them know when the meeting will be so they they can attend. He fails to notify re the meeting date but later explains that he suggested two different budget numbers - $350,000 and $500,000 that was received by the City as information.

June 2018
The City approves the amount of $254,438 for the Orr Street Bridge in the Capital Improvement Plan for the fiscal year 2018-2019. This is the same amount that had been approved in 2015.

November 8, 2018
Ann Kelly and Susan Sher meet with Tim Eriksen, Rick Seanor and other community members and staff. Tim promises that due to its deplorable condition, the bridge will be refurbished and the decision as to whether to allow vehicles will be put on hold. Eriksen and Seanor also pledge to prepare an RFP for the bridge renovations that will go before the City Council at its January 16, 2019 meeting. They foresee that contract work should be assigned by June and construction begin August 2019.

January 16, 2019
The bridge RFP is not on the Council agenda and no further word is received from Eriksen. Susan Sher has a telephone conversation with City Manager Sangiacomo who apologizes for staff’s lack of communication and action. Sher also emails Eriksen to express disappointment regarding the excessive delays.

February 1, 2019
Eriksen responds saying the Department’s work load is heavy and promises to get the RFP out in the next two weeks.

March 28, 2019
Having received no further response from Eriksen (except a phone message on February 25, 2019 promising that the RFP would go out “this week”), Susan Sher emails Sage Sangiacomo asking for help in getting some response from the City.

Page 345 of 1534 ends

5 April 17, 2019
Eriksen notifies Susan and Ann that that same evening, the City Council will review the Capital Improvement Plan. He explains that the Project Reserve Fund has $254,438 for the bridge project and he will request another $150,000 from Measure Y funds. He also promises that the project will focus on fixing the deck and not deal with his desire to open the bridge to vehicles. He adds that LACO Associates, a local engineering firm has a proposal enabling him to finish the plans.

May 18, 2019
Susan and Ann meet with Eriksen. He shows them design plans for the bridge renovation with which they are pleased. Eriksen promises to present these plans to the City Council at its June 7, 2019 meeting and that he will put on hold the issue of the turnaround.

Early August 2019
The bridge renovation is not on the June 7, 2019 Council agenda. Sher and Kelly hear nothing further. Increasingly despairing, but trying to infuse some humor into this frustrating situation, they send a postcard to Eriksen, Sangiocomo, then Mayor Mulheren and some members of the City Council with photos and a mock quiz about why there has been no action.

August 12, 2019
Then Mayor Mulheren emails Sher and Kelly explaining her understanding that the LACO engineers are currently very busy but they will be able to share their design for the bridge in the next week. The plans do not get completed in that time frame nor at any other time and there is no further word from Mayor Mulheren.

February 19, 2020
Hearing nothing further from any City staff or council member, Sher and Kelly attend a City Council meeting to speak during the public comment period about the stagnation of the bridge project. Before the meeting starts, they see Eriksen who is there for another purpose. He hurriedly tells them that the bridge refurbishment is on hold indefinitely because the LACO engineers are too busy and have abandoned the project.

Mid-June 2020
At the request of Deputy City Manager Shannon Riley who Sher had contacted for assistance, Eriksen telephones Sher. He informs her that he has “great news” - - that the City is applying for a community block grant for the bridge project. In response to

Page 346 of 1534 ends

6 Sher’s question, he explains, however, that these monies will not be for the long-awaited refurbishment of the bridge, but instead, for a traffic study to determine the feasibility of allowing vehicle traffic on the bridge and the need for a turnaround.

June 18, 2020
The City of Ukiah holds budget hearings for its “Five Year Capital Improvement Plan”.

After lengthy research, Sher and Kelly are able to obtain online information regarding the budgeted projects of the Public Works Department adopted by the City Council. The Orr Street Bridge is described as being “In Progress” with a timeline of 2019 to 2023 but no funding is allotted for the 2020/2021fiscal year. For the years 2021/2022 and 2022/2023, $140,000 and $150,000, respectively for the project is designated as from Measure Y and “CDBG Funding Opportunity” (presumably the grant for the traffic study for which the City had applied). For the year 2022/2023, $254,439 is designated as being from “New Revenues”. To date, there has been no further communication between City staff and members of the WNA. The bridge continues to deteriorate.

Page 347 of 1534 ends

From: Chris Dewey
Sent: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 22:13:23 +0000
To: Susan Sher
Subject: RE: Orr Street Bridge
Susan,
Sorry in my delay in getting back to you( yes I feel that the closing of the bridge has not negatively impacted traffic on Ford Street or in the neighborhood. In fact, I/d comment that traffic now flows better, using the bridge on Orchard, rather than cutting through the neighborhood to get across the town.

I also cannot think of any circumstances where we have utilized the bridge for an emergency response.

I would comment that a park is a great idea( but I do worry that because of the bridge design and trees and other growth in the area; the bridge area can be an area that attracts illegal camping and other illegal activities. Anything we can do to increase regular use will detract from illegal activity.

Thanks so much for checking with me,
Chris
Chris Dewey
Chief of Police
Ukiah Police Department
300 Seminary Ave.,
Ukiah, CA 95482
D (707) 463-6245
C (707) 272-4091
F (707) 462-6068
[email protected]
www.ukiahpolice.com
From: Susan Sher [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 2:40 PM
To: Chris Dewey

Page 348 of 1534 ends

Cc: Ann Kelly
Subject: Orr Street Bridge
Greetings Chief Dewey,
We have been in contact periodically throughout the years concerning issues in the Wagenseller Neighborhood. I am writing you now to get your feedback on a specific issue.

Some members of the Wagenseller Neighborhood Association will be speaking to the Ukiah City Council on February 7 regarding the condition of the Orr Street Bridge. As you are probably aware, the bridge has become an eyesore, another source of blight and a magnet for drug deals, homeless encapments and other undesirable activity in our neighborhood. We will be asking the Council to use funds that had been set aside years ago to spruce up the bridge.

We feel strongly that if the bridge looked more welcoming as a place to walk, bicycle or sit by the creek, less illicit activity would take place in that area.

Approximately 7 years ago, the bridge was closed to vehicle traffic but if necessary, open to emergency vehicles. Doing so has made a remarkable difference in our neighborhood; prior to the closing of the bridge, cars and trucks came barreling through our neighborhood, creating a significant safety hazard. To my knowledge, no emergency vehicle has ever needed to use the bridge since traffic has been diverted to the Orchard Avenue extension and no traffic problems have occurred.

I mention that because we are relying on the continued closure of the bridge to vehicle traffic in order to enhance the bridge as a pedestrian and bicycle path. We foresee a more attractive pedestrian and bicycle path on the bridge as a "pocket park". As you know, despite years of requests, the neighborhood still has no park. And such a bridge/path would provide a stopping place at the end of the trail along the proposed Orr Creek Greenway.

Can you verify that continued closure of the Orr Street Bridge to vehicle traffic for the past 7 years or so has posed no traffic or safety hazards?
Thanks very much for your time and attention.

Most sincerely,
Susan Sher
(707) 272-7917
Or
--
Susan Sher Mediation Services 7 Ukiah, CA 7 (707) 463-1196 7 www.mediate.com/SSher

Page 349 of 1534 ends

Page 350 of 1534 ends

Page 351 of 1534 ends

Page 352 of 1534 ends

Page 353 of 1534 ends

Page 354 of 1534 ends

4/14/2022
City of Ukiah Public Works Department
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
Re: Letter of Support for Wagenseller Neighborhood Orr Street Pedestrian & Bicycle Bridge
Dear City of Ukiah Public Works,
Walk & Bike Mendocino is pleased to support the Wagenseller Neighborhood’s plea to transition the Orr Street bridge into a bicycle and pedestrian bridge.

This proposed project in the Wagenseller Neighborhood of Ukiah has been the subject of numerous community meetings over 12 years. The current state of the bridge is a magnet for drug dealing, trash dumping and encampments. Addressing this hazard is incredibly critical to the public safety of this residential neighborhood.

Revitalizing the Orr Street bridge will create a safe and comfortable non-motorized facility for pedestrian and bicycle travel. The Wagenseller Neighborhood’s visual character will also be greatly enhanced by this improvement.

By providing enhanced non-motorized travel alternatives, this project will show a commitment to the Complete Streets vision. It will create a more walkable community and provide active transportation and public health benefits for both younger and older adults, and will result in much needed operational, mobility, and safety improvements in this neglected neighborhood.

I am pleased to offer my strong support for this project.

Sincerely,
Sonja Burgal
Walk & Bike Mendocino
[email protected]

Page 355 of 1534 ends

1 Daniel Kehrer
From: Daniel Kehrer
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 8:24 PM
To: Tim Eriksen (InTouch); Jason Benson; [email protected] Subject: FW: Orr Street Bridge
Attachments: Wagenseller Neighborhood Meeting Goals, March 2018, Miles Gordon.docx; Re Orr Street Bridge from Chris Dewey.pdf; Orr St Bridge refurbishment plans July'19.pdf FYI. From Wagenseller Community Member Susan Sher.

Talk to you soon.

Daniel Kehrer (He/Him) PE QSD/QSP
Project Manager
North America Design Discipline Lead – Highways, Roads, & Rail

GHD
Proudly employee owned | ghd.com
Physical Office Address – 943 Reserve Drive, Roseville CA 95678 USA Effective immediately, please use our new PO Box for all US Postal Service mail.

Office Mailing Address – PO Box 1407, Roseville, CA 95678 USA D +1 916 918 0614 O +1 916 782 8688 E [email protected]
The Power of Commitment

Connect

Please consider our environment before printing this email -----Original Message-----
From: Susan Sher <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 6:04 PM
To: Daniel Kehrer <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Orr Street Bridge
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
Dear Daniel,
Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today about the upcoming community meeting regarding the Orr Street Bridge.

I attach here a few documents that might provide some helpful information. They are:
- Results from a community needs survey done by Miles Gordon of Kitchen Table Consulting in March 2018 who was paid by the City to discuss Wagenseller Neighborhood concerns. Section 3 of the report discusses neighbors' preferences regarding the Orr Street Bridge. My understanding was that virtually every household on Orr Street, Clara Avenue, Ford Street and Joseph Street was contacted.

Page 356 of 1534 ends

2 - emails between then Ukiah Police Chief Chris Dewey and me in January 2018 regarding the Chief's views on closing the bridge to vehicle traffic and the possible need for use of the bridge by emergency vehicles.
- architectural (or engineering plans?) for "Rehabiliation of the Orr St Bridge" issued by the engineering firm LACO in July 2019 at the request of the City of Ukiah Public Works Department. A neighbor and I were informed by PW Director, Tim Eriksen in February 2020 that LACO engineers got too busy to finalize these plans and had abandoned the project.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns. I look forward to the April 23 community meeting.

Sincerely.

Susan Sher
707-272-7917
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avg.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cdanie l.kehrer%40GHD.com%7Cf9252e3177bd473471c508da11201594%7C5e4e864c3b824180a5155c8fb718fff8%7C0%7C0 %7C637841128144452589%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1ha WwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=V9bJiRdeELsuICx4MHLSOOTyB2OeC0iBC75VeOA2ydw%3D&reser ved=0

Page 357 of 1534 ends

1 Daniel Kehrer
From: Sonja Burgal <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 2:49 PM
To: Daniel Kehrer
Subject: Ukiah, CA: Wagenseller Orr Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge Letter of Support Attachments: Wagenseller Orr St Bridge LOS.docx
Dear Daniel,
In regards to an update of the Ukiah, CA Orr St Bridge, I was given your email address as a contact for GHD, the consultants for the project. Please see attached for Walk & Bike Mendocino's letter of support for the Wagenseller Orr Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge for your records.

Thank you.

Peace,
Sonja Burgal
Field Coordinator
Walk & Bike Mendocino
From: Sonja Burgal
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 1:11 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Wagenseller Orr Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge
Greetings,
Please see attached for Walk & Bike Mendocino's letter of support for the Wagenseller Orr Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge.

Thank you.

Peace,
Sonja Burgal
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important

Page 358 of 1534 ends

1 Daniel Kehrer
From: Jason Benson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 4:10 PM
To: Orrstreetbridge
Subject: FW: Orr Street Bridge Study Kickoff Meeting
For records.
Jason Benson, PE
Public Works – Senior Engineer
C: (707)510-5485
From: Shannon Riley
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 3:37 PM
To: Mari Rodin <[email protected]>; Jason Benson <[email protected]> Cc: Craig Schlatter <[email protected]>; Tim Eriksen <[email protected]>; Josefina Duenas <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Orr Street Bridge Study Kickoff Meeting
Hi Mari,
I'm glad so many people are passionate about this project!This is sensitive for a number of reasons, and we fully recognize that it's awkward to be asking for input from people who have been diligently providing input for over a decade...but it's part of the CDBG process.

Here's a summary/explanation of the notifications thus far:

Mailing: The program we use to generate mailing labels is called ParcelQuest, and it uses Assessor's Office info based on property owners.It's not a perfect system, as there is about a sixͲmonth lag in updates.For example, Mo Mulheren bought a home in the neighborhood a few months ago, and the system still doesn't show her as a property owner.She didn't receive a flyer...and noted that she has had other problems with mail delivery as well.Also, in general, mail is taking longer and is less reliable.The image below shows the area that was mailed to.

Flyers/Social Media:GHD has done some social media and hung flyers around town.In addition to Home Depot and other businesses in that neighborhood, we also requested that flyers be posted at: Schat’s Bakery & Café , Ukiah Brewing Company, Oco Time, Mama’s Café, Stan’s Maple Café, Villa Del Mar, Patrona, Left Coast Seafood, Cultivo, Black Oak Coffee – further north on State Street, toward the project area, Slam Dunk Pizza – further north on State Street, toward the project area.

Phone Number:You're rightͲͲthe number on the flyer is the City's general number.We didn't catch that until it was too late; however, before they were delivered, we informed the receptionist and KristineͲͲmost likely to answer general phone callsͲͲhow to route them.And luckily, there are alternative contact methods.

Contacting GHD:We acknowledge that some people want to contact GHD directly.GHD will be represented at the community workshop and will be forwarded all correspondence.However, per the City Councilmember handbook,

Page 359 of 1534 ends

2 Councilmembers should not contact contractors directly and should instead work through City Staff.The same is true for the public.As I'm sure you understand, the City is GHD's client, and it can be confusing and disruptive if they are receiving direction from people other than their client.All emails sent to the customized email address go to GHD as well as City Staff.

Happy to discuss further if you have additional questionsͲͲ Thanks,
Shannon
The 700 foot radius is this:

Shannon Riley
Deputy City Manager
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Avenue

Page 360 of 1534 ends

3 Ukiah, California 95482
w:(707) 467Ͳ5793
From: Mari Rodin
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 1:29 PM
To: Jason Benson
Cc: Craig Schlatter; Tim Eriksen; Shannon Riley; Josefina Duenas Subject: Re: Orr Street Bridge Study Kickoff Meeting
Hi All,
Yesterday I contacted a resident of Clara Street to make sure she received the invitation for the community meeting.

Here’s the feedback I received:

Yes, I did and so did some of my neighbors further east on Clara even though you said only those within 700 feet of the bridge would get one. But other streets in the neighborhood like Norton and Mason did not get one. And I haven't seen any fliers posted around town as promised. And no notices in the UDJ or other media. Maybe social media (I haven't checked)?
Also, I noticed that the only contact email and phone numbers listed were City of Ukiah and not GHD. I think many people would be more comfortable contacting the consultant rather than the City.

Can we please set up a time to discuss this? Or maybe you can remedy the suggestions asap? That would include:

1.) Perhaps expanding the number of residences that receive the flyer even though we are close to the date of the event.

2.) Getting the word out about the public input meeting on social media platforms, the UDJ, and on flyers posted around the neighborhood (laminated?).

3.) Adding a GHD contact person to the flyer. Apparently the number provided for the City is a central number that would make it very difficult for anyone to provide input or ask questions. Even if someone calling that number did reach a human being, it’s unlikely they would know anything about his project. Thanks in advance for your prompt attention to this matter, Mari
On Feb 22, 2022, at 12:08 PM, Jason Benson <[email protected]> wrote:

Councilmember Rodin –

Sorry for the delay in response. The recent project correspondence I had with GHD they were working on working with the surveyor crew on site the week of February 7th. This work slowed them down on the original project schedule and to have the Community Meeting #1 on March 12th.

Page 361 of 1534 ends

1 Daniel Kehrer
From: Susan Sher <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 7:42 PM
To: Daniel Kehrer
Subject: Re: Orr Street Bridge project
Hi Daniel,
I wanted to let you know what may be obvious but may not have been considered by the City.

I'm thinking that most people who live in the Wagenseller neighborhood who want to attend the meeting on the 23rd will be walking to the site. Since the meeting will be held on the north side of the bridge, that means neighbors will need to walk across the bridge and climb over or around the barricade the City constructed on the north side. That will serve as a vivid example of the danger the bridge continues to pose but maybe not what the City has in mind for a community meeting. So perhaps whoever will be there from GHD and/or the City of Ukiah can meet with folks on the south end of the bridge or at least on the south side of the barricade.

Also, as you may know, April 23 is the day after Earth Day and there is a lot going on in the City that day and weekͲend that may effect how many people show up to the community meeting. Thanks a lot,
Susan Sher
On 4/18/2022 9:41 AM, Daniel Kehrer wrote:

Hi Susan,
There is no need to apologize. This is a part of my job, and I enjoy doing what I do.

We just need to keep all public input on the record and use the proper channels (when available) to ensure we are in conformance with the Public Agency Code of Conduct.

We have both your and Sonja's comments on-file and will take these documents/input into account.

Take care,
Daniel Kehrer (He/Him) PE QSD/QSP
Project Manager
North America Design Discipline Lead - Highways, Roads, & Rail GHD
Proudly employee owned | ghd.com
Physical Office Address - 943 Reserve Drive, Roseville CA 95678 USA Effective immediately, please use our new PO Box for all US Postal Service mail.

Office Mailing Address - PO Box 1407, Roseville, CA 95678 USA D +1 916 918 0614 O +1 916 782 8688 E [email protected] The Power of Commitment

Page 362 of 1534 ends

2 Connect
Please consider our environment before printing this email -----Original Message-----
From: Susan Sher <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 11:37 AM
To: Daniel Kehrer <[email protected]>
Subject: Orr Street Bridge project
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] Hi Daniel,
I wanted to touch base with you about the email provided for Ukiah residents to comment on the project. I must confess, I did not have much confidence that comments would be received or monitored so I suggested to one person to send her comment directly to you. I understand you directed her to send her comment to the website address found on the notice. I had tried to cc an email I had sent to you to the email referenced on that link a few weeks ago and it was not yet working at the time but I tried again recently and it did not bounce back to me. I hope the City will in good faith, keep a record of comments sent to that address.

I apologize for any confusion I caused.

Thanks very much,
Susan Sher
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avg.com %2F&data=04%7C01%7Cdaniel.kehrer%40GHD.com%7Ccae0fb0bd5764d5681df08da1f0e eb0d%7C5e4e864c3b824180a5155c8fb718fff8%7C0%7C0%7C637856446241533351%7CUnknow n%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6M n0%3D%7C3000&sdata=piG5gkKpiEwkkNQJ6f9VYpMdZZ7ch7S9gObfc9n0i20%3D&res erved=0
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email, including any attachments, is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender immediately, and please delete it; you should not copy it or use it for any purpose or disclose its contents to any other person. GHD and its affiliates reserve the right to monitor and modify all email communications through their networks.

ͲͲ
Susan Sher Mediation Services
Mailing Address: 705 N. State Street, Box 227, Ukiah, CA 95482 Tel. (707) 463-1196

Page 363 of 1534 ends

1 Daniel Kehrer
From: Judy Luria <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 2:08 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Susan Sher
Subject: Orr Street bridge
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
Hello City of Ukiah,
Please develop the Orr Street Bridge for our community and not for our motor vehicles.

It is in disgraceful condition and could become a place of beauty and show folks in the neighborhood and beyond that we care about the future of our neighborhoods and our earth. More of us need to get out of our cars and onto our feet or bicycles. We don’t need to develop this bridge into a motor vehicle speedway, there’s already enough of that here! We need to put our money where our mouth is and honor the agreement previously made, to refurbish the Orr Street Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian use.
thank you,
Judy Luria, member of Climate Action Mendocino
806 W Mill St
Ukiah

Page 364 of 1534 ends

1 Daniel Kehrer
From: Luca Szabo <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2022 3:35 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Concerns regarding Orr Street Bridge renovations Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi,
I am a resident on Clara Avenue, just around the corner from the Orr Street Bridge, for which, I understand, there are renovations being planned. In this email I am expressing the collective concern and preference of my entire household, which includes me, my mother, and father.

Please plan to limit your renovations to include access only to bikes and pedestrians, and NO vehicles.

Following are the reasons for this preference:

1. As it is, there are already too many cars on our road, and there are too many cars driving too fast, above the speed limit, every single day. My neighbors and I have had a chronic heightened concern and anxiety about the potential of vehicle-caused injury to our animals and children, and allowing vehicle access over the Orr Street Bridge would only exacerbate this issue. I have seen my two cats almost been run over a number of times by drivers going too fast and looking at their smart phones instead of the road. Far too many times have I nearly been ran over myself while out walking my dog, who is in his senior years now and is unable to run. I have to throw my arms out and yell at drivers in order to get their attention. People simply do not pay attention and are always in a rush when they drive. If there were more access ways and roads for more cars, this issue would only worsen. Do not allow vehicle access over the Orr Street Bridge if you care about the health and safety of our neighborhood and its residents; it is bad enough as it is. Too many of my neighbors have suffered walking out their front doors only to see their cat lying dead in the street from a car that ran them over, their bodies mangled and obliterated, a member of their family, lost, all because of some mindless driver who gets a kick out of going 15 miles above the speed limit. It’s horrible. Don’t let the families here have to suffer that.

2. As you know, there has been a long history of issues in our neighborhood of non-residents living in their cars and RVs who have been cause of nuisance, harassment, property vandalization, and drug dealings. It took far too long for Hamilton Street to be made a no-parking zone and there are still loud and suspicious characters roaming around, including a man who drives his obnoxiously loud pick-up truck almost every night, as late as 2 or 3am, who never fails to wake me and my neighbors up. Allowing vehicles over the Orr Street Bridge would only perpetuate this issue even further, with allowing the people who don’t live here to have more ground to roam on to make their drug dealing (or whatever the hell they’re doing) drives every 20 minutes, going too fast on the road and disturbing the peace of the neighborhood. We shouldn’t have to suffer harassment from methed-out maniacs more than they already have. We’re in constant anxiety that the drug dealings will reach the youth that live here. We shouldn’t have to worry about that. Teen drug abuse and addiction already is, and has, for a long time, been a huge issue in this county. Do not contribute to it.

3. To answer your question of “How do we facilitate fire trucks, garbage trucks, and other essential services?” It seems you guys have been doing fine in the garbage truck realm. Residents aren’t worried about their trash getting picked up, we’re worried about nuisance and safety hazards. If there are less vehicle-access roads, then there will be less speed limit-disobeying drivers, and less non-residents harassing us, both of which are cause for hazards that those essential services exist to take care… so, if there is less vehicleaccess, then there will be less hazards, and thus there will be less of a need for fire trucks, ambulances, etc.

So, if you make the bridge vehicle-friendly, you’d only be creating the issues that you’re worried will arise.

Thank you for taking the time to read this and for seriously considering the reasons presented, and thank you in advance for making our neighborhood more safe and happy by renovating the bridge to being bike and pedestrianfriendly and not allowing vehicles to pass over. To let me know that you have received and read this email, please send me a receipt.

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important

Page 365 of 1534 ends

2 Thank you,
Luca Szabo

Page 366 of 1534 ends

1 Daniel Kehrer
From: James Willburn <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2022 4:24 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Orr street bridge
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
To whom it may concern I James Willburn have lived at 725 Orr Street for 30+years. I have Seen the bridge open then the bridge closed then reͲopened and closed again and that’s where we’re at now. What I have noticed when the bridge is closed we have people hanging around the bridge and causing trouble and when the bridge is open we have traffic that goes through not a lot but that keeps the people away from the bridge and we don’t have this short of a problem.

Also I am concerned with all the building going on around here We need more access and I worry also about fires in the creek we need access for the fire department. so for me from someone who lives on Orr Street and knows what goes on around here daily I would like to see a bridge for vehicle traffic and pedestrians!Respectfully James Willburn Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important

Page 367 of 1534 ends

1 Daniel Kehrer
From: L Kirkpatrick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 5:06 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Orr Street Bridge
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
Hello,
In thinking about the options for the Orr Street bridge, it occurs to me that there are many more individuals living in the area, and traffic would worsen considerably if we open that bridge to vehicular traffic.

On the other hand, the area also has a shortage of places to recreate and experience the benefits of walking- either to stores, or just for pleasure.

I hope the City will finally listen to the neighborhood and maintain the bridge for walkers and bicyclists only.

Thank you.

Leslie Kirkpatrick
Ukiah
Sent from my iPhone

Page 368 of 1534 ends

1 Daniel Kehrer
From: Pinky Kushner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 9:15 AM
To: Daniel Kehrer
Subject: Ukiah project-Orr Street Bridge
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Greetings Mr. Kehrer,
I understand that you are the point person for the community meeting that was held at the Orr Street Bridge on Saturday, April 23.Attached is a letter that I wrote about the bridge and submitted to the City a few days after the meeting.The City seemed a bit confused about why I had submitted comments since I didn’t attend the meeting.I do trust that there is still time to submit comments, since as far as I know no deadline for comments was posted. Please acknowledge receipt of this email and please confirm that my submitted comments will go into the hopper with other comments you received on site.
Thank you.

Sincerely,
Pinky Kushner
504 N Oak St., Apt #4
Ukiah, CA. 95482
510 459Ͳ8289 mobile
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important

Page 369 of 1534 ends

1 Daniel Kehrer
From: Susan Sher <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 8:46 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Orr Street Bridge
Attachments: Chronology of events re Orr Street Bridge.docx Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Please see attached chronology of events from August 2008 through June 2020 regarding attempts of the Wagenseller Neighborhood to get the bridge refurbished. This may be useful information for those not familiar with the long history. Please note that every factual allegation contained in the chronology is supported by documentation that can be furnished upon request.

Thank you,
Susan Sher
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avg.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cdanie l.kehrer%40ghd.com%7C982b107afd6f49b2b4ee08da27375a8a%7C5e4e864c3b824180a5155c8fb718fff8%7C0%7C0% 7C637865416233557964%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haW wiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cTLo0LqHaeYnqL0BFVfNJyMlwdgxdQO8IXUY%2FzLX%2B PI%3D&reserved=0

Page 370 of 1534 ends

1 Daniel Kehrer
From: James Willburn <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 11:36 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Orr street bridge
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
To who it may concern I James Willburn live at 725 Orr St. Ukiah Ca. I for one would like to see the bridge open to traffic. I have lived here 30+ years I have seen the bridge open close and then re-open and close again and that’s where we’re we are at now. What I have noticed when the bridge closes we have all kinds of trouble with people up and down the street hanging around on the bridge and then when the bridge opens and we have traffic they do not wanna hang around the bridge anymore because of the traffic which is not much and it is a better neighborhood I am worried about access in and out of my place with all the building go on a round here we need more access and also the danger of fire in the creeks. PS there is a rail trail just up the street on Brush St.and Ford Street. I am speaking for my self who lives on Orr Street and knows what goes on around here! Respectively James Willburn Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone

Page 371 of 1534 ends

Created on Type Threads Comment Up Votes Down VoteEmail Postcode Landing PaBrowser Device TypCountry Region City Sentiment 4/5/2022 15:39 Vehicle Comment Vehicle Comment-1
I am concerned that in an emergency vehicles would
not be able to leave the neighborhood. I would like to
see the bridge reopened to vehicle traffic. Additionally the new apartment complexes are causing a
significant amount of calls for Public Safety Resources and additional access would benefit those residents. 0 0 themoyouk 95482 https://lrsp.Chrome Desktop United StatVirginia Lynchburg NEGATIVE 4/18/2022 18:40 Bicycle Comment Bicycle Comment-1
Bicycles should be encouraged to help reduce the
cities carbon footprint. 2 0 https://lrsp.Firefox Desktop United StatCalifornia Ukiah NEUTRAL 4/18/2022 18:41 Pedestrian Comment Pedestrian Comment -1 It would be best to encourage the use of a foot path
thru the area. 0 0 https://lrsp.Firefox Desktop United StatCalifornia Ukiah NEGATIVE 4/18/2022 18:44 Vehicle Comment Vehicle Comment-2
I think it would be very BAD to encourage more car
traffic thru that area. There is no need, That seems
clear as it has been closed for many years. Orchard
aAve can carry the traffic. 0 0 https://lrsp.Firefox Desktop United StatCalifornia Ukiah NEGATIVE 4/18/2022 18:47 General Comment General Comment-2
Keep the cars out of that area. Please. That
neighborhood would be worsened by more cars flying
thru there. 0 0 https://lrsp.Firefox Desktop United StatCalifornia Ukiah NEGATIVE 4/27/2022 20:28 Vehicle Comment Vehicle Comment-1-child I agree with this idea. Vehicle access for emergency
vehicles is absolutely necessary. 0 0 queenpars 95482 https://lrsp.Chrome MoMobile United StatCalifornia Pacoima 4/27/2022 20:33 General Comment General Comment-3
Increased pedestrian, bike and vehicle traffic,
including use for emergency vehicles is important for
the area. With apartments and homes right by the
creek, access for all is necessary. It promotes healthy living and safety for those who life along the road.

Homeless, lawless, and other behaviors will also be
discouraged with access made possible for all. 0 0 queenpars 95482 https://lrsp.Chrome MoMobile United StatCalifornia Pacoima 4/27/2022 20:40 Vehicle Comment Vehicle Comment-3
A one lane bridge would slow traffic down. Other
safety measures such as speed humps and bulb-outs
on the corners would minimize vehicle impacts while
allowing access for the neighborhood. There could
also be signage stating residents or local traffic only.

Orchard Avenue carries the bulk of the traffic there
would not be a need for short cutters to use this street it would be used by residents of the Wagenseller
neighborhood. 1 0 https://lrsp.Mobile Saf Mobile United StatCalifornia

Page 372 of 1534 ends

Page 373 of 1534 ends

Page 374 of 1534 ends

Page 375 of 1534 ends

Page 376 of 1534 ends

Page 377 of 1534 ends

Page 378 of 1534 ends

Page 379 of 1534 ends

Page 380 of 1534 ends

Page 381 of 1534 ends

Page 382 of 1534 ends

Page 383 of 1534 ends

Page 384 of 1534 ends

Page 385 of 1534 ends

Page 386 of 1534 ends

Page 387 of 1534 ends

Page 388 of 1534 ends

Page 389 of 1534 ends

Page 390 of 1534 ends

Page 391 of 1534 ends

Page 392 of 1534 ends

Page 393 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Orr Street Bridge & Corridor Study 21 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Appendix B
Workshop #2 Memorandum

Page 394 of 1534 ends

Orr Street Bridge and Corridor Study

COMMUNITY

WORKSHOP
August 23, 2022 5:30 pm - 8 pm
O

Page 395 of 1534 ends

1. Alternative 1: Corridor Improvements with Two-Lane Bridge

2. Alternative 2: Corridor Improvements with Single-Lane Bridge

3. Alternative 3: Corridor Improvements with Bike, Pedestrian and ERV Access Bridge Design alternative 1 shows corridor improvements with a two-lane bridge as seen on Figure 1:

Alternative 1. The improvements include sidewalk improvements, ADA curb ramps, 8-ft wide street parking, traffic calming device/speed humps, connection to existing trail and roadway widening and reconstruction. The two-lane bridge consist of sidewalks, bike lanes, and two vehicular travel lanes. Design alternative 2 shows corridor improvements with a single-lane bridge as seen on Figure 2: Alternative 2. The improvements include sidewalk improvements, ADA curb ramps, 8-ft wide street parking, connection to existing trail and roadway widening and reconstruction. The single-lane bridge consist of sidewalks, bike lanes, and single vehicular travel lane. Design alternative 3 shows corridor improvements with a bike, pedestrian, Emergency Response Vehicles (ERV) access bridge as seen on Figure 3: Alternative 3. The corridor improvements include sidewalk improvements, 8-ft wide street parking, two turn arounds(cul-de-sac) at the north end and south end of the bridge, connection to existing trail and roadway widening and reconstruction.

Page 396 of 1534 ends

Figure 1: Alternative 1

Page 397 of 1534 ends

Page 398 of 1534 ends

Figure 2: Alternative 2

Page 399 of 1534 ends

Page 400 of 1534 ends

Figure 3: Alternative 3

Page 401 of 1534 ends

Page 402 of 1534 ends

Public Meeting Notifications
The project team implemented a robust notification plan to spread the word about the community workshop/meeting. Notification mailers were sent to community members who live within a 700 foot radius of the project by mail to (240+ individual property owners and residents were sent a direct mailer). The City of Ukiah also posted the meeting notice to the City’s website and directed the project team to post fliers around the City on poster boards and other public locations to encourage additional attendance. A social pinpoint website developed by the project team was created to allow residents to review draft materials, receive notifications, and post comments for additional access for input and comment for those who may not be able to attend the meeting inperson and the link to this site was printed on every mailer and flier that was sent during the notification period as-well.

Meeting Venue and Attendees
The public meeting was held on August 23, 2022 (Tuesday) at the Ukiah Valley Conference Center from 5:30 pm to 8:00 pm. More than 30 people showed up for the public meeting during the two a half hour period (redacted sign-in sheet provided in the appendix of this summary, it should be noted that not all attendees felt comfortable putting their information down and were present to hear the City’s vision). Majority of the attendees were 40+ of age and were residents of the Wagenseller neighborhood; in addition to representatives of the nearby Orthodox church, residents of the adjacent Brush Meadow Apartments presented critical arguments about their vision for the future Orr Street. City Staff from Public Works and City Manager’s office were also in attendance to review the project alternatives and to speak with the community members who visited the workshop.

Meeting Format
The purpose of this public meeting was to showcase three potential design alternatives for the replacement of the current bridge over Orrs Creek. Two stations were set up with all three design alternatives along with an exhibit description for each alternative. The public was able to view all three alternatives, ask questions, voice opinions, and provide comments. Based on the public’s responses and City of Ukiah’s determination on “recommended” improvements, GHD is tasked to make a final design recommendation for this project to City Council by the end of 2022. Every attendee was requested to optionally mark their presence on the sign in sheet (not everyone felt comfortable). After verbal exchange of opinion, everyone in attendance was asked to write down their comments on a comment card and put them in the comment box stationed at a table near the

Page 403 of 1534 ends

front of the room. The feedback collected in the virtual workshop is represented in this summary through various graphics and comments submitted. The project team received more than 15+ responses during the meeting, a summary is provided in the next section of, actual comments are included in the appendix of this report.

Feedback / Comment Summary
Below is a numerical analysis of the feedback received from the community on the type of structure that is desired.

In addition to the structure type discussions, the community also highlighted these additional concerns:

1. On alternative 3 majority liked the pedestrian, bike and ERV access, but were against the turnarounds (cul-de-sac) on the south and north end of the bridge.

2. Having an alternative similar to alternative 3, but removing cul-de-sac on north end and replacing cul-de-sac on the south end with a T-turnaround or Hammerhead.

3. Keeping existing church structures and walnut tree.

4. Having 10ft lanes and bike lanes the entire length of the road.

5. Implement City of Ukiah Climate Emergency Resolution in design for alternative transportation.

6. Information on the pros and cons of each alternative. 5%
11%
68%
Alternative 1 16%
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Other

Page 404 of 1534 ends

7. Provide access to FEMA Hydraulics report.

8. Additional lighting along the Orr Street, especially near the creek.

9. Measures to reduce the speed of vehicles such as speed bumps on Orr and Ford Streets.

10. ADA and walkability compliance for the elderly and mobility challenged residents who live nearby.

11. Emergency services should not take Orr Street to arrive at the hospital, they should continue with current routes.

12. Children play on Orr Street and additional traffic is a safety concern in a narrow roadway.

On the following page are the digital scans of public’s physically submitted comments during the public meeting.

13. Project Team should have provided an option of the bridge with No Emergency Access to reduce cost.

14. A “No Bridge” option should have been considered. Restore the creek to natural state and fix the street, leave as a dead-end.

Appendices

1. (Redacted information) Sign in sheets for 8/23/2022 meeting

2. (Redacted information) Comment Cards from 8/23/2022 meeting

3. Comments from social pinpoint webpage and City Email

4. Photos of the event taken by the project team during the meeting Note: Personal information of all the attendees have been redacted to respect privacy.

Page 405 of 1534 ends

Page 406 of 1534 ends

Page 407 of 1534 ends

Page 408 of 1534 ends

Page 409 of 1534 ends

Page 410 of 1534 ends

Page 411 of 1534 ends

Page 412 of 1534 ends

Page 413 of 1534 ends

Page 414 of 1534 ends

Page 415 of 1534 ends

Page 416 of 1534 ends

Page 417 of 1534 ends

Page 418 of 1534 ends

Page 419 of 1534 ends

Page 420 of 1534 ends

Page 421 of 1534 ends

1 Daniel Kehrer
From: Spring Starback <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2022 2:24 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: opinion
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
I live on Myron STREET and travel by orr street often and have walked over the bridge, I believe converting the present bridge to a bicycle/pedestrian bridge would beautify that area and would be better than one placed at the end of Myron PLACE where pedestrians and bicycles would be passing a congested area and not in the theme of beautification and peace.

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important

Page 422 of 1534 ends

1 Daniel Kehrer
From: Michelle Irace <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2022 10:48 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Cc: Development; Orrstreetbridge; Jason Benson; Tim Eriksen (InTouch) Subject: RE: Water Quality Issue
Hi Anna,
Thank you for your email. For matters related to the Orr Creek Bridge Corridor study, you can contact the Public Works Department. I have Ccd the Director (Tim Eriksen) and the Senior Engineer (Jason Benson), who also receive the emails sent to the orrstreetbridge email you included.They may also have information related to the erosion issues. As far as the adjacent development is concerned, the appropriate contact is the County of Mendocino, as the development is in their jurisdiction. You may contact them by emailing [email protected] or by calling (707)234Ͳ6650. Water quality and erosion issues may also be reported to the Water Board who is responsible for the permitting you mention below. Their contact info and complaint form may be found online here https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/about_us/contact_us/ Regards,
Michelle Irace , Planning Manager
Department of Community Development
300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482
www.cityofukiah.com/communityͲdevelopment
(707) 463Ͳ6203
From: Anna Birkás <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 6:54 PM
To: Orrstreetbridge <[email protected]>
Cc: Craig Schlatter <[email protected]>; Isabelle Grieve <[email protected]>; Jesse Davis <[email protected]>; Jim Robbins <[email protected]>; Matthew Keizer <[email protected]>; Michelle Irace <[email protected]>; Steven Oropeza <[email protected]> Subject: Water Quality Issue
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
I just submitted a letter to you regarding the Orr Street Bridge. When I walked the trail loop along Orr Creek to take photos of the project, I was reminded that the company that did the housing development had pushed soil into the creek last year and never did their erosion control work. The banks are bare and past their natural angel of repose. It would be a good idea if the City made sure the company has plans to do the erosion control work required by the You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important

Page 423 of 1534 ends

2 NCRWQCB and implements it before October 15th. The location is next to the Orchard Street bridge. I have photos below. I have been watching and waiting hoping they would take care of it but it is seeming like it has been forgotten.

Thank you,
Anna

Page 424 of 1534 ends

Page 425 of 1534 ends

Page 426 of 1534 ends

1 Daniel Kehrer
From: Jason Benson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 3:58 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Orrstreetbridge
Subject: RE: Orr Street Bridge and Transportation Corridor Hi Mary,
Thank you for the inquiry. The City has pursued and successfully acquired a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) for an independent engineering study/evaluation to determine the best approach to reconstructing a crossing and enhance the Orr Street Corridor. The City then issued a competitive request for proposals to complete the Study as outlined in the CDBG. GHD Inc. was the selected firm based on the applications received. This project is only funded/scoped for the feasibility study and some preliminary designs. We plan on completing the study by the end of 2022. Environmental Documentation, Final Designs, Property Acquisitions, and Construction phases have not been funded, but can vary from two to twelve years after the completion of the study. We will keep you posted.

Thank you,
Jason Benson
Jason Benson, PE
Public Works – Senior Engineer
300 Seminary Ave., Ukiah, CA 95482
E: [email protected]
P: (707)463-6284
From: Mary Mathis <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2022 2:29 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Orr Street Bridge and Transportation Corridor Good afternoon,
Can you tell me which Consultant was selected to for the Orr Street Bridge and Transportation Corridor Study?Can you also tell me which Design Team was selected and when construction is anticipated to begin? Thank you so much as always for your very generous time and help! Sincerely,
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important

Page 427 of 1534 ends

2 Mary Mathis
Senior Content Public Reporter
tel: 770.209.3816

If you'd like resources on how COVIDͲ19 is impacting the industry in your region, please check out ConstructConnect’s Response to COVIDͲ19.
5274008
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email, including any attachments, is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender immediately, and please delete it; you should not copy it or use it for any purpose or disclose its contents to any other person. GHD and its affiliates reserve the right to monitor and modify all email communications through their networks.

You're receiving this message because you're a member of the Orrstreetbridge group from City of Ukiah. To take part in this conversation, reply all to this message.

View group files | Leave group | Learn more about Microsoft 365 Groups

Page 428 of 1534 ends

1 Daniel Kehrer
From: Thoth Howe <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 6:12 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: No more traffic please
Attachments: LocalRecord2CAA8E88B99B_album_local_cache.MP4 [You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
I live at 625 Joseph Street with my wife and four kids. Our lives will be directly effected by your decision. This is a video of a unassured driver ramming into two of our vehicles in the middle of the night. And guess what unassured driver insurance does not cover if your not in the car. There’s already not enough room for two cars to pass each other. Please this is our neighborhood. I find it offensive that people feel they want a short cut through our neighborhood. It’s a neighborhood where families live not your thorough way.

Sent from my iPhone

Page 429 of 1534 ends

1 Daniel Kehrer
From: Porter Dinehart <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 6:53 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: The 3 Choices
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
To Whom it May Concern,
I feel not only disheartened but also unheard by what was brought forward by these “consultants”. during the April gathering held at the Orr Street Bridge. I spent more then 2 hours trying to get them to listen to me but they were more interested in pushing their idea of what should be done.

I have been living in the Wagonseller neighborhood for more than 25 years. I’m a home owner and have no plans on leaving. I live on the corner of Ford and Joseph, very close to Orr Street. I have experienced the bridge being both a walking and driving bridge. Believe me, opening the bridge back up to vehicle traffic again would be detrimental and disastrous to this neighborhood. During the meeting in April there was a large consensus to keeping the bridge only as a walking bridge. It seems obvious that the consultants did not take our opinions into consideration. I am totally opposed to any options of vehicles ever crossing that bridge again.

I wish I could be in attendance at the meeting tonight but unfortunately I have contracted Covid and I’m very sick at home.

If anyone has any questions, please feel free to contact me. I can be reached at (707) 272-1339.

With much concern,
Porter Dinehart

Page 430 of 1534 ends

1 Daniel Kehrer
From: Pinky Kushner <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2022 11:32 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Orr Street Bridge information please. Thanks.

Hi Daniel•,
If you recall last night I asked what was meant by the below item on your information board for #3: If private property is not acquired for cul de sac
s,streets violate zoning and fire codes.

You told me to look up City Code Section 8072 and D 103.4.I found the city code, but could not find the D 103.4.Can you help me out?
Thanks,
Pinky
•Incidentally, I did not see your name badge, if you had one. I thought your name was Brent Gibbons? Last night I heard others calling you ‘Daniel’?p
8072
§8072 MAXIMUM LENGTH AND RADIUS OF CULͲDEͲSAC STREETS
The maximum length of a culͲdeͲsac street shall be three hundred feet (300’), excepting that a culͲdeͲsac street of up to four hundred feet (400’) in length may be permitted, provided it has a frontage of no more than fourteen (14) lots. The minimum radius of the turnaround at the end of the culͲdeͲsac street shall be forty feet (40’) at the property line. (Ord. 533, §4.13, adopted 1958)
I am having more difficulty in finding code D 103.4.Below is what I found.Surely this is not what the information was referring to.Please help me out here.
D 103.4
Section 103.4.2 shall be amended to read as follows:

Page 431 of 1534 ends

2 Expiration of Plan Review. A permit application
for any proposed work shall be deemed to have
been abandoned one (1) year after the date of
filing, unless such application has been pursued in
good faith as determined by the Building Official.

The applicant must request an extension in writing, and demonstrate justifiable cause. The Building Official may grant one or more extensions in time, for periods of not more than 180 days each.

Each extension requires payment of a fee established by the Board of Supervisors.

Section 103.4.4 shall be amended to read as follows:

Fee Refunds.

1. The Building Official may authorize the
refunding of any fee paid hereunder which was
erroneously paid or collected.

2. The Building Official may authorize the
refunding of not more than 80 percent of the
permit fee paid when no work had been done
under a permit issued in accordance with this code
provided that the request for refund is made by
written application by the original permittee not
later than one year after the date of issuance of the
permit.

3. The Building Official may authorize the
refunding of not more than 80 percent of the plan
review fee paid when an application for a permit
for which a plan review fee has been paid is withdrawn or canceled before any plan reviewing is done.

4. The Building Official shall not authorize
the refunding of the plan review fee paid except
upon written application filed by the original permittee no later than one year after the date of fee payment.

Page 432 of 1534 ends

1 Daniel Kehrer
From: Pinky Kushner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 10:26 AM
To: [email protected]; Kristine Lawler
Subject: Where can I find the document about the Orr Street Bridge? Greetings,
I went to the meeting last week about the Orr Street Bridge.There were TWO and only two copies of a document about the Orr Street Bridge. Where can I find that document on line?I did not have the opportunity to read this document at the meeting—either the documents were in use or I was engaged in looking at the storyboards. I was told the document was on line.Where is it on line?
Thank you,
Pinky Kushner
510 459Ͳ8289 mobile

Page 433 of 1534 ends

1 Daniel Kehrer
From: Crispin B. Hollinshead <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 4:56 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: comments on the Orr Street bridge
To Whom It May Concern,
I want to go on record with my preference that the Orr Street bridge be rebuilt as a pedestrian/bike only bridge, not including vehicular traffic.This will be much cheaper to construct, cause less adverse environmental impact to install, and is in accord with most of the public comments that have been made up to this point.The adverse neighborhood impact of having through traffic should not be ignored.The fact that this bridge has been closed to vehicles for over a decade destroys any merit to the argument that having it open is necessary for emergency vehicles.As we move to decarbonize our economy, in accord with the recently passed Climate Emergency Resolution, designing a more walkable Ukiah is imperative.

Sincerely,
Crispin B. Hollinshead
960 Dominican Way
Ukiah, CA 95482
707-468-8675
Gratitude, Love, and Global Awakening
May All Beings Awaken From The Illusion Of Separation
May You Awaken With This Breath
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important

Page 434 of 1534 ends

1 Daniel Kehrer
From: Anna Birkas <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 2:15 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Susan Sher
Subject: Orr Street Bridge Pedestrian and Bike Trail
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello City of Ukiah Trails Team,
I am excited about the potential for the Orr Street Bridge to be rehabilitated as a pedestrian and bike trail. I have lived in the Wagonseller neighborhood since 2012, and I use the bridge in its existing, dilapidated state regularly. I remember the Wagonseller neighborhood's event from nearly ten years ago when we painted watershed pictures and hung them on the bridge to celebrate its closure to traffic and its new life as a pedestrian trail. The remnants of a few of these paintings are still here.
It has been sad that the bridge experienced such disrepair, but it remains a vital trail in our community. During the pandemic, over the past three years, I have run the loop from that goes across the bridge, down the new permeable pavement trail next to the apartments, across the Orchard Street bridge, and back up the other side of Orr Creek on the grassy area along the creek behind the apartments. This shady loop represents the only neighborhood trail in nature and allows us all to “get out into the wild.” I also appreciate the new bike path, but it is like a desert compared to this wonderful loop with natural riparian vegetation and flowing water most months out of the year (although I do greatly appreciate the citizen efforts to populate the bike trail with native species and sound art — it will grow beautiful too). This riparian corridor and existing trails are under appreciated, under maintained, and underdeveloped. Those of us that live here use and rely on them for our sanity. We also participate in their care, both in community projects like the watershed painting project mentioned above, as well as participating in the PacOut trash clean up of our creeks spearheaded by Pacific Outfitters. We care about our creeks and our creek trails. I also personally care about the homeless people that rely on these places for their homes.

Having trails that are only for pedestrians and cyclists is part of what makes the area special. A similar trail intersection that I appreciate is where the bike trail goes near the Grace Hudson Museum. In this location there are three different points where pedestrians can access the trail: at the museum, and on either street to the north and south. Having pedestrian access points like this, without vehicles, is what makes this area feel rich. Another important part of this trail is of course the wetland developed by Grace Hudson and the old trees.

The trail loop at the Orr Street Bridge along Orr Creek has this same richness in both access points and natural diversity of stream habitat and old trees. Having cars cross that bridge would diminish that wealth. When we developed the watershed paintings we also had installed a bench on the bridge. Since the signs that say the bridge is closed, this is mostly inhabited by homeless people more willing to break rules, but when my child was five we would sit here under the willow tree, bring our snacks, and he would look down at the flowing water, throw leaves into it, learn about physics and hydrodynamics, etc. A traffic bridge would not allow this wonder and learning by children enjoying this rich bridge spot. There are many car bridged in the city, and very few pedestrian only bridges. They are an important feature for learning and our enjoyment. I would like to request adding a couple more benches to this bridge for children to sit on, paint, eat snacks, and play.

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important

Page 435 of 1534 ends

2 It is my dream that this trail loop in the wagonseller neighborhood will eventually connect with Low Gap Park. Indeed, most of the trail is already in place, and sometimes I do walk or ride it as is, butto do so I have to go all the way down to Scott street and leave the creek. It would be so nice to be able to continue walking or biking along Orr Creek. I hope that as you plan this bridge project you are considering the integration of this existing trail loop with the rest of the trail systems in Ukiah. I have created two maps below that show the trail system between the Orr Bridge and Low Gap Park. On the map below Green represents existing trails segments. Yellow represents trail segments on existing roads or allies that are pedestrian friendly and work to connect the trail past places where easements would be difficult to achieve, and the tiny orange segment represents the one property over which it would be very helpful to acquire an easement.

This is where the Conservation Fund currently has their business. I hope that as a conservation organization they might be supportive of this project.

As the map shows, the Orr Creek Trail has some exciting options. There are two allies between state street and the bike path. One of these allies already has art projects popping up. They are low traffic, already primarily used by pedestrians.

Might we work with local artists and landowners to ad murals, sculptures, and creative arts and embrace them as part of the Orr Creek trail system? The area between the Orr Creek Bridge and the bike path near the sound garden currently has street access without a sidewalk on Bush Road. This area would be best served by either a sidewalk, or possibly a trail through the existing Church parking lot. They are a community based organization, might they support this effort? I see incredible potential to increase pedestrian and bicycle access. Please do not bring cars back, I live on Joseph Street and this would change our street from being a low traffic street in which I can play soccer or catch with my kids, to a street unsafe for children as people rush through to get from point A to Point Z.

Please show me how you are integrating the Orr Bridge and associated trail loop with the rest of the trail systems in Ukiah and Low Gap Park.

Thank you,
Anna Birkás
617 Joseph Street
Ukiah, CA 95482

Page 436 of 1534 ends

Page 437 of 1534 ends

Page 438 of 1534 ends

1 Daniel Kehrer
From: Jen Dyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 7:45 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Mike (hubby) Dyer
Subject: Orr Street Bridge meetings etc...

To Whom it May Concern,
My husband, Mike Dyer and myself are the pastors of The River Ukiah Church which is located on the corner of Orr St. and Brush St.We attended the last community meeting on August 23rd and to our surprise saw all three projects will affect our property in some way.We were not notified of the meeting on the 23rd, but thankfully someone in the community told us about it.

We would like to request to be informed of future community meetings and city council meetings since this impacts our property specifically.This is so very important to the future of our church and our future plans as we have been actively developing, renovating and enhancing the property since we purchased it in 2021. Sincerely,
ͲͲ
Jen Dyer
The River Ukiah
P.O. Box 862 | Ukiah, CA 95482
[email protected]
www.theriverukiah.com
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important

Page 439 of 1534 ends

Created on Type Threads Comment Up Votes Down Vote
4/5/2022 15:39 Vehicle Comment
Vehicle
Comment1
I am concerned that in an emergency vehicles would not be able to leave the neighborhood. I would like to see the bridge reopened to vehicle traffic. Additionally the new apartment complexes are causing a significant amount of calls for Public Safety Resources and additional access would benefit those residents. 1 2 4/18/2022 18:40 Bicycle Comment
Bicycle
Comment- Bicycles should be encouraged to help reduce the cities carbon footprint. 4 0 4/18/2022 18:41 Pedestrian Comment n It would be best to encourage the use of a foot path thru the area. 2 0 4/18/2022 18:44 Vehicle Comment
Vehicle
Comment2I think it would be very BAD to encourage more car traffic thru that area. There is no need, That seems clear as it has been closed for many years. Orchard aAve can carry the traffic. 2 1 4/18/2022 18:47 General Comment
General
Comment- Keep the cars out of that area. Please. That neighborhood would be worsened by more cars flying thru there. 2 1 4/27/2022 20:28 Vehicle Comment
Vehicle
Comment- I agree with this idea. Vehicle access for emergency vehicles is absolutely necessary. 0 0 4/27/2022 20:33 General Comment
General
Comment3
Increased pedestrian, bike and vehicle traffic, including use for emergency vehicles is important for the area. With apartments and homes right by the creek, access for all is necessary. It promotes healthy living and safety for those who life along the road. Homeless, lawless, and other behaviors will also be discouraged with access made possible for all. 00
4/27/2022 20:40 Vehicle Comment
Vehicle
Comment3
A one lane bridge would slow traffic down. Other safety measures such as speed humps and bulb-outs on the corners would minimize vehicle impacts while allowing access for the neighborhood. There could also be signage stating residents or local traffic only. Orchard Avenue carries the bulk of the traffic there would not be a need for short cutters to use this street it would be used by residents of the Wagenseller neighborhood. 4 2 5/19/2022 8:15 General Comment
General
Comment2-child
I am a neighbor, my backyard gives me a perfect view of the bridge. I feel like if this was done correctly it could be open to cars and heres 1 reason why. As it stands on a daily there are 20-30 homeless people who frequent this bridge. The lack of traffic in this area causes a large problem, its a great place to get High. I am woken up from a sleep at least once a week if not more from People Yelling, and by having light traffic in the area this issue stops. 11
5/19/2022 8:21 General Comment
General
Comment4
I live Here And i can see all the happenings from my home office. There are drug deals, lots of drug use and many sleepless nights do to the drug induced screams of the homeless. this road needs to be reopened to cars mainly because by having even light traffic it remedies this issue. Also having another rout for first responders could be the difference between life and death. when the Bridge was open to traffic in the past the above issue didn't exist.

I would love to see this re open. 10
5/19/2022 8:36 General Comment
General
Comment3-child
By opening this up like Waugh LN, with a speed bump on either or stop signs, this eliminate lots of the lawless behaviors that occur on the bridge. The only reason this is a great place to do all the lawless things is there is no traffic and very little foot traffic. As it stands this is a pedestrian and Bike route and though-out my years of watching the decay of the area i think that if you don't build a bridge for both People and cars you would be doing the area a huge disservice. 11
7/26/2022 10:18 General Comment
General
Comment3-child
Prior to 2010 when the bridge was closed to vehicles, there was A LOT of vehicle traffic over the bridge that filled into this all ready congested surrounding neighborhood, creating a trafffic and environmental problem. During this time of a climate crisis, we should not be catering to the needs of motor vehicles, but instead create more opportunties for walking and biking. Roads with vehicles do not keep homeless encampments away. Just look at the endless encampments under the Orchard Ave Ext. 0 1
7/26/2022 10:29 Vehicle Comment
Vehicle
Comment2-child
Agree with comment below. By the time this refurbishment is done, it will be 15 years since any car traffic went across the bridge. The vehicles, including garbage trucks have managed fine using other routes. Why all of a sudden is there any need for this to be a vehicle route? 0 0 7/26/2022 10:46 Vehicle Comment
Vehicle
Comment1-child
Emergency vehicles need fast routes like the Orchard Avenue Extension, not a narrow foot bridge crossing onto a street that is not much wider than an alleyway. Before 2010, there was an endless stream of vehicles going through this fragile neighborhood. Since then, there have been 150 new apartment units built. That much more traffic on and around the bridge would be unmanagable. 0 0 7/27/2022 13:13 General Comment
General
Comment5
This neighborhood was used as a freeway many years ago when the bridge allowed vehicles. We desperately need a foot/bicycle path, not more roads to cater to the needs of drivers. Since then, about 150 more housing units have been built so vehicle traffic is likely to be terrible. There are other better options for vehicles (including ER vehicles) that have worked fine for the past 12 years. And roads with vehicles do not prevent homeless encampments! 20
8/22/2022 17:36 General Comment
Comment5-childPeople living on "" South Orr Lane use cars to get to their houses. Would they be allowed to use cars to get to their houses? Also, would garbage trucks have access? 0 0 8/23/2022 11:50 General Comment
General
CommentOpening the bridge to cars to keep the area free from "People Yelling" is a 1950's concept that died in the 1990's. We are now 2022. Ukiah needs to embrace pedestrians and discourage cars and trucks. 1 1 8/23/2022 11:52 Pedestrian Comment Pedestrian This bridge deserves to be pedestrian only. 00

Page 440 of 1534 ends

Page 441 of 1534 ends

Page 442 of 1534 ends

Page 443 of 1534 ends

Page 444 of 1534 ends

Page 445 of 1534 ends

Page 446 of 1534 ends

Page 447 of 1534 ends

Page 448 of 1534 ends

Page 449 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Orr Street Bridge & Corridor Study 22 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Appendix C
Preliminary Environmental Overview
Memorandum

Page 450 of 1534 ends

Memorandum
The Power of Commitment
12571956 1
March 16, 2023
To Tim Eriksen and Jason Benson, City of Ukiah
Copy to Rosanna Southern, Matt Kennedy (GHD)
From Nicole Greenberg and Brian Bacciarini Tel (707)-523-1010 Subject Preliminary Environmental Overview
Orr Street Bridge and Transportation Corridor Study
Project no. 12571956

1. Introduction
The City of Ukiah is evaluating three (3) proposed bridge improvement design alternatives for the Orr Street Bridge and surrounding corridor from Ford Street to the south and Brush Street to the north. This memorandum provides a preliminary overview of environmental considerations associated with the proposed design alternatives, which are intended to provide improved walkability, bike friendliness, and access along the Orr Street corridor and across Orrs Creek.

The three (3) proposed bridge improvement design alternatives at the Orr Street Bridge are as follows:
– Design Alternative 1: Two-Lane Vehicular Bridge – Allows two (2) lanes for vehicular traffic, bicycle, and pedestrian access along the Orr Street Bridge corridor. Approximately 12’ wide vehicular traffic lanes as well as 5’ wide pedestrian sidewalks and 4’ bicycle lanes bordering both the northbound and southbound vehicular lanes of Orr Street.
– Design Alternative 2: Single-Lane Vehicular Bridge – Allows one (1) lane for vehicular traffic, bicycle, and pedestrian access along the Orr Street Bridge corridor. This alignment allows vehicles to cross the Orr Street Bridge with a single lane (vehicles take turns). Approximately 16’ wide vehicular traffic/bicycle lane and two (2) 5’ wide pedestrian sidewalks on both sides of the single-lane vehicle/bicycle lane. – Design Alternative 3: Bridge Open to Pedestrians, Bicycles, and Emergency Vehicles Only – Allows bicycles, pedestrians, and emergency vehicles (police, fire) only. This alignment proposes cul-de-sacs at both ends of Orr Street just before the Orr Street Bridge. Approximately 14’ wide bicycle and pedestrian access across the Orr Street Bridge.

Corridor width varies by section based on site constraints and the following right-of-way widths and configurations are consistent across the three (3) proposed bridge improvement design alternatives. – The area along Orr Street near Ford Street would consist of a 4’ wide pedestrian sidewalk along the west side of Orr Street, a 12’ wide southbound lane, and a 10’ wide northbound lane. – Proposed alignments along Orr Street as you travel north and approach the Orr Street Bridge would consist of a 4’ wide pedestrian sidewalk and an 8’ wide parking lane along the west side of Orr Street, as well as a 12’ wide southbound lane, and a 12’ wide northbound lane.

Please reference Appendix A: Project Plans for the three (3) proposed Orr Street bridge exhibit descriptions and plans depicting the bridge improvement design alternatives.

Page 451 of 1534 ends

12571956 2

2. Environmental Considerations
The environmental considerations evaluated below include a creek crossing and other potentially affected waterbodies, floodplain encroachment, existing land cover types, recorded occurrences of special-status plant and wildlife species, critical habitat, prime farmland, Williamson Act contracts, and the potential for contaminated soil or groundwater. Note that the environmental considerations presented in this section should be confirmed and, if warranted, evaluated in greater detail as Project planning and design progresses and more detailed information regarding right-of-way, footprint, and construction methods and timing becomes available.

2.1 Potentially Affected Waterbodies and Floodplain Encroachment The Project area includes Orrs Creek, which is classified as a freshwater forested/shrub wetland (USFWS NWI, 2023) and is a tributary to the Russian River. The Russian River is located approximately 0.04 miles east of the Project area and is situated along the east side of the Ukiah Valley. The Russian River captures flows from the tributaries draining the surrounding foothills and providing a vast system of open space and habitat for a wide range of flora and fauna in the Ukiah Valley.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood Hazard Mapping Program maintains flood hazard and risk data to assist communities with floodplain management. Potentially affected waterbodies and the FEMA 100-year flood hazard zone is shown in Appendix B: Environmental Mapping. Each of the design alternatives involves construction within the FEMA Regulatory Floodway (Zone AE). The FEMA Regulatory Floodway refers to the channel and adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing base flood elevations. Of the three (3) design alternatives, Design Alternative 3 would have the lowest potential to impact the Orrs Creek floodplain and aquatic resources as it is the narrowest bridge crossing proposed at Orrs Creek. Design Alternative 1 would have the highest potential for impacts as the proposed bridge width is the largest of the design alternatives and would likely have a greater impact and footprint in Orrs Creek.

2.2 Land Cover and Important Farmland
Designated Important Farmland and Williamson Act Contracts along the Orr Street Bridge corridor are shown in Appendix B: Environmental Mapping. The National Land Cover Database is a cooperative Project developed by various federal agencies, including the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), that uses remote sensing to classify land cover and estimate percent developed impervious surface and tree canopy cover. The California Department of Conservation (CDC), Division of Land Resource Protection tracks changes in California’s agricultural resources via the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. For purposes of this evaluation, Important Farmland includes Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance. The Project area does not contain important farmland; the Project area contains both Urban and Build-Up Land and Grazing Land. The nearest farmland is Prime Farmland, which is located approximately 0.3 miles southeast of the Project area. As such, the three (3) proposed design alternatives are not anticipated to have an impact on important farmland resources.

2.3 Special-Status Species
CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) QuickView Tool and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) database were reviewed to identify special-status plant and wildlife species with known occurrences in the Ukiah U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. The IPaC search identified four federally listed wildlife species and three federally listed plant species with potential to occur within the Project vicinity. The CNDDB one-quad search identified 16 wildlife and 12 plant species with known

Page 452 of 1534 ends

12571956 3
occurrences in the Ukiah USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. Please see Table 2.1 below for a list of species identified in the databases searches.

Orrs Creek likely contains habitat for steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus; FT), Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus; SSC) foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boyli; SSC), red-bellied newt (Taricha rivularis; SSC) and western pond turtle (Emys marmorata; SSC). In addition, riparian areas associated with Orrs Creek likely provide habitat for some special status and other common bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Fish and Game Code (FGC).

The design alternative with the greatest potential to impact special-status species is the alternative that would have the largest footprint within the channel, bank, and riparian area of Orrs Creek. Of the three (3) design alternatives, Design Alternative 1 is the largest bridge and would have the greatest potential to impact specialstatus species and their habitat within Orrs Creek. Design Alternative 2 has the second most potential to impact special-status species within Orrs Creek, and the Design Alternative 3 has the lowest potential to impact special-status species. Design Alternative 3 would also have the lowest cumulative impact to special-status species as restrictions on vehicular traffic would reduce the potential for incidental injury or death of special status species associated with ongoing vehicle traffic, spills, and road runoff.

Table 2.1 Special-Status Species Identified by the IPaC and CNDDB QuickView Tool for Ukiah USGS 7.5’ Quad Common Name Scientific Name Status Federal/State/CNPS
Amphibians
foothill yellow-legged frog - north coast
DPS
Rana boylii pop. 1 --/SSC/--
red-bellied newt Taricha rivularis --/SSC/--
Birds
great egret Ardea alba --/SAL/--
great blue heron Ardea herodias --/SAL--
western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus FT/SSC/-- yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus FT/SE/--
yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens --/SSC/--
Lewis woodpecker Melanerpes lewis --/SAL/--
osprey Pandion haliaetus --/WL/--
northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina FT/ST/-- Fish
Pacific lamprey Entosphenus tridentatus --/SSC/--
Russian River tule perch Hysterocarpus traskii pomo --/SSC/-- hardhead Mylopharodon conocephalus --/SSC/--
coho salmon - central California coast
ESU
Oncorhynchus kisutch pop. 4 FE/SE/--
steelhead - central California coast
DPS
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8 FT/--/--
chinook salmon - California coastal
ESU
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha pop. 17 FT/--/--
Insects
monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus FC/--/--
Mammals

Page 453 of 1534 ends

12571956 4
Common Name Scientific Name Status Federal/State/CNPS
tule elk Cervus canadensis nannodes --/SAL/--
North American porcupine Erethizon dorsatum --/SAL/--
Reptiles
western pond turtle Emys marmorata --/SSC/--
Plants
Mendocino tarplant Hemizonia congesta ssp. calyculata --/--/4.3 Raiches manzanita Arctostaphylos stanfordiana ssp.
raichei
--/--/1B.1
California ladys-slipper Cypripedium californicum --/--/4.2 mountain ladys-slipper Cypripedium montanum --/--/4.2
stinkbells Fritillaria agrestis --/--/4.2
Purdys fritillary Fritillaria purdyi --/--/4.3
Burkes goldfields Lasthenia burkei FE/SE/1B.1
Contra Costa goldfields Lasthenia conjugens FE/--/1B.1
bristly leptosiphon Leptosiphon aureus --/--/4.2
broad-lobed leptosiphon Leptosiphon latisectus --/--/4.3 Bakers meadowfoam Limnanthes bakeri --/SR/1B.1
Bakers navarretia Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri --/--/1B.1 Lobbs aquatic buttercup Ranunculus lobbii --/--/4.2
showy Indian clover Trifolium amoenum FE/--/1B.1
SOURCES: CNDDB, 2023; IPaC, 2023
KEY:

Federal
FE = Endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) FT = Listed as threatened under the FESA
FP = Proposed for federal listing as threatened under the FESA S = Sensitive species
State
SE = Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) ST = Listed as threatened under CESA
SR = Listed as rare under CESA
SC = Candidate for listing as threatened under CESA
FP = Fully protected under the California Fish and Game Code SSC = CDFW Species of Special Concern
WL = CDFW Watch List
SAL = CDFW Special Animals List
California Rare Plant Rank
1B.1 = CNPS Rare Plant Rank of 1B.1 is defined as rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 1A = CNPS Rare Plant Rank of 1A is defined as plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere
2B = plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere 4 = plants of limited distribution

0.1 - seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat)

0.2 - moderately threatened in California (20-80% of occurrences threatened/moderate degree of immediacy of threat)

0.3 – not very threatened in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened/low degree of immediacy of threat)

Page 454 of 1534 ends

12571956 5

2.4 Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is managed by the USFWS and NMFS and is defined in the Federal Endangered Species Act as specific geographic areas that contain features essential to the conservation of federally endangered or threatened species that may require special management and protection. The USFWS IPaC database and NMFS Endangered Species Critical Habitat mapper for the West Coast Region were reviewed to identify any designated critical habitat within the Project area. The database searches listed above did not identify any designated critical habitat within the proposed Project area. The nearest critical habitat identified is the mainstem of the Russian River, designated as critical habitat for federally threatened steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). None of the three (3) design alternatives would have direct impacts on designated critical habitat, however, cumulative runoff from the Project area could have indirect impacts to critical habitat downstream. Design Alternative 3 would have the lowest indirect cumulative impact to critical habitat in the Russian River as restrictions on vehicular traffic would reduce the potential for incidental, spills, and road runoff associated with vehicular traffic.

2.5 Cultural Resources
Cultural resources refer to archaeological sites and features of the built environment that have importance to the community, providing connections to pre-historic and historic peoples and events. Both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) require lead agencies to determine if a Project would have a significant effect on historical, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources.

Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), the Native American Historic Resource Protection Act, sets forth a proactive approach intended to reduce the potential for delay and conflicts between Native American and development interests.

Numerous archaeological and historical investigations have been completed within Mendocino County which have identified prehistoric sites, historic sites, and historic buildings/structures. Mendocino County has a long history of occupation and use by Native American tribes. Areas along rivers and creeks are particularly sensitive for cultural resources, and the Russian River, which is the main river body that feeds Orrs Creek, provided a rich and varied habitat for Native Americans who have occupied the area for over 6,000 years. The Project, which is located near the southern third of Mendocino County, was the home of the groups of Central Pomo. The presence of known archaeological and historical sites throughout the County and the proximity of the Project to the Russian River suggests that the area is sensitive for prehistoric and historic cultural resources.

2.6 Soil and Groundwater Contamination
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database were reviewed to identify reported releases of hazardous materials and chemicals within 0.25 mile of the Project alignments and to assess the potential to encounter contaminated soil and/or groundwater during construction. Cases of reported soil and groundwater contamination are summarized in Table 2.2 and presented in Appendix B: Environmental Mapping. Based on the considerations discussed for each site in Table 2.2, the proposed design alternatives are not anticipated to encounter contaminated groundwater or soil during construction, however, additional field evaluations may be necessary to detect levels of contaminants, if any, prior to the construction of the Project.

Page 455 of 1534 ends

12571956 6
Table 2.2 Open Soil and Groundwater Contamination Cases within 0.25 Mile of Project Map
ID
Name / Address Affected Media /
Contaminant
Notes Distance/
Direction
Potential to Affect
Soil and/or
Groundwater along
Project Alignments?
1 Orr Street Property
(T10000011470)
190 Orr Street
Ukiah, CA 95482
Soil and
Groundwater:

Benzene and
diesel
The site formerly contained a
repair/machine shop, as well
as two underground and two
aboveground storage tanks.

Phase I and Phase II site
assessments in 2016 found
diesel and motor oil impacts
onsite. Remaining
contaminants in soil are at low
levels and localized around
the vicinity of the former shop
structure on the south side of
the property. CASE CLOSED
as of 6/17/2019.
345 feet
northwest
of the
Project
area.

Unlikely, due to
distance and low
level of residual
contamination
localized to area
around former shop
structure.
2 Lightel’s Bull Plant
(T0604593500)
195 Brush Street
Ukiah, CA 95482
Aquifer used for
drinking water
supply: Benzene,
diesel,
ethylbenzene,
gasoline, toluene,
and xylene
The site was used for bulk
fuel storage and distribution
from approximately 1929 until
1993. The site is currently
occupied by a wood working
shop and sale shop for wood
and stone products. The site
is underlain by primarily
coarse-grained soils with
interbedded layers of silt,
sandy silt, and sandy clay.

Site assessment and
remediation activities have
been ongoing since 1997 and
include minor excavation in
1997; ongoing free product
removal since 2007; and
intermittent soil vapor
extraction from 2007 to 2011.

OPEN SITE as of 6/22/2017.
675 feet
northwest
of the
Project
area.

Unlikely, due to
distance and
historical
groundwater flow
directions.
3 Ukiah Industrial,
LTD.
(T0604500235)
990 Orr Street
Ukiah, CA 95482
Soil: Gasoline Lust cleanup site containing
gasoline. Clean up began in
1994 and included monitoring,
remediation, and site
assessments.

CASE CLOSED as of
3/10/1994.
850 feet
north of
the
Project
area.

Unlikely, due to
distance and prior
completion of
remedial action at the
site.
4 Daniel Bros Steel
and Machine WK
(23350001)
160 Brush Street
Ukiah, CA 95482
Affected media
not identified:

Minor releases of
petroleum
hydrocarbons
(diesel, oil).

Lust cleanup site. Daniel
Bros. Steel and Machine
Works fabricates steel
structures, performs crane
work, and machines metal
parts. The company has
operated at the site since the
late 1950's. Site screening
approved by EPA identified
no evidence of any significant
releases of contaminants
requiring investigation and
cleanup. NO ACTION
1000 feet
northwest
of the
Project
area.

Unlikely, due to
distance and prior
investigations at site
having not identified
significant releases of
contamination.

Page 456 of 1534 ends

12571956 7
Map
ID
Name / Address Affected Media /
Contaminant
Notes Distance/
Direction
Potential to Affect
Soil and/or
Groundwater along
Project Alignments?

REQUIRED AS OF
5/28/2008.
5 Redwood Tree
Service Station
(T0604500327)
859 State Street,
North
Ukiah, CA 95482
Aquifer used for
drinking water
supply, Soil:

Benzene, Diesel,
Gasoline,
MTBE/TBA/Other
fuel oxygenates,
Toluene, waste
oil/motor/hydrauli
c/lubricating,
xylene.

Former service station, which
began operation in the
1930's. Complex history of
fuel storage. Multiple potential
source areas, including USTs
and ASTs. USTs removed in
2007 when the service station
was shut down. Source
identification is needed and
the extent of contamination
needs to be defined.

OPEN SITE as of 6/22/2017.
1200 feet
west of
the
Project
area.

Unlikely, due to
distance and
historical
groundwater flow
directions.

SOURCES: California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), 2023. EnviroStor Available online:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/. Accessed on 3/3/2023.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2023. GeoTracker. Available online: http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.

Accessed on 3/3/2023.

2.7 CEQA and Permitting Considerations
The anticipated level of CEQA review and anticipated resource permits and agency consultations that could be needed for the three (3) proposed bridge improvement design alternatives are summarized in Table 2.3. Note that these are preliminary and based on the information provided in Sections 2.1 through 2.5 in this memorandum.

Table 2.3 Preliminary Overview of CEQA and Permitting Considerations

CEQA USACE
CWA
Section
404
Permit
RWQCB
CWA
Section
401 WQC
CDFW
LSAA
USFWS
FESA
Section 7
NMFS
FESA
Section 7
CDFW
ITP
Cultural
Resource
Study
Design
Alternative
1 IS/MND Yes Yes Yes No Probable,
but if
needed
informal
consultation
would likely
suffice
No Yes
Design
Alternative
2 Class 2
Categorical
Exemption
or IS/MND
Yes Yes Yes No Probable,
but if
needed
informal
consultation
would likely
suffice
No Yes
Design
Alternative
3 Class 2
Categorical
Exemption
or IS/MND
Yes Yes Yes No Probable,
but if
needed
informal
consultation
would likely
suffice
No Yes

Page 457 of 1534 ends

12571956 8

2.7.1 CEQA Level of Review
The City of Ukiah will serve as the CEQA Lead Agency for the project.

Of the three (3) design alternatives, Design Alternative 1 would have the highest potential for impacts as the proposed bridge width is the largest of the design alternatives and would likely have a greater impact and footprint in Orrs Creek. Preliminary review indicates that Design Alternative 1 will likely require completion of an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration to provide the public, responsible agencies, and trustee agencies with information about the potential environmental effects of the project.

Design Alternative 2 and 3 would have a lower potential to impact the Orrs Creek floodplain and aquatic resources as it is the narrowest bridge crossing proposed at Orrs Creek. Subject to additional review, Design Alternative 2 and Design Alternative 3 may potentially qualify for a Class 2 Categorical Exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 (Replacement and Reconstruction). The Class 2 Categorical Exemption covers replacement or reconstruction of existing structures or facilities where the new structure will be located at the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced. Design Alternative 2 and Design Alternative 3 both involve reduced capacity relative to the prior bridge and both would be in the same location as the prior bridge. As part of a review for exemption, the City of Ukiah would need to evaluate the project against the list of exceptions outlined in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines. If Design Alternatives 2 and 3 are determined not to qualify for a Categorical Exemption, then completion of an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration would be required.

2.7.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has permitting authority over activities affecting wetlands and waters of the U.S. If jurisdictional waters (i.e., below ordinary high water [OHW]) or wetlands are impacted by a design alternative, then a USACE CWA Section 404 permit would be required. Since all the design alternatives would involve crossing Orrs Creek, all design alternatives may potentially require a Section 404 permit depending on the design and location of bridge abutments.

2.7.3 RWQCB Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Projects that require a USACE CWA Section 404 permit are also subject to CWA Section 401 and must obtain a water quality certification (WQC) from the RWQCB. All the design alternatives are assumed to require either a CWA Section 401 WQC or Waste Discharge Requirement.

2.7.4 CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement
CDFW is responsible for protecting and conserving fish and wildlife resources, and the habitats on which they depend. A Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) will be needed for any of the design alternatives that would divert or obstruct the natural flow of any creek or river; change the bed, channel, or bank of any creek or river; use material from any creek or river; or deposit or dispose of material into any creek or river. This requirement applies to all creeks, including ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial creeks. Since all the design alternatives would involve crossing Orrs Creek, all design alternatives are assumed to require a LSAA.

2.7.5 USFWS and/or NMFS Consultation under the Federal Endangered Species Act, and CDFW Incidental Take under the California Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) delegates the management and protection of federally listed species to USFWS and NMFS. Of the federally endangered and federally threatened species identified in Table 2.1, above, only steelhead, Chinook salmon, and Coho salmon are under NMFS’ jurisdiction; all other federally-endangered and federally-threatened species in the table are under USFWS’ jurisdiction. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) delegates the management and protection of state-listed species to CDFW.

Page 458 of 1534 ends

12571956 9
The need for consultation with USFWS, NMFS and CDFW Incidental Take will need to be determined based on more detailed site-specific and Project-specific information. However, based on the land cover types provided in Section 2.2 above, it is unlikely that the design alternatives would require formal consultation with USFWS under the FESA nor an Incidental Take Permit from CDFW. Due to the proposed crossing of Orrs Creek, however, all the design alternatives could require some level (formal or informal) consultation with NMFS, depending on the timing of construction and particularly if any construction dewatering is needed. Due to the assumed extent of disturbance along the Orrs Creek riparian corridor, it is assumed that at least informal consultation with NMFS due to the potential presence of federally protected fish species in the Project area. If it is determined that and of the design alternatives could result in an adverse effect on a species that is both federally- and state-listed, USFWS formal consultation and a CDFW consistency determination would be required.

Although the CNDDB and IPaC databases and NMFS critical habitat mapping conducted as part of this preliminary overview of environmental considerations are a good place to start, a biological resources field reconnaissance and more detailed analysis of available data is needed to identify all special-status species that could potentially occur along the Orr Street corridor and in Orrs Creek. Additional site-specific (e.g., vegetation and species surveys) and Project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of Project activities) information will also be needed to determine the likelihood and extent of a Project’s effects on federally- and state-listed species and their habitats and satisfy the pertinent resource agencies (USFWS, Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB], CDFW, and NMFS) during the environmental review and permitting phases.

2.7.6 Cultural Resource Evaluation and Consultation
Projects subject to CEQA and/or NEPA require coordination with appropriate tribal communities and evaluation of potential effects on historical, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources. Project notifications would need to be made to any Native American tribes that have requested notifications pursuant to AB 52 and Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1. Evaluation of cultural resources would need to include a records and literature search at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System, review of the Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File, contact with appropriate local Native American tribes, and a pedestrian archaeological survey of the Project area. Historical resource evaluations for resources eligible or potentially eligible for listing in the national, state, or local historic inventories may also be required to evaluate potential effects on the built environment.

3. References:

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2016. 20190424 NLCD 2016 Land Cover (2016 Edition) [MAP]. U.S.

Geological Survey, Sioux Falls, SD. Publication date: 08/11/2020. Available online:
https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/. Accessed on 3/6/2023.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, 2018. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Mendocino County Important Farmland 2016 [MAP]. Available online:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Mendocino.aspx. Accessed on 3/6/2023.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2023. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) BIOS.

Available online: https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx#. Accessed 3/2/2023.

Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA), 2023. Flood Map Service Center. Available online:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home. Accessed on 3/3/2023.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Hazard Layer 1% Annual Chance Flood (100 Year Flood). Publication date: 12/08/15. Available online: https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/.

Accessed on 3/3/2023.

Page 459 of 1534 ends

12571956 10
Mendocino County Assessor Office, 2014. Lands in Williamson Act and Timber Production Zones [MAP].

Available online: https://www.mendocinocounty.org/home/showdocument?id=7002. Accessed on 3/6/2023.

National Marine Fisheries Service, no date. Endangered Species Act Critical Habitat, West Coast Region.

Available online:
https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/maps_data/endangered_species_act_critical_habitat.ht ml. Accessed on 3/3/2023.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2023. IPaC: Information for Planning and Consultation. Available online:
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/. Accessed on 3/2/2023.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2023. National Wetlands Inventory Mapper. Available online:
https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/. Accessed on 3/1/2023.

Page 460 of 1534 ends

12571956 11
Appendix A
Project Plans

Page 461 of 1534 ends

12571956 12

Page 462 of 1534 ends

Project Client Plot Date: 29 July 2022 - 9:58 AM Plotted By: Manroop Narwal N:\US\Roseville\Projects\561\12571956\Digital_Design\CI\C3D\Model\12571956-GHD-0000-RWY-CI-R102.dwg 0 Bar is one inch on original size sheet
Approved Date Author Drafting Check
Designer Project Director
Project No. Date Filename: Sheet No. This document and the ideas and designs incorporated herein, as an instrument of professional service, is the property of GHD. This document may only be used by GHD’s client (and any other person who GHD has agreed can use this document) for the purpose for which it was prepared and must not be used by any other person or for any other purpose. www.ghd.com Title 1" IssueNo. Checked Design Check Project Manager Conditions of Use Scale ANSI D Size PRELIMINARY CITY OF UKIAH ORR STREET BRIDGE AND CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS DANIEL KEHRER MATT KENEDY 12571956 7/22/2022 GHD Inc. 4080 Plaza Goldorado Circle Suite B Cameron Park California 95682 USA T 1 530 677 5515 DANIEL KEHRER DESIGN ALTERNATIVE 1 (CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS WITH TWO-LANE BRIDGE) 1"=30' 5 MANROOP NARWAL MANROOP NARWAL DANIEL KEHRER DANIEL KEHRER a

Page 463 of 1534 ends

DANIEL KEHRER DESIGN ALTERNATIVE 2 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS WITH (SINGLE-LANE BRIDGE) 1"=30' 6 MANROOP NARWAL MANROOP NARWAL DANIEL KEHRER DANIEL KEHRER Project Client Plot Date: 29 July 2022 - 9:59 AM Plotted By: Manroop Narwal N:\US\Roseville\Projects\561\12571956\Digital_Design\CI\C3D\Model\12571956-GHD-0000-RWY-CI-R102.dwg 0 Bar is one inch on original size sheet Approved Date Author Drafting Check Designer Project Director Project No. Date Filename: Sheet No. This document and the ideas and designs incorporated herein, as an instrument of professional service, is the property of GHD. This document may only be used by GHD’s client (and any other person who GHD has agreed can use this document) for the purpose for which it was prepared and must not be used by any other person or for any other purpose. www.ghd.com Title 1" IssueNo. Checked Design Check Project Manager Conditions of Use Scale ANSI D Size PRELIMINARY CITY OF UKIAH ORR STREET BRIDGE AND CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS DANIEL KEHRER MATT KENEDY 12571956 7/22/2022 GHD Inc. 4080 Plaza Goldorado Circle Suite B Cameron Park California 95682 USA T 1 530 677 5515

Page 464 of 1534 ends

DANIEL KEHRER DESIGN ALTERNATIVE 3 (CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS WITH BIKE, PEDESTRIANS AND EV ACCESS BRIDGE) 1"=30' 8 MANROOP NARWAL MANROOP NARWAL DANIEL KEHRER DANIEL KEHRER Project Client Plot Date: 29 July 2022 - 9:59 AM Plotted By: Manroop Narwal N:\US\Roseville\Projects\561\12571956\Digital_Design\CI\C3D\Model\12571956-GHD-0000-RWY-CI-R102.dwg 0 Bar is one inch on original size sheet Approved Date Author Drafting Check Designer Project Director Project No. Date Filename: Sheet No. This document and the ideas and designs incorporated herein, as an instrument of professional service, is the property of GHD. This document may only be used by GHD’s client (and any other person who GHD has agreed can use this document) for the purpose for which it was prepared and must not be used by any other person or for any other purpose. www.ghd.com Title 1" IssueNo. Checked Design Check Project Manager Conditions of Use Scale ANSI D Size PRELIMINARY CITY OF UKIAH ORR STREET BRIDGE AND CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS DANIEL KEHRER MATT KENEDY 12571956 7/22/2022 GHD Inc. 4080 Plaza Goldorado Circle Suite B Cameron Park California 95682 USA T 1 530 677 5515

Page 465 of 1534 ends

12571956 13
Appendix B
Environmental Mapping

Page 466 of 1534 ends

National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
Ü

SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT

SPECIAL FLOOD

HAZARD AREAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A, V, A99
With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulatory Floodway

0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mileZone X
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood HazardZone X
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levee. See Notes.Zone X
Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D
NO SCREENArea of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Area of Undetermined Flood HazardZone D
Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance

17.5 Water Surface Elevation
Coastal Transect
Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Effective LOMRs
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.

The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 3/3/2023 at 3:07 PM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.

This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.

Legend

OTHER AREAS OF

FLOOD HAZARD

OTHER AREAS

GENERAL

STRUCTURES
OTHER

FEATURES

MAP PANELS
8 B

20.2 The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.
1:6,000
123°12'32"W 39°9'44"N
123°11'55"W 39°9'16"N
Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery: Data refreshed October, 2020

Page 467 of 1534 ends

Figure 2: California Important Farmland near the Project.

Page 468 of 1534 ends

Figure 3: GeoTracker sites within 0.25 mile of the Project.

Page 469 of 1534 ends

Figure 4: EnviroStor sites located within 0.25 mile of the Project.

Page 470 of 1534 ends

3/3/23, 1:35 PM GeoTracker
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report?global_id=T10000011470 1/1 Back to Top Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy Accessibility
Contact Us
Copyright © 2023 State of California
ORR STREET PROPERTY (T10000011470) - (MAP) SIGN UP FOR EMAIL 190 ORR STREET
UKIAH, CA 95482

MENDOCINO COUNTY

LUST CLEANUP SITE (INFO)
COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED AS OF 6/17/2019 - DEFINITION

PRINTABLE CASE SUMMARY / CSM REPORT

CLEANUP OVERSIGHT AGENCIES
NORTH COAST RWQCB (REGION 1) (LEAD) - CASE #
CASEWORKER: REGIONAL WATER BOARD SITE
Regulatory Profile PRINTABLE CASE SUMM

CLEANUP STATUS - DEFINITIONS
COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED AS OF 6/17/2019 - CLEANUP STATUS HISTORY

POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

BENZENE, DIESEL

POTENTIAL MEDIA OF CONCERN

NONE SPECIFIED

FILE LOCATION DESIGNATED GROUNDWATER BENEFICIAL USE(S) - DEFINITIONS MUN, AGR, IND, PROC, FRSH, CUL, AQUA - Note: R1 BP- all gw same use

DWR GROUNDWATER SUB-BASIN NAME
Ukiah Valley (1-052)

CALWATER WATERSHED NAME
Russian River - Upper Russian River - Ukiah (114.31)
Site History
The site formerly contained a repair/machine shop, as well as two underground and two aboveground storage tanks. Phase I and Phase II site assessments in 2016 found diesel and m oil impacts onsite. Remaining contaminants in soil are at low levels and localized around the vicinity of the former shop structure on the south side of the property.

Summary Case Reviews Cleanup Action Report Regulatory Activities Environmental Data (ESI) Site Maps / Documents Community Involvement Related Cases 

Page 471 of 1534 ends

3/3/23, 1:50 PM GeoTracker
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0604593500 1/1 Back to Top Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy Accessibility
Contact Us
Copyright © 2023 State of California
LIGHTEL'S BULK PLANT (T0604593500) - (MAP) SIGN UP FOR EMAIL 195 BRUSH STREET
UKIAH, CA 95482

MENDOCINO COUNTY

CLEANUP PROGRAM SITE (INFO)
OPEN - SITE ASSESSMENT AS OF 6/22/2017 - DEFINITION

PRINTABLE CASE SUMMARY / CSM REPORT

CLEANUP OVERSIGHT AGENCIES
NORTH COAST RWQCB (REGION 1) (LEAD) - CASE #
CASEWORKER: KELSEY MCLAUGHLIN
Regulatory Profile PRINTABLE CASE SUMM

CLEANUP STATUS - DEFINITIONS
OPEN - SITE ASSESSMENT AS OF 6/22/2017 - CLEANUP STATUS HISTORY

POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

BENZENE, DIESEL, ETHYLBENZENE, GASOLINE, TOLUENE, XYLENE

POTENTIAL MEDIA OF CONCERN

AQUIFER USED FOR DRINKING WATER SUPPLY

FILE LOCATION

REGIONAL BOARD

DESIGNATED GROUNDWATER BENEFICIAL USE(S) - DEFINITIONS
MUN, AGR, IND, PROC, FRSH, CUL, AQUA - Note: R1 BP- all gw same use

DWR GROUNDWATER SUB-BASIN NAME
Ukiah Valley (1-052)

CALWATER WATERSHED NAME
Russian River - Upper Russian River - Ukiah (114.31)
Site History
The site is located in the Harbor District near Crescent City in Del Norte County, California, and was used for bulk fuel storage and distribution from approximately 1929 until 1993. Sinc 1929, the property has been owned by four parties. Shell owned, developed and operated the site from 1929 to 1972 as a fuel storage and distribution facility. In 1972, the property was sold to the Manosar Family who continued fuel storage and distribution until 1983. In 1983 the Manosar family sold the property to La Mesa Petroleum which later that year sold the property to Mr. Thomas Whiteley. Mr. Whiteley distributed fuel from the site from 1983 to 1993. In 1993, Mr. Whiteley removed the last of the above ground storage tanks and ceased fu storage and distribution activities. The site is currently occupied by a wood working shop and sale shop for wood and stone products. The site�s underlain by primarily coarse-grained with interbedded layers of silt, sandy silt, and sandy clay. Site assessment and remediation activities have been ongoing since 1997 and include minor excavation in 1997; ongoing free product removal since 2007; and intermittent soil vapor extraction from 2007 to 2011.

Summary Cleanup Action Report Regulatory Activities Environmental Data (ESI) Site Maps / Documents Community Involvement Related Cases 

Page 472 of 1534 ends

3/3/23, 2:21 PM GeoTracker
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0604500235 1/1 Back to Top Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy Accessibility
Contact Us
Copyright © 2023 State of California
UKIAH INDUSTRIAL, LTD. (T0604500235) - (MAP) SIGN UP FOR EMAIL 990 ORR STREET
UKIAH, CA 95482

MENDOCINO COUNTY

LUST CLEANUP SITE (INFO)
COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED AS OF 3/10/1994 - DEFINITION

PRINTABLE CASE SUMMARY / CSM REPORT

CLEANUP OVERSIGHT AGENCIES
NORTH COAST RWQCB (REGION 1) (LEAD) - CASE #
CASEWORKER: REGIONAL WATER BOARD SITE
Regulatory Profile PRINTABLE CASE SUMM

CLEANUP STATUS - DEFINITIONS
COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED AS OF 3/10/1994 - CLEANUP STATUS HISTORY

POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

GASOLINE

POTENTIAL MEDIA OF CONCERN
SOIL

FILE LOCATION DESIGNATED GROUNDWATER BENEFICIAL USE(S) - DEFINITIONS MUN, AGR, IND, PROC, FRSH, CUL, AQUA - Note: R1 BP- all gw same use

DWR GROUNDWATER SUB-BASIN NAME
Ukiah Valley (1-052)

CALWATER WATERSHED NAME
Russian River - Upper Russian River - Ukiah (114.31)
Site History
No site history available
Summary Cleanup Action Report Regulatory Activities Environmental Data (ESI) Site Maps / Documents Community Involvement Related Cases 

Page 473 of 1534 ends

2.542969 seconds
DANIEL BROS STEEL & MACHINE WK (23350001) SIGN UP FOR EMAIL 160 BRUSH STREET
UKIAH, CA 95482

MENDOCINO COUNTY
SITE TYPE: EVALUATION
PROJECT MANAGER: ALLAN FONE
SUPERVISOR: DENISE TSUJ
OFFICE: CLEANUP BER
CENSUS TRACT: 6045011500
CALENVIROSCREEN PERCENTILE SCORE: 60-65%
Site Information

CLEANUP STATUS
NO ACTION REQUIRED AS OF 5/28/2008
SITE TYPE: EVALUATION
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST: NO
ACRES: 2 ACRES
APN: 002-040-37, 002-040-38, 00204032
CLEANUP OVERSIGHT AGENCIES:

DTSC - SITE CLEANUP PROGRAM - LEAD AGENCY
ENVIROSTOR ID: 23350001
SITE CODE:

SPECIAL PROGRAM: EPA - PASI
FUNDING:

ASSEMBLY DISTRICT: 02
SENATE DISTRICT: 02
Regulatory Profile

PAST USE(S) THAT CAUSED CONTAMINATION
NONE

POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

NO CONTAMINANTS FOUND

POTENTIAL MEDIA AFFECTED

NO MEDIA AFFECTED
Site History
Daniel Bros. Steel and Machine Works fabricates steel structures, performs crane work, and machines metal parts. The company has operated at the site since the late 1950's.

Summary Activities Site/Facility Docs Map Related Sites CalEnviroScreen 

Page 474 of 1534 ends

3/3/23, 2:41 PM GeoTracker
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0604500327 1/1 Back to Top Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy Accessibility
Contact Us
Copyright © 2023 State of California
REDWOOD TREE SERVICE STATION (T0604500327) - (MAP) SIGN UP FOR EMAIL 859 STATE STREET, NORTH
UKIAH, CA 95482

MENDOCINO COUNTY

LUST CLEANUP SITE (INFO)
OPEN - VERIFICATION MONITORING AS OF 6/22/2017 - DEFINITION

PRINTABLE CASE SUMMARY / CSM REPORT
CUF Claim #: 14783
CUF Priority Assigned: B
CUF Amount Paid: $278,787

CLEANUP OVERSIGHT AGENCIES
NORTH COAST RWQCB (REGION 1) (LEAD) - CASE #
CASEWORKER: Craig Hunt
Regulatory Profile PRINTABLE CASE SUMM

CLEANUP STATUS - DEFINITIONS
OPEN - VERIFICATION MONITORING AS OF 6/22/2017 - CLEANUP STATUS HISTORY

POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

BENZENE, DIESEL, GASOLINE, MTBE / TBA / OTHER FUEL OXYGENATES,

TOLUENE, WASTE OIL / MOTOR / HYDRAULIC / LUBRICATING, XYLENE

POTENTIAL MEDIA OF CONCERN

AQUIFER USED FOR DRINKING WATER SUPPLY, SOIL

FILE LOCATION

REGIONAL BOARD

DESIGNATED GROUNDWATER BENEFICIAL USE(S) - DEFINITIONS
MUN, AGR, IND, PROC, FRSH, CUL, AQUA - Note: R1 BP- all gw same use

DWR GROUNDWATER SUB-BASIN NAME
Ukiah Valley (1-052)

CALWATER WATERSHED NAME
Russian River - Upper Russian River - Ukiah (114.31)

GROUNDWATER MONITORING FREQUENCY
# OF WELLS MONITORED - SEMI-ANNUALLY : 4, OTHER : 3
Site History
Former service station, which began operation in the 1930's. Complex history of fuel storage. Multiple potential source areas, including USTs and ASTs. USTs removed in 2007 when th service station was shut down. Source identification is needed and the extent of contamination needs to be defined.

Summary Case Reviews Cleanup Action Report Regulatory Activities Environmental Data (ESI) Site Maps / Documents Community Involvement Related Cases LUST CUF Data 

Page 475 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Orr Street Bridge & Corridor Study 23 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Appendix D
Hydraulics Analysis Report

Page 476 of 1534 ends

Hydraulics Report
For Orr Street Bridge

CITY OF UKIAH
October 17, 2023
The Power of Commitment

Page 477 of 1534 ends

The Power of Commitment
Project name Orr Street Bridge and Transportation Corridor Study Document title Hydraulics Report | For Orr Street Bridge Project number 12571956
File name 12571956-RPT-Hydraulics Report.docx
Status
Code
Revision Author Reviewer Approved for issue
Name Signature Name Signature Date
S0 A C. Delgado G. Garrison
S3 B G. Garrison
S4 C M. Kennedy R. Southern
GHD Inc.
2235 Mercury Way, Suite 150
Santa Rosa, California 95407, United States
T +1 707 523 1010 | ghd.com
© GHD 2023

Page 478 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Hydraulics Report ii
Contents

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Purpose of this report 1

1.2 Scope and limitations 1

1.3 Assumptions 1

2. Background 2

2.1 Study Area Description 2

2.2 Vertical Datum 2

2.3 Existing Conditions 2

2.4 Proposed Improvements 2

2.4.1 Alternative 1 2

2.4.2 Alternative 2 3

2.4.3 Alternative 3 3

3. Hydraulic Design Standards and Criteria 3

3.1 Overview 3

3.2 FEMA 3

3.3 FHWA 3

3.4 Caltrans 3

4. Hydrologic Assessment 3

5. Hydraulic Assessment 4

5.1 Hydraulic Modeling Overview 4

5.2 Hydraulic Model Setup 4

5.2.1 Pre-Project Conditions 4

5.2.2 Post-Project Conditions 4

5.3 Results 5

6. Bridge Scour Analysis 6

6.1 Basis of Scour Analysis 6

6.2 Geotechnical Data 6

6.3 Clear-Water versus Live-Bed Scour 7

6.4 Contraction Scour 7

6.5 Abutment Scour 8

6.6 Total Scour 9

7. Conclusions 9

8. References 10

Page 479 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Hydraulics Report iii
Table index
Table 1 Peak Discharge Rates 4
Table 2 Post-Project Conditions 4
Table 3 Water Surface Elevation Summary for 100-yr Flow Rate 5 Table 4 Contraction Scour Depths 8
Table 5 Abutment Scour Depth 9
Table 6 Total Estimated Scour Depths 9
Figure index
Figure 1 Water Surface Profiles for Orrs Creek in Project Vicinity 6 Attachments
Attachment 1 FEMA FIRMette
Attachment 2 Hydraulic Model Results
Attachment 3 Bridge Scour Calculations

Page 480 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Hydraulics Report 1

1. Introduction
The Orr Street Bridge and Corridor Study is a comprehensive corridor plan proposing improvements along Orr Street and replacement of the bridge across Orrs Creek in Ukiah, CA. This study evaluated various options, alignments, and cross-sections of replacing the Orr Street Bridge and improvements to Orr Street including multimodal access to improve the walkability, bike friendliness, and access for emergency vehicles, delivery, and city services. The goal of the study is to analyze corridor improvement and bridge replacement options, propose community-driven alternatives, and identify a preferred alternative that maximizes the beneficial uses, scenery, and public services along Orrs Creek while protecting the environment. The existing Orr Street Bridge has been closed to all traffic since 2009, and the deck has been removed in the last couple of years. The City has considered options for rehabilitation or complete replacement, possibly through the Caltrans administered Highway Bridge Program (HBP). The HBP is a safety program that provides federal aid to Local Public Agencies (LPAs) to replace and rehabilitate structurally deficient, locally owned public highway bridges or to complete preventive maintenance on bridges that are not deficient.

1.1 Purpose of this report
The purpose of this report is to present the methods and outcomes of a hydraulic analysis of the Orrs Creek that was conducted to evaluate the conceptual alternative designs of the planned Orr Street Bridge improvements for the Project. The key objectives of the analysis are:
– Provide a hydraulic assessment to estimate water surface profile, flow depth, and flow velocity in the Orrs Creek in the vicinity of the Project for the pre-project and post-project conditions. – Provide an evaluation of the bridge scour for the post-project conditions.

1.2 Scope and limitations
This report: has been prepared by GHD for CITY OF UKIAH and may only be used and relied on by CITY OF UKIAH for the purpose agreed between GHD and CITY OF UKIAH as set out in Section 1.2 of this report.

GHD otherwise disclaims responsibility to any person other than CITY OF UKIAH arising in connection with this report. GHD also excludes implied warranties and conditions, to the extent legally permissible.

The services undertaken by GHD in connection with preparing this report were limited to those specifically detailed in the report and are subject to the scope limitations set out in the report.

The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on conditions encountered and information reviewed at the date of preparation of the report. GHD has no responsibility or obligation to update this report to account for events or changes occurring subsequent to the date that the report was prepared.

The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on assumptions made by GHD described in this report (refer to Section 1.3 of this report). GHD disclaims liability arising from any of the assumptions being incorrect.

1.3 Assumptions
At the time of this study, site-specific geotechnical data was not available for the scour assessment that was conducted as a part of this study. For this submittal it is assumed that the information that was available and used for the scour assessment and results presented in this report is representative of the channel bed material at the Project site.

The hydraulic model used for this study was the model developed as a part of the FEMA Preliminary Flood Insurance Study (FIS) completed for Mendocino County (FEMA, 2022). The Preliminary FIS analysis included updated survey information of key structures including the Orr St. Bridge. The FEMA modeling was completed in the ACOE HEC-RAS software platform.

Updated topographic information was obtained within the channel in in February and March 2022 and was used for this study. The topographic survey extended from 160 feet upstream of the Orr Street Bridge to Myron Place

Page 481 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Hydraulics Report 2
(approximately 430 feet downstream of the Orr Street Bridge) for a total of 590 feet along the Orrs Creek. The topographic data was provided by a California licensed land surveyor.

2. Background

2.1 Study Area Description
Orrs Creek is in northeastern Ukiah, CA and flows eastwards to the Russian River. Orr Street is a north-south local roadway which extends from Ford Street and ends north of Brush Street, with a bridge over Orrs Creek. Orr Street between Ford Street and the bridge (south side of bridge) is a narrow residential street with sidewalk on the west side, utility poles on both sides, fences fronting most properties, and cars parked on both sides of the street. There are several multi-family dwellings on the west side of Orr Street, just south of the bridge. Garbage trucks and emergency vehicles have no place to turn around or continue through with the bridge closed. Orr Street north of the bridge is also a narrow residential street, with sidewalk and on-street parking on the west side. On the northeast side of Orr Street, a multi-family senior housing development has recently been constructed, along with an adjacent bike path which connects just north of the bridge to Orchard Avenue to the east.

2.2 Vertical Datum
The Project references the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) for elevations. The horizontal coordinate system and basis of bearing is the California State Plane Coordinate System, Zone II, NAD 83 in units of feet.

2.3 Existing Conditions
The existing Orr Street Bridge has been closed to all vehicle traffic since 2009, and the deck has been removed in the last couple of years. There are concrete barriers blocking both sides of the bridge. The bridge has concrete abutments with four steel I-beam girders, and a wooden railing. The northern abutment has a large vertical crack underneath the bridge, and adjacent concrete along the embankment and within the channel is also deteriorating. On the northwest side of the bridge, there is a residence that has constructed an additional retaining wall on top of the concrete bridge abutment with an adjacent shed. There is an existing asbestos-cement (AC) water pipe traversing the underside of the bridge. There are two storm drainage outfall pipes protruding from the tops of the embankments on both sides of the south side of the bridge. There are overhead electrical utilities with one utility pole near the southwest corner of the bridge, and other poles along Orr Street.

2.4 Proposed Improvements
As part of the initial modelling study, three (3) alternatives were analyzed using the FEMA HEC-RAS model. Each alternative was assumed to have the same abutment layout and location, along with identical Bridge Deck and thickness dimensions. Alternatives varied in bridge width and approach designs. Because the proposed alternatives all had soffit elevations placed above the Existing 100-year water surface elevation, the varying spans and approaches did not hydraulically affect the performance of each alternative.

2.4.1 Alternative 1
The proposed Alternative 1 includes widening the bridge to include two 12’ lanes, two 4’ bike lanes and 5’ sidewalks on both sides with 6” buffer for the railing along the bridge, and 6” for a barrier separating the bike lanes from the travel lanes. The total width of the bridge is 44 ft and a bridge span of 72.4 ft.

Page 482 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Hydraulics Report 3

2.4.2 Alternative 2
The proposed Alternative 2 includes widening the bridge to include a single 16’ travel lane with bike sharrow, 5’ sidewalks, and 6” railing buffer for a total width of 27 ft and a bridge span of 72.28 ft.

2.4.3 Alternative 3
The proposed Alternative 3 includes widening the bridge to include only pedestrian and bike access and is wide enough to allow emergency vehicles (i.e., fire trucks, ambulance, etc.). This alternative has a total width of 15’ and a bridge span of 75.00 ft.

3. Hydraulic Design Standards and Criteria

3.1 Overview
This section summarizes the design standards and criteria that were considered for the hydraulic analysis, which includes requirements from the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and Caltrans.

3.2 FEMA
Orrs Creek at the Project location is located within a FEMA Regulatory Floodway and Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Zone AE, as shown on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel number 06045C1512F, last revised on June 2, 2011 (see Attachment 1). Zone AE represents areas which are subject to inundation by the 1-percent-annual flood (100-yr flood) also known as the Base Flood. FIRMs of Zone AE areas are paired with detailed information about base flood elevations.

3.3 FHWA
FWHA criterion for the hydraulic design of bridges is specified in the Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR 650.115) and states that they must be designed to pass the 2% chance of annual exceedance flow (50-year recurrence interval design discharge) with adequate freeboard, where predictable, to protect bridge structures from debris- and scourrelated failure.

3.4 Caltrans
Caltrans criteria for hydraulic design of bridges (Caltrans, 2017) (Caltrans, 2020), is that bridge soffits should be set to allow for the greater of:
– Passage of the 50-yr design flood with freeboard sufficient to accommodate the effects of bedload and debris (typically 2 feet is assumed for freeboard), or
– Passage of the 100-yr design flood without freeboard.

4. Hydrologic Assessment
For this study, peak discharges upstream of the existing Orr Street Bridge were obtained from the FEMA developed RAS model, shown in Table 1.

Page 483 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Hydraulics Report 4
Table 1 Peak Discharge Rates
10-year 25-year 50-year 100-year 500-year
1,691 cfs 2,220 cfs 2,470 cfs 2,745 cfs 3,335 cfs

5. Hydraulic Assessment

5.1 Hydraulic Modeling Overview
The hydraulic modeling for Orrs Creek for this study was conducted using the USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) version 6.3.1 software. As discussed previously, the base model for this study was the model developed by FEMA as part of the Mendocino FIS Analysis completed in 2022.

As a part of the hydraulic modeling, the geometry of several cross-sections was revised using updated survey data that extended from 160 feet upstream of the Orr Street Bridge to Myron Place (approximately 430 feet downstream of the Orr Street Bridge) for a total of 590 feet along the Orrs Creek.

5.2 Hydraulic Model Setup

5.2.1 Pre-Project Conditions
As part of pre-project conditions model setup, the topographic survey performed for this study was used to update the geometry within the HEC-RAS model.

The model revisions included updating the profile for cross-sections 4721.837 to 4578.574 upstream of the bridge and cross sections 4522.749 to 4168.88 downstream of the bridge.

5.2.2 Post-Project Conditions
The post-project conditions geometry within the HEC-RAS model was developed by modifying the bridge geometry of the updated pre-project conditions model as shown on Table 2. The post-project alternatives are different in their approaches and overbank design, but the bridge deck elevation and thickness are identical between all three of them, therefore they present no difference as to how they impact the Orrs Creek flow conditions.

Table 2 Post-Project Conditions
Alternative Description Details
Bridge
Span (ft)
Bridge
Width (ft) Soffit Elev. Deck Elev. *
1 2 Lanes 2x12' lanes, 4' bike lanes,
5' sidewalks 72.40 44 612.34 615.59
2 1 Lane/shared 16' travel lane with bike
sharrow, 5' sidewalks 72.28 27 612.34 615.59
3 Ped/Bike Only
Has Cul-de-Sacs; Ped &
Bike Access 14' road,
allows emergency access

75.00 15 612.34 614.88
*Note: Deck Elevation will depend on bridge structure. Alternatives 1 and 2 assumed 3.25’ box beams with 6” concrete slab.

Alternative 3 assumes 27” box beam girder with 3.5” polymer slab (see Advance Planning Study separately).

Page 484 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Hydraulics Report 5

5.3 Results
The following two scenarios were evaluated with the hydraulic model, consisting of the 100-year peak flow for the preproject and post-project conditions:

1. Pre-project conditions with 100-yr peak flow.

2. Post-project conditions with 100-yr peak flow.

Detailed model output for the scenarios evaluated is included in Attachment 2 for the area extending just downstream of the Ford St. structure to just upstream of the N. Orchard Ave structure (cross-sections 5327.11 to 3470.054). For the 100-yr flow rate (1,691 cfs), the hydraulic grade line (HGL) is contained within the channel banks in this reach.

A comparison of the pre-project and post-project water surface elevations (WSE) is shown in Table 3 and the water surface profiles are shown in Figure 1. For the post-project conditions, the model is showing a slight decrease in water surface elevation upstream of the Orr Street Bridge. Downstream of the bridge, no change in water surface elevation is observed. This variation is explained by the post-project conditions having a higher soffit elevation than the preproject conditions, and the pre-project soffit elevation is below the 100-yr peak flow. The pre-project deck elevation of the bridge is approximately at 613.66 feet.

Table 3 Water Surface Elevation Summary for 100-yr Flow Rate Cross-Section Location (ft) Pre-Project WSE (ft) Post-Project WSE (ft) 5327.110 618.11 618.11
5259.399 617.41 617.41
5101.586 616.76 616.76
4932.325 616.35 616.35
4721.837 612.63 612.63
4627.501 611.86 611.82
4578.574 611.47 611.42
4549.2 Orrs Street Bridge - Upstream 611.46 611.36
4549.2 Orrs Street Bridge - Downstream 611.43 611.32
4522.749 611.32 611.32
4384.909 610.94 610.94
4168.880 609.69 609.69
3995.524 609.20 609.20
3806.642 608.38 608.38
3606.258 608.22 608.22
3470.054 608.16 608.16

Page 485 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Hydraulics Report 6
Figure 1 Water Surface Profiles for Orrs Creek in Project Vicinity

6. Bridge Scour Analysis
Preliminary bridge scour analyses were conducted as part of this study and included two primary components:
contraction scour at the bridge, and local scour at the abutments. The sum of these components represents the total scour at the bridge crossing.

6.1 Basis of Scour Analysis
The preliminary bridge scour analysis was conducted for the post-project condition based on the methods presented in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 18 Evaluating Scour at Bridges (FHWA, 2012), commonly referred to as HEC-18. The analysis was performed using the results of the hydraulic modeling discussed in Section 5.3 for the two scenarios (pre-project and post-project conditions) under the 100-yr peak flow rate discussed in Section 4.

6.2 Geotechnical Data
Currently, a site-specific geotechnical investigation of the project site is not available and therefore grain size will be obtained from existing sources of geotechnical data.

The report developed by (RAU and Associates, 2002) presents grain size data from two borings near the Orr Creek, with a D50 around 1.05 mm. This value will be used to estimate contraction scour.

Page 486 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Hydraulics Report 7

6.3 Clear-Water versus Live-Bed Scour
Clear-water scour and live-bed scour are two methods by which contraction and abutment scour occur. Clear-water scour occurs where there is no transport of bed material from upstream of the bridge while live-bed scour occurs where there is transport of bed material from upstream. The type of scour which occurs is dependent on the bed material grain size, upstream average velocity, and upstream average depth of flow. The critical velocity, 𝑉𝑐, necessary for transport of the bed material median diameter, 𝐷50, is used as an indicator for clear-water or live-bed scour conditions. Clear-water scour is assumed to occur when the average velocity, 𝑉, upstream of the bridge is less than or equal to 𝑉𝑐for the 𝐷50 of the bed material. Live-bed scour is assumed to occur if 𝑉 is greater than 𝑉𝑐. The critical velocity was calculated using equation 6.1 from HEC-18:

𝑉𝑐 = 𝐾𝑢𝑦
1 6𝐷
1 3
Where:

𝑉𝑐 = Critical velocity above which bed material of size D and smaller will be transported (ft/s) 𝑦 = Average depth of flow upstream of the bridge (ft)
𝐷 = Particle size for Vc (𝑓𝑡)
𝐷50 = Particle size in a mixture of which 50 percent are smaller (ft) 𝐾𝑢 = 11.17 English units
The critical velocity was calculated for the larger bed material (𝐷50=1.05 mm), as this is the more conservative case, just upstream of the bridge and it was found that the channel velocity for all scenarios exceeded the critical velocity for particles of that size, so live-bed scour was used for the scour analysis. The calculation is included in Attachment 3.

6.4 Contraction Scour
Contraction scour occurs when the flow area of a stream is reduced due by either a bridge structure or a natural contraction of the channel. The reduction of flow area causes a corresponding increase in average velocity of the flow, resulting in increased erosion. The scour will reach maximum depth once the flow area is increased to the point at which there is no net sediment loss from the area.

Live-bed contraction scour was calculated using equation 6.2 from HEC-18, which is a modified version of Laursen’s equation:
𝑦2
𝑦1
= (
𝑄2
𝑄1
)
6/7
(
𝑊2
𝑊1
)
𝑘1
Where:
𝑦𝑠 = 𝑦2 − 𝑦0 = Average contraction scour depth (ft)
𝑦1 = Average depth of flow upstream main channel (ft)
𝑦2 = Average depth in the contracted section (ft)
𝑦0 = Existing depth in the contracted section before scour (ft) 𝑄1 = Flow in the upstream channel transporting sediment (ft3 /s)

Page 487 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Hydraulics Report 8
𝑄2 = Flow in the contracted channel (ft3
/s)
𝑊1 = Bottom width of the upstream main channel that is transporting bed material (ft) 𝑊2 = Bottom width of main channel in contracted section less pier widths (ft) 𝑘1 = Mode of bed material transport exponent
Based on the channel topography, there is not a significant contraction at the bridge. However, contraction scour calculations were performed as part of this study using the Hydraulic Design Function in the HEC-RAS model used for the hydraulic analysis. The Hydraulic Design Function uses the equation presented above to calculate live-bed contraction scour- The output from the calculations is included in Attachment 3 and the calculated scour depth are shown in Table 4. The calculations estimate slight contraction scour in the main channel and no contraction scour in the overbanks.

Table 4 Contraction Scour Depths
Location
Flow Rate: 2,745 cfs 100-year storm
Scour depth (ft)
Left Overbank (looking downstream) N/A
Channel 0.09
Right Overbank (looking downstream) N/A

6.5 Abutment Scour
Abutment scour occurs when the abutment and road embankment obstruct the flow of the stream. The flow obstructed by the abutment and approach embankment accelerates and often forms a vortex starting at the upstream end of the abutment and running along the toe of the abutment. Generally, a wake vortex forms at the downstream end of the abutment.

Abutment scour can be predicted using Froehlich’s abutment scour equation (equation 8.1 from HEC-18):
𝑦𝑠
𝑦𝑎
= 2.27𝐾1𝐾2 (
𝐿
′
𝑦𝑎
)

0.43 𝐹𝑟

0.61 + 1
Where:

𝐾1 = Coefficient for abutment shape (1.0 for vertical wall abutment) 𝐾2 =
(
𝜃
90)

0.13 where 𝜃 is the orientation of embankment angle to the flow 𝐿′ = Length of active flow obstructed by the embankment (ft) 𝐴𝑒 = Flow area of the approach cross section obstructed by the embankment (ft2 )
𝐹𝑟= Froude Number of approach flow upstream of the abutment 𝑉𝑒 = Velocity of the obstructed flow (ft/s)
𝑄𝑒 = Flow obstructed by the abutment and approach embankment (ft3 /s)

Page 488 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Hydraulics Report 9
𝑦𝑎 = Average depth of flow on the floodplain (ft)
𝑦𝑠 = Scour depth (ft)
Like contraction scour, the Hydraulic Design Function in HEC-RAS was used to calculate abutment scour. The output from the calculations is included in Attachment 3 and the calculated abutment scour depths are shown in Table 5. The calculations estimate higher scour depths for the right abutment as it obstructs a higher flow area than the left abutment.

Table 5 Abutment Scour Depth
Location
Flow Rate: 2,745 cfs 100-year storm
Scour depth (ft)
Left abutment (looking downstream) 9.60
Right abutment (looking downstream) 12.40

6.6 Total Scour
Total scour was calculated as part of this study as the sum of the estimated contraction scour and abutment scour.

The results are shown in Table 6. In general, the total calculated scour is mainly due to abutment scour, with contraction scour being minimal in depth.

Table 6 Total Estimated Scour Depths
Support Location
Flow Rate: 2,745 cfs 100-year storm
Contraction scour depth (ft) Abutment scour depth (ft) Total scour depth (ft) Left abutment (looking
downstream)

0.09 9.60 9.68
Right abutment (looking
downstream)

0.09 12.40 12.48

7. Conclusions
The hydraulic modeling conducted as part of this study included a hydraulic assessment and scour analysis for the 100-year peak flows. The hydraulic assessment showed that the post-project conditions slightly decrease water surface elevation up to 0.1 feet when compared to the pre-project conditions, upstream of the Orr Street Bridge. In all other locations, there was no change in water surface elevation.

In addition, the scour analysis indicates that scour revetments would need to be included in the future design phases of this project. The above Scour Analysis was based on conceptual designs of the Alternatives without channel specific geotechnical information. Design specific analyses and site-specific geotechnical information may result in varying Scour calculations.

Page 489 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Hydraulics Report 10

8. References
Caltrans. (2017). Memo to Designers 1601 Hydraulic Design for Structures Over Waterways.

Caltrans. (2020). Highway Design Manual: Seventh Edition.

FEMA. (2022). Preliminary Flood Insurance Study, Mendocino County.

FHWA. (n.d.). Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 18 Evaluating Scour at Bridges Fifth Edition.

RAU and Associates. (2002). Technical Memorandum Regarding Street Structural Section, Subdrainage, and Fill Construction.

Page 490 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Hydraulics Report 11
Attachments

Page 491 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Hydraulics Report 12
Attachment 1
FEMA FIRMette

Page 492 of 1534 ends

National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
Ü

SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT

SPECIAL FLOOD

HAZARD AREAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A, V, A99
With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulatory Floodway

The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 7/19/2023 at 11:52 PM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.

Legend

OTHER AREAS OF

FLOOD HAZARD

OTHER AREAS

GENERAL

STRUCTURES
OTHER

FEATURES

MAP PANELS
8 B

Page 493 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Hydraulics Report 13
This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Attachment 2
Hydraulic Model Results

Page 494 of 1534 ends

Hydraulic Model Output
Pre-project Conditions 100-yr flow (2,745 cfs)

Page 495 of 1534 ends

HEC-RAS Plan: ECM_Multiprofile Locations: User Defined Profile: 100yr River Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft)
orrs_creek 110 5327.11 100yr 2330.00 606.30 618.11 618.48 0.000909 4.91 486.76 114.48 0.30 orrs_creek 110 5327 Lat Struct
orrs_creek 110 5259.399 100yr 2330.00 605.85 617.41 618.25 0.002460 7.32 319.26 45.85 0.47 orrs_creek 110 5101.586 100yr 2745.00 604.00 616.76 613.84 617.80 0.002996 8.18 367.76 169.34 0.53 orrs_creek 110 4932.325 100yr 2745.00 602.80 616.35 617.28 0.002759 7.89 408.42 297.08 0.51 orrs_creek 110 4721.837 100yr 2745.00 602.19 612.63 612.63 615.73 0.026745 14.13 195.01 33.31 0.99 orrs_creek 110 4627.501 100yr 2745.00 601.06 611.86 612.78 0.003081 7.67 357.73 53.35 0.52 orrs_creek 110 4578.574 100yr 2745.00 600.35 611.47 608.18 612.57 0.003237 8.41 326.34 41.76 0.53 orrs_creek 110 4549.2 Bridge
orrs_creek 110 4522.749 100yr 2745.00 600.52 611.32 612.25 0.002963 7.72 355.48 52.31 0.52 orrs_creek 110 4384.909 100yr 2745.00 598.66 610.94 611.79 0.003174 7.43 371.26 77.52 0.53 orrs_creek 110 4168.88 100yr 2745.00 599.59 609.69 610.95 0.004398 9.00 307.62 327.25 0.62 orrs_creek 110 3995.524 100yr 2745.00 599.00 609.20 606.97 610.24 0.003213 8.33 411.64 833.68 0.56 orrs_creek 110 3806.642 100yr 3095.00 598.40 608.38 608.30 609.52 0.003823 9.36 578.30 2082.12 0.60 orrs_creek 110 3806 Lat Struct
orrs_creek 110 3606.258 100yr 3095.00 598.00 608.22 607.35 608.66 0.001811 6.76 966.38 3165.39 0.42 orrs_creek 110 3470.054 100yr 3095.00 597.70 608.16 604.75 608.40 0.000865 4.98 1314.44 3380.30 0.30

Page 496 of 1534 ends

3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
595600605610615620
Orrs Creek Plan: 1) ECM_Multiprofile 27/01/2023
Main Channel Distance (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Crit 100yr
Ground
orrs_creek 110

Page 497 of 1534 ends

9600 9700 9800 9900 10000 10100 10200
606608610612614616618620622624
Orrs Creek Plan: 1) ECM_Multiprofile 27/01/2023
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Ground
Bank Sta
.13 .035 .13
9850 9900 9950 10000 10050 10100 10150
604606608610612614616618620
Orrs Creek Plan: 1) ECM_Multiprofile 27/01/2023
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.13 .06 .035 .13
9750 9800 9850 9900 9950 10000 10050 10100
604606608610612614616618620
Orrs Creek Plan: 1) ECM_Multiprofile 27/01/2023
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Crit 100yr
Ground
Bank Sta
.13 .06 .035 .13

Page 498 of 1534 ends

9700 9750 9800 9850 9900 9950 10000 10050 10100
602604606608610612614616618
Orrs Creek Plan: 1) ECM_Multiprofile 27/01/2023
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.13 .06 .035 .06 .13
9750 9800 9850 9900 9950 10000 10050
602604606608610612614616618620
Orrs Creek Plan: 1) ECM_Multiprofile 27/01/2023
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Crit 100yr
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.06 .035 .13
9750 9800 9850 9900 9950 10000 10050
600602604606608610612614616
Orrs Creek Plan: 1) ECM_Multiprofile 27/01/2023
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.06 .035 .06

Page 499 of 1534 ends

9800 9850 9900 9950 10000 10050 10100
600602604606608610612614616
Orrs Creek Plan: 1) ECM_Multiprofile 27/01/2023
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Crit 100yr
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.06 .035 .06 .13
9800 9850 9900 9950 10000 10050 10100
600602604606608610612614616
Orrs Creek Plan: 1) ECM_Multiprofile 27/01/2023
Orr Street Strcuture ID: ORR_550
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Crit 100yr
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.06 .035 .06 .13
9800 9850 9900 9950 10000 10050 10100
600602604606608610612614
Orrs Creek Plan: 1) ECM_Multiprofile 27/01/2023
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Ground
Bank Sta
.06 .035 .
06 .13

Page 500 of 1534 ends

9300 9400 9500 9600 9700 9800 9900 10000 10100
595600605610615620
Orrs Creek Plan: 1) ECM_Multiprofile 27/01/2023
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.06 .035 .13
9000 9200 9400 9600 9800 10000 10200
598600602604606608610612614
Orrs Creek Plan: 1) ECM_Multiprofile 27/01/2023
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.06 .035 .
06 .
13 8400 8600 8800 9000 9200 9400 9600 9800 10000 10200
598600602604606608610612614
Orrs Creek Plan: 1) ECM_Multiprofile 27/01/2023
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Crit 100yr
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.06 .
035
.
06 .
13

Page 501 of 1534 ends

7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 10000 10500
598600602604606608610612
Orrs Creek Plan: 1) ECM_Multiprofile 27/01/2023
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Crit 100yr
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.06 .
035
.
06 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 10000 10500
595600605610615620625
Orrs Creek Plan: 1) ECM_Multiprofile 27/01/2023
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Crit 100yr
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.06 .
035
.
06 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
595600605610615620
Orrs Creek Plan: 1) ECM_Multiprofile 27/01/2023
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Crit 100yr
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.06 .
035
.
06

Page 502 of 1534 ends

Hydraulic Model Output
Post-project Conditions 100-yr flow (2,745 cfs)

Page 503 of 1534 ends

HEC-RAS Plan: PCM_Alt3_V2_MultiProfile Locations: User Defined Profile: 100yr River Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft)
orrs_creek 110 5327.11 100yr 2330.00 606.30 618.11 618.48 0.000909 4.91 486.76 114.48 0.30 orrs_creek 110 5327 Lat Struct
orrs_creek 110 5259.399 100yr 2330.00 605.85 617.41 618.25 0.002460 7.32 319.26 45.85 0.47 orrs_creek 110 5101.586 100yr 2745.00 604.00 616.76 613.84 617.80 0.002995 8.18 367.78 169.35 0.53 orrs_creek 110 4932.325 100yr 2745.00 602.80 616.35 617.28 0.002759 7.89 408.42 297.09 0.51 orrs_creek 110 4721.837 100yr 2745.00 602.19 612.63 612.63 615.73 0.026745 14.13 195.01 33.31 0.99 orrs_creek 110 4627.501 100yr 2745.00 601.06 611.82 612.75 0.003129 7.72 355.54 53.17 0.53 orrs_creek 110 4578.574 100yr 2745.00 600.35 611.42 608.18 612.53 0.003288 8.46 324.44 41.66 0.53 orrs_creek 110 4549.2 Bridge
orrs_creek 110 4522.749 100yr 2745.00 600.52 611.32 612.25 0.002963 7.72 355.48 52.31 0.52 orrs_creek 110 4384.909 100yr 2745.00 598.66 610.94 611.79 0.003174 7.43 371.26 77.52 0.53 orrs_creek 110 4168.88 100yr 2745.00 599.59 609.69 610.95 0.004398 9.00 307.62 327.25 0.62 orrs_creek 110 3995.524 100yr 2745.00 599.00 609.20 606.97 610.24 0.003213 8.33 411.64 833.68 0.56 orrs_creek 110 3806.642 100yr 3095.00 598.40 608.38 608.30 609.52 0.003823 9.36 578.30 2082.12 0.60 orrs_creek 110 3806 Lat Struct
orrs_creek 110 3606.258 100yr 3095.00 598.00 608.22 607.35 608.66 0.001811 6.76 966.38 3165.39 0.42 orrs_creek 110 3470.054 100yr 3095.00 597.70 608.16 604.75 608.40 0.000865 4.98 1314.44 3380.30 0.30

Page 504 of 1534 ends

3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
595600605610615620
Orrs Creek Plan: PCM_Alt3_V2_MultiProfile 21/07/2023
Main Channel Distance (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Crit 100yr
Ground
orrs_creek 110

Page 505 of 1534 ends

9600 9700 9800 9900 10000 10100 10200
606608610612614616618620622624
Orrs Creek Plan: PCM_Alt3_V2_MultiProfile 21/07/2023
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Ground
Bank Sta
.13 .035 .13
9850 9900 9950 10000 10050 10100 10150
604606608610612614616618620
Orrs Creek Plan: PCM_Alt3_V2_MultiProfile 21/07/2023
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.13 .06 .035 .13
9750 9800 9850 9900 9950 10000 10050 10100
604606608610612614616618620
Orrs Creek Plan: PCM_Alt3_V2_MultiProfile 21/07/2023
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Crit 100yr
Ground
Bank Sta
.13 .06 .035 .13

Page 506 of 1534 ends

9700 9750 9800 9850 9900 9950 10000 10050 10100
602604606608610612614616618
Orrs Creek Plan: PCM_Alt3_V2_MultiProfile 21/07/2023
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.13 .06 .035 .06 .13
9750 9800 9850 9900 9950 10000 10050
602604606608610612614616618620
Orrs Creek Plan: PCM_Alt3_V2_MultiProfile 21/07/2023
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Crit 100yr
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.06 .035 .13
9750 9800 9850 9900 9950 10000 10050
600602604606608610612614616
Orrs Creek Plan: PCM_Alt3_V2_MultiProfile 21/07/2023
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.06 .035 .06

Page 507 of 1534 ends

9800 9850 9900 9950 10000 10050 10100
600602604606608610612614616
Orrs Creek Plan: PCM_Alt3_V2_MultiProfile 21/07/2023
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Crit 100yr
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.06 .035 .06 .13
9800 9850 9900 9950 10000 10050 10100
600602604606608610612614616
Orrs Creek Plan: PCM_Alt3_V2_MultiProfile 21/07/2023
Orr Street Strcuture ID: ORR_550
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Crit 100yr
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.06 .035 .06 .13
9800 9850 9900 9950 10000 10050 10100
600602604606608610612614
Orrs Creek Plan: PCM_Alt3_V2_MultiProfile 21/07/2023
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Ground
Bank Sta
.06 .035 .
06 .13

Page 508 of 1534 ends

9300 9400 9500 9600 9700 9800 9900 10000 10100
595600605610615620
Orrs Creek Plan: PCM_Alt3_V2_MultiProfile 21/07/2023
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.06 .035 .13
9000 9200 9400 9600 9800 10000 10200
598600602604606608610612614
Orrs Creek Plan: PCM_Alt3_V2_MultiProfile 21/07/2023
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.06 .035 .
06 .
13 8400 8600 8800 9000 9200 9400 9600 9800 10000 10200
598600602604606608610612614
Orrs Creek Plan: PCM_Alt3_V2_MultiProfile 21/07/2023
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Crit 100yr
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.06 .
035
.
06 .
13

Page 509 of 1534 ends

7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 10000 10500
598600602604606608610612
Orrs Creek Plan: PCM_Alt3_V2_MultiProfile 21/07/2023
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Crit 100yr
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.06 .
035
.
06 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 10000 10500
595600605610615620625
Orrs Creek Plan: PCM_Alt3_V2_MultiProfile 21/07/2023
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Crit 100yr
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.06 .
035
.
06 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
595600605610615620
Orrs Creek Plan: PCM_Alt3_V2_MultiProfile 21/07/2023
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Crit 100yr
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.06 .
035
.
06

Page 510 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Hydraulics Report 14
This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Attachment 3
Bridge Scour Calculations

Page 511 of 1534 ends

Contraction and Abutment Scour Calculation
Output from HEC-RAS Model
Flow: 2,745 cfs (100-yr)
D50: 1.05 mm

Page 512 of 1534 ends

Page 513 of 1534 ends

GHD | CITY OF UKIAH | 12571956 | Orr Street Bridge & Corridor Study 24 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Appendix E
Advance Planning Study

Page 514 of 1534 ends

Technical Memorandum
The Power of Commitment
12571956 1
December 12, 2023
To Tim Eriksen, Jason Benson – City of Ukiah
From Rosanna Southern
Richard Ramoso
Matthew Kennedy, PE
Project Name Orr Street Bridge and Transportation Corridor Study Subject Ukiah Orr Street Bridge – Structures Advance Planning Study (Draft APS)

1. Introduction
The Orr Street Bridge and Corridor Study is a comprehensive corridor plan proposing complete street improvements along Orr Street and replacement of the bridge across Orrs Creek in Ukiah, CA. The Orr Street Bridge has been closed to vehicular traffic since 2009. The bridge replacement and the complete street design includes multimodal access considerations, vehicular access and parking, and improved access for City emergency and maintenance services. The project will provide improved walkability, bike friendliness and access across the creek within the local community. Improvements such as sidewalks, curbs, gutter, public parking lane, widened travelled way, and connectivity with existing and planned road and trail networks were evaluated in the proposed design alternatives. There were three bridge alternatives that were considered by the City and brought to the public and neighborhood group for selecting a preferred option. Based on the outcome of the public engagements and City staff direction, the following alternative was considered for the new bridge replacement: Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge with Emergency Vehicle Access.

This technical memorandum outlines the design considerations for the Advance Planning Study (APS) of the Orr Street Bridge Replacement project. Many factors were considered in the selection of structure type including cost, construction duration, constructability, transportation of bridge superstructure (precast girders or pre-engineered steel truss) and environmental impacts.

1.1 Purpose of this Memorandum
This report outlines the design considerations for the APS of the Orr Street Bridge Replacement project. Many factors were considered in the recommendation of the structure type including cost, construction duration, constructability, transportation of bridge superstructure (e.g., precast girders or pre-engineered steel truss) and environmental effects.

1.2 General Description
Background
Ukiah, the county seat and largest city in Mendocino County, California has a population of over 16,000 people.

The city is located along US Route 101 (US 101) and acts as a regional hub for commerce, trade, and tourism

Page 515 of 1534 ends

12571956 2
for both Mendocino and Lake Counties. Orr Street is an approximately 850 feet long north-south local street located in the northeast part of the City, between Brush Street to the north and Ford Street to the south, and approximately 1,500 feet west of US 101. Orr Street crosses Orrs Creek, a perennial waterway and tributary to the nearby Russian River. However, the existing bridge fell into disrepair and has been closed to traffic since 2009.

Replacing the Orr Street bridge across Orrs Creek and reconnecting this north-south corridor aims to provide improved connectivity for active transportation users as well as for emergency vehicles, particularly to and from the destinations and neighborhoods east of North State Street. Orr Street parallels North State Street – a four lane arterial – and, at project completion, will provide a lower stress alternative north-south route for people bicycling, walking, or rolling, as well as an alternative north-south route for emergency vehicles, particularly in cases of significant road congestion along North State Street. The proposed project is the communitysupported alternative, maintaining the current neighborhood roadway condition of no through traffic for motor vehicles while providing renewed connections to the existing and proposed active transportation network in Ukiah, like the Class I multi-use path (Great Redwood Trail) that parallels the north side of Orrs Creek between Orr Street and North Orchard Avenue.

Proposed Construction
The proposed Orr Street Bridge and Corridor Improvement Project (Project) will demolish the existing closed Orr Street bridge across Orrs Creek and construct a new 15 foot wide bridge in the same location for pedestrian, bicycle, and emergency access, with no access for non-emergency motor vehicles.

The Project will also construct a new turnaround at the southern Orr Street segment approach to the new bridge, providing a new way for northbound motor vehicles to turn around and continue south away from the bridge. This new turnaround will also accommodate regular use by trash collection trucks as well as any other vehicles that are not permitted to cross the new bridge.

The Project will also include the implementation of complete street facilities and amenities along Orr Street, improving connectivity and accessibility for people walking, bicycling, rolling, etc. New sidewalk and curb ramps will be constructed along the west side of the southern segment of Orr Street, as well as along the north side of Ford Street between Orr Street and east of Joseph Street, closing the existing sidewalk gap and providing a continuous connection to the new bridge for pedestrians.

The Project will also include a park/plaza area at the end of the southern segment of Orr Street, just west of the bridge entrance, providing enhanced green space and amenities for residents and visitors alike.

More specifically the Project will:
• Demolish the existing closed bridge.
• Construct a new bridge at the location of the closed bridge that is 15 feet wide, with 13’6” of clear width.
• Construct 515 feet of new sidewalk along Orr Street (south side) and Ford Street, connecting to existing sidewalk.
• Construct 1 new curb ramp at the intersection of Orr Street and Ford Street. • Construct curb and gutter along the east side of Orr Street south of Orrs Creek. • Provide on-street parallel parking along the east side of Orr Street south of Orrs Creek. • Construct a new “T” turnaround at the end of the southern Orr Street segment. • Construct a new park/plaza area west of the bridge entrance where the southern segment of Orr Street ends, including pedestrian amenities and landscaping.

Page 516 of 1534 ends

12571956 3

2. Design & Construction Considerations

2.1 Roadway

2.1.1 Geometrics
The Orrs Street Bridge will be constructed on the existing roadway alignment in one 75’ span. The profile of the bridge will be raised approximately 2.02’ from existing ground elevation to accommodate 100-year peak flow flood elevation. See conclusions in Hydraulics Report.

2.1.2 Typical Section
On the proposed Orr Street Bridge, the typical section provides for a 15’ outside width, and 13’- 6” inside clear width for pedestrians, bicyclists, and emergency vehicles.

2.1.3 Approaches
The approaches to the proposed bridge will need 30’ approach slabs to ramp to the proposed bridge deck elevation. Parking and passenger vehicle access along the approaches should be restricted. The bridge approach on the north side of Orrs Creek should consider connectivity to the adjacent multi-use path along the north side of the creek going east to Orchard Avenue. Both approaches will have removable bollards to prevent vehicular traffic from accessing the bridge while allowing emergency vehicle access.

2.1.4 Right-of-Way
Permanent right-of-way impacts are proposed within the project limits, specifically at the location of the proposed T-Turnaround, where the parcel southeast of the Project will be impacted. Parcels along the west side of Orr Street south of Orrs Creek will also be slightly impacted by installation of new sidewalk, as well as the east side of Orr Street south of Orrs Creek with the implementation of concrete curb and gutter.

2.1.5 Drainage
The project proposes to maintain the existing flow patterns wherever possible and maintain flow ultimately to Orrs Creek. Where new sidewalk and curb and gutter are being proposed, drainage infrastructure may also be needed.

2.1.6 Utilities
Utilities in the project area include water, sewer, storm drain, gas, electrical, telecommunications, and cable.

There is an 8” asbestos cement (AC) water main beneath Orr Street beginning at Brush Street and continuing across Orrs Creek beneath Orr Street to Ford Street. This water main must be replaced with the project. To the north of the Project, there is a 16” PVC water main beneath Brush Street from the intersection of Orr Street to the east, and a 12” steel water main beneath Brush Street from that intersection to the west. Four system valves are located at this intersection. To the south of the Project there is a 6” AC water main connecting 725 Orr Street to the main beneath Orr Street south of Orrs Creek. An 8” AC water main runs beneath Ford Street with two system valves located at the intersection of Orr Street and Ford Street.

A 6” AC sewer main runs beneath Orr Street from Ford Street, ending at a cleanout just before Orrs Creek, adjacent to 748 Orr Street. No sewer main crosses Orrs Creek or runs beneath Orrs Street between Orrs Creek and Brush Street. A 15” PVC sewer main runs beneath Brush Street north of the Project; a 6” AC sewer main runs beneath Ford Street south of the Project. One manhole is located at the intersection of Brush Street and Orr Street, and another is located at the intersection of Ford Street and Orr Street.

Page 517 of 1534 ends

12571956 4
A storm drain is located beneath Orr Street, beginning at a pipe inlet at Orrs creek and continuing to a location adjacent to parcel 748 at a curb outlet.

PG&E operates a gas transmission pipeline that travels beneath Orr Street from Ford Street, crosses Orrs Creek, and continues north along Orr Street, crossing Brush Street. This gas main must be replaced with the project.

There are 8 overhead utility poles, for both electric and telecommunications, located on Orr Street: 5 south of Orrs Creek and 3 between Orrs Creek and Brush Street. Four poles are operated by the City of Ukiah Electric Utility Department while the rest are operated by PG&E. Aerial telecom utilities (AT&T) are co-located along Orr Street in these same overhead utility poles. Telecom utilities travel along the west side of Orr Street (connecting with other overhead facilities at Ford Street to the south) then cross over to the east side of Orr Street before crossing Orrs Creek and connecting to the senior living development on the north side of the creek. Aerial cables (Comcast) are also co-located along Orr Street, traveling overhead along the east side of Orr Street between Ford Street and Brush Street.

2.1.7 Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities
The Project would close the pedestrian network gap on Orr Street, adding sidewalk on portions of the west side of Orr Street and connecting to the sidewalk on Ford Street. It would also connect to existing sidewalk on the east and west side of Orr Street north of Orrs Creek, as well as a Class I multi-use path that parallels the northern bank of Orrs Creek.

2.1.8 Design Exceptions
No design exceptions are anticipated related to the new Orr Street bridge and corridor improvements.

2.2 Hydraulics
A hydraulic analysis was performed for the proposed project. The proposed deck elevation was determined based on calculated water surface elevation (WSE) of 611.34 feet average for 100-year flow rate. The bridge soffit is proposed 1 foot above the WSE.

2.3 Scour
The profile of the proposed bridge clears the creek channel, raised from ground elevation to accommodate 100-year flow rate. The total scour depth calculated for the left abutment (looking downstream) is 9.68 feet, and the right abutment (upstream) is 12.48 feet. See conclusions in Hydraulics Report (October 17, 2023). The scour analysis indicates that scour revetments would be needed for this project.

2.4 Geotechnical
A geotechnical investigation will be needed to design the recommended project. Design specific analyses and site-specific geotechnical information may result in varying scour countermeasure recommendations.

2.5 Structures
The project entails the replacement of the existing bridge structure designed to follow the most current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specification with California Amendments (AASHTO-CA BDS), as well as compliance with Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (SDC 2.0) and AASHTO LRFD Guide Specification for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges (AASHTO Ped). Furthermore, the bridge design will prioritize ADA compliance, ensuring a safe and accessible environment for all users. The railing design should not only meet the standard pedestrian railing load of 0.05 klf but also withstand a 0.25-kip load applied either vertically or horizontally at various points along the railing.

Page 518 of 1534 ends

12571956 5
Design criteria will incorporate H20 emergency vehicular loading and a 90 psf pedestrian load will be included in the design live load. Additionally, the bridge design and associated analysis should account for various environmental factors, including wind, seismic activity, fatigue, and vibration, ensuring that the bridge performs reliably under all conditions. Caltrans Standard Plans & Standard Specifications should be adopted.

Given the potential variations in terrain and elevation around the creek crossings, appropriate retaining wall systems may need to be incorporated into the design where necessary. These retaining walls will serve the dual purpose of supporting the bridge abutments and mitigating soil erosion. These will need to be determined based on the geotechnical recommendations, to determine the optimal retaining wall solution for each location, taking into consideration factors such as soil type, slope stability, and aesthetic compatibility. The project will also implement erosion control measures to protect the integrity of the bridge structures and the surrounding ecosystem. These measures will include the use of erosion-resistant materials, strategic landscaping, and stormwater management techniques to minimize erosion risks near the bridge structures.

3. Bridge Alternatives
Precast Prestressed Box Beam Alternative:

This alternative consists of a 75 feet single-span superstructure comprised of a standard precast prestressed (PC/PS) adjacent box beam (BI-36) with concrete deck slab topping. The PC/PS box beams will require only a 27” deep girder resulting in overall superstructure depth of about 2’-9” including the deck topping (6” concrete).

Alternatively, a 3 1/2” ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) polymer could be used instead to reduce bridge superstructure total depth. The substructure will be a seat type abutment founded on Class 140 (PC/PS) concrete driven piles or 24” cast-in-drill-hole piles. Foundations would require a single row of piles. The final selection of pile type will depend on the environmental constraints such as noise, vibration control, and the geotechnical investigation and recommendations. This alternative does not require shoring and falsework within the creek channel.

Cast-in-Place Prestressed Box Girder Alternative:

This alternative consists of a single-span superstructure comprised of a standard cast-in-place prestressed (CIP/PS) concrete box girder. The superstructure depth, abutments and foundation will be the same as the precast concrete alternative described above. This alternative would require falsework to be constructed within the creek channel. Falsework bents could consist of driven timber pile bents or timber spread footing mats but would not need to be located within the expected limits of the creek waterway. The use of timber mats may make this alternative non-viable due to the need to cut into channel embankments and impacts to environmentally sensitive areas.

Pre-engineered Steel Truss Alternative:

Superstructures will be a single span weathering prefabricated steel truss spanning 90-ft long. These spans are within the typical pre-manufactured truss span of 150 feet. A classic parallel top-bottom chord type or an arch/parabolic profile may be selected depending on the aesthetic consideration. Parallel chord truss will be more economical and easier to fabricate than the archway kind. A deep foundation system is preferred to avoid excavation & shoring within the channel creek. Therefore, the substructures will utilize PC/PS driven piles or a CIDH concrete piles depending on the recommendation of the geotechnical engineer, the same as the PC/PS Box Beam alternative.

Structural Steel Girder Alternative:

This alternative consists of a single-span superstructure comprised of a steel I-girders and cast-in-place concrete deck. The abutments and foundation will be the same as the precast concrete alternative described above. The steel girder will require a superstructure depth of 3’-0” including the deck slab. This alternative does not require falsework to be constructed within the creek channel. Standard formwork or stay-in-place deck forms may be attached to the girders to facilitate placement of the UHPC deck slab.

Page 519 of 1534 ends

12571956 6
Table 1 Alternatives Comparison Table
Alternative Construction Cost Considerations
PC/PS Box
Beam Alternative
1,125 SqFt
$916/SqFt
$1,030,000 Cost
Total Estimate
Environmental:
– No falsework required in channel.

Cost:
– Lowest cost alternative.

Constructability:
– Bridge may be completed in one construction season.
– Will require staging area.
– Require the use of crane for girder placement.

Aesthetics:
– The appearance will be the smallest bridge depth option.

CIP/PS Box
Girder
Alternative
1,125 SqFt
$1,049/SqFt
$1,180,000 Cost
Total Estimate
Environmental:
– Falsework required in the channel.

Cost:
– Higher cost than precast alternative and steel truss alternative.

Constructability:
– Bridge may require two construction seasons.
– Standard CIP construction techniques.
– Smaller crane and less staging area.

Aesthetics:
– The same bridge aesthetics as the precast alternative.

Pre-engineered
Steel Truss
Alternative
1,125 SqFt
$987/SqFt
$1,110,000 Cost
Total Estimate
Environmental:
– Falsework required in the channel.

Cost:
– Higher cost than precast alternative but lower than the CIP/PS.

Constructability:
– Will require more staging area and a crane for placement of girders.

Aesthetics:
– The appearance will look out of place in the residential area for a pedestrian and bicycle bridge, but the bridge would need to be higher off the ground with this option to meet the “No Rise” certificate.

Structural Steel
Girder
Alternative
1,125 SqFt
$1,103/SqFt
$1,240,000 Cost
Total Estimate
Environmental:
– No falsework required in channel.

Cost:
– Highest cost alternative, about 20% more than the precast alternative.

Constructability:
– Will require more staging area and a crane for placement of girders. – Bridge may be completed in one construction season.

Aesthetics:
– The appearance will be similar to current bridge, and the bridge would need to be higher off the ground with this option to meet the “No Rise” certificate.

Note: Construction costs reported above are based on Caltrans Comparative Bridge Costs 2022, and recent bids in Ukiah and Mendocino County. Additional cost has been adjusted as appropriate to address demolition, 25% contingency, 10% mobilization, and 5% TRO, but do not include approach roadway costs.

Page 520 of 1534 ends

12571956 7

4. Recommendations
Considering the comparison table above and elevation considerations of the bridge superstructure, the PC/PS box beam girders with UHPC polymer deck slab is recommended to reduce bridge superstructure total depth while being cost-efficient, and to reduce overall impacts to the bridge approaches and adjacent parcels. This alternative will also be able to be completed in one construction season, without any falsework. The PC/PS box beam alternative is the preferred alternative.

Appendices:

A: Site Plan
B: Preliminary Bridge Plan and Profile
C: APS Checklist
D: Preliminary Bridge Cost Estimate
12/12/2024 Page 521 of 1534
50+00 51+00 52+00 53+00 54+00 55+00 56+00 57+00 58+00 58+65 PI: 54+49.65
PI: 54+79.61
PI: 55+54.61
PI: 55+84.61 Project Client Plot Date: 19 October 2023 - 7:10 AM Plotted By: Danny Aguas C:\Users\daguas\OneDrive - GHD\GHD\US-Roseville-561-12571956-Orr Street Bridge\Digital_Design\ACAD\Sheets\12571956-GHD-0000-DWG-CI-0100-0101.dwg 0 Bar is one inch on original size sheet Approved Date Author Drafting Check Designer Project Director Project No. Date Filename: Sheet No. This document and the ideas and designs incorporated herein, as an instrument of professional service, is the property of GHD. This document may only be used by GHD’s client (and any other person who GHD has agreed can use this document) for the purpose for which it was prepared and must not be used by any other person or for any other purpose. www.ghd.com Title 1" IssueNo. Checked Design Check Project Manager Conditions of Use Scale ANSI D Size PRELIMINARY CITY OF UKIAH ORR STREET BRIDGE AND CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS R. SOUTHERN M. KENEDY 12571956 9/29/2023 GHD Inc. 4080 Plaza Goldorado Circle Suite B Cameron Park California 95682 USA T 1 530 677 5515 APPENDIX A: ADVANCE PLANNING STUDY LOCATION AND SITE MAP D.AGUAS AS SHOWN C-0100 N KEY NOTES: 0 30' 60' SCALE 1"=60' (11x17 SHEET) LOCATION AND SITE MAP SCALE: 1" = 60' 4'
8'
12'
12'
60' 20'

13.50'

Page 522 of 1534 ends

Ukiah City CouncilJuly 17, 2024

Ukiah City Council
July 17, 2024