Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPW Southern Heights Bridge ReplacementIfIl' SAN RAFAEL 1 THE CITY WITH A MISSION Agenda Item No: 6.c Meeting Date: February 6, 2017 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Department: Public Works Prepared by: Bill Guerin, City Manager Approval: Director of Public Works File No.: 16.01.266 TOPIC: SOUTHERN HEIGHTS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT- BRIDGE WIDTH SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DESIGN OF OPTION 1 FOR THE SOUTHERN HEIGHTS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 11282) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution. BACKGROUND: The Southern Heights Bridge currently has a clear roadway width of 9 feet which accommodates a single lane of two-way traffic with no sidewalks. The roadway widths that approach the bridge are approximately 11.5 feet wide with a 4 -foot shoulder on the west side (downhill side) of Southern Heights Boulevard. The current average daily traffic (ADT) for Southern Heights Boulevard is 150 vehicles per day with approximately 35 pedestrians accessing the bridge per day. Public Works has held one informal and one formal public meeting regarding this project. At the November 3, 2016 formal public meeting, the community was presented with a proposed bridge width of 16 feet, which would accommodate a single 12 foot wide lane with a 4 foot wide sidewalk. The community members present stated they wanted the same quaint style of the bridge and believe that widening the bridge, and providing a sidewalk, would change the character of the community as well as increase vehicle speed in the neighborhood. They also remarked that a pedestrian walkway was not needed on the bridge and that they preferred vehicles to yield to pedestrians on the structure. A representative from the San Rafael Fire Department was present at the meeting and noted that they require a 12 -foot lane for emergency vehicles. The replacement of the Southern Heights Bridge is fully funded by the Highway Bridge Program (HBP), a federally funded program that enables States to improve the condition of their bridges. Local agency bridge projects must adhere to the design criteria set forth in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards in order to be eligible for HBP funding. Bridge projects not meeting the current standards may still be fundable if special approval is granted by Caltrans. FOR CITY CLERK ONLY File No.: 4-3-620 Council Meeting: 02/06/2017 Disposition: Continued to 02/21/2017 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2 Mark Thomas and Company, Inc., our consultant for this project, contacted Caltrans District 4 Structures Local Assistance to determine the minimum bridge width that would be fundable under the HBP. Caltrans noted that given the existing site conditions they will fund a bridge width narrower than the AASHTO minimum standards as long as it meets the needs of emergency responders. Caltrans also noted that the City may be accepting additional liability by installing a bridge that does not meet minimum standards, and that this decision should be reviewed by the City Council and/or the City's attorney prior to requesting formal approval from Caltrans. ANALYSIS: To determine the optimal overall width of the bridge, Staff and the City's consultant reviewed applicable codes to determine the minimum lane width and whether a sidewalk is needed on this bridge. We reviewed the City's Municipal Code, Caltrans requirements as well as AASHTO requirements. Lane Width Determination Southern Heights Blvd. is a two-way road which is exceptionally narrow in places and does not allow two vehicles to pass in certain areas, essentially resulting in a single -lane roadway. Vehicles that need to pass each other generally utilize widened areas at driveways, street intersections and parking areas. The traveled way (where vehicles drive) varies from 11 feet to 14 feet in width. The downhill approach to the existing bridge is 11.5 feet wide while the uphill approach width is 12 feet. City Municipal Code: If a developer were installing a new roadway in this area, the San Rafael's Municipal Code section 15.06.050 would require a minimum of a 20 foot wide traveled way for a new one-way road. Many of our older roadways within the City are less than 20 feet wide; however Section 5.40.080 (c) requires vehicles to not park within 6 feet of the centerline of the street. The intent of this section is to achieve a 12 foot wide lane at all times which is the minimum needed for emergency services. Fire Code: 2013 Fire Code; Section 503.2.1 Dimensions (Attachment C) requires the minimum roadway clear width to be 20 feet. We discussed this code section with San Rafael Fire who determined that in this case a single 12 -foot lane is acceptable. Caltrans: Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Topic 301 —Traveled Way Standards) states that the preferred lane width is 12 feet and in some instances a lane width can be 11 feet. AASHTO The AASHTO standards are written to allow for a wide range of flexibility for the areas in which they are being installed. A Policy on Geometric Design and Highway and Streets - Section 5.3.2 Cross -Sectional Elements — Width of Traveled Way notes that the preferred lane width should be 10 to 11 feet, but that 9 foot lanes could be used in residential areas with limited right of way. While AASHTO does give flexibility to each jurisdiction, the existing bridge rail has been hit in the past indicating that the current width of 9 feet is insufficient. In addition the 9 foot width noted in the AASHTO section is insufficient to accommodate emergency vehicles. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paee: 3 Shoulder or Sidewalk This existing roadway has no sidewalks and has narrow sections that provide a 10 foot lane with 2 foot shoulders in which pedestrian and vehicle share the same space. These areas, in general, are shorter than the proposed bridge length which indicates that some pedestrian refuge areas on the bridge are needed from a safety perspective. City Municipal Code: Section 15.06.080 requires sidewalks on both sides of a new roadway. The Municipal Code also allows for a waiver of this requirement by the Planning Commission and the City Engineer if the area is not developed with a sidewalk. AASHTO: As noted above, AASHTO's standards are developed for a wide range of flexibility for the areas in which they are being applied. A Policy on Geometric Design and Highway and Streets - Section 5.2.3 Structures — New and Reconstructed Structures states that for streets with shoulders and no curbs, the clear roadway width preferably should be the same as the approach roadway width and in no case less than the traveled way plus 2 feet (each side). This section goes on to state that one -lane bridges may be provided on single -lane roads and on two-lane roads with ADT less than 100 vehicles per day where the design finds that a one -lane bridge can operate effectively. The minimum width of a one lane bridle should be 15 feet unless the designer concludes that a narrower bridge can function effectively. Uniform Building Code - Accessibility: The longitudinal slope of the existing bridge is 9.5% which significantly exceeds the general 5% longitudinal slope recognized as traversable by the disabled community and as standardized in the building code. The adjacent roadways that provide access to this area also have significant steep slopes in excess of 5%. In addition, it is not reasonable to consider fully regrading the bridge to meet the 5% longitudinal slope criteria when similar access is not provided on either side of the proposed project. Changing the longitudinal slope of the bridge would impact the adjacent properties gaining access from the roadway. In some cases, the Uniform Building Code allows for steeper slopes to be installed with handrails, but in general these slopes are fairly short in length. The code stipulates that a flat area is required for every 2.5 feet of rise. The rise in the bridge exceeds this height. Nevertheless, the public has indicated that pedestrians do utilize this bridge such that some access for pedestrians needs to be provided. DISCUSSION: Based on feedback from the two public meetings, residents adjacent to the existing Southern Heights bridge prefer to have a narrower bridge with no sidewalk which is contrary to the Staff and the City's Bridge consultant's opinion of a bridge width that accommodates all users. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paue: 4 There are several code sections that can be applied to the width of this bridge. If this was a new bridge built by an outside entity within the City, the Municipal Code would require a two-lane bridge or, at a minimum, a 16 foot wide bridge which would include a 12 foot lane and a 4 foot sidewalk/shoulder similar to the bridge which accesses the San Rafael Airport. From an operational standpoint, the existing one -lane bridge has functioned effectively for vehicular loads such that replacing it with a single -lane bridge appears appropriate. However, the existing bridge has experienced accidents in the past. Based on the analysis stated above, and the input from the community Exhibit A which is attached to this staff report shows four options for the width of this bridge. Options 1 through 3 can work to accommodate emergency vehicles, vehicles and pedestrians. These options allow for an area for the emergency vehicles and a space for pedestrians. Option 4 allows for vehicles to share the lane with pedestrians, which is similar to the existing condition. For this option to work, vehicles and pedestrians must either share the same space while crossing the bridge or one must wait for the area to be clear before proceeding across the span. With this option there is no guarantee that a vehicle will yield to a pedestrian. At this time, there is an opportunity to install a bridge that provides an area that separates the vehicles from the pedestrians which greatly reduces the potential for conflicts and injuries. Based on this issue we are recommending incorporating some area for pedestrians on this bridge. Options 1 through 3 include an area for pedestrians as well as accommodating emergency vehicle access. Option 1 incorporates the minimum width of 15 feet which is recommended by AASHTO. Option 1 is also a compromise based on the neighbor's concerns that minimizes the lane widths to match that of the adjacent roadway approaches and includes a pedestrian area on each side of the traveled way. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends proceeding with Option 1 requiring a bridge traveled way of 15 feet, which includes two 2 -foot shoulders to accommodate pedestrian travel with an 11 -foot traveled lane. OPTIONS: The council may choose to move forward with the following options: 1. Direct staff to move forward with the design shown in Option 1 on Exhibit A. This option is recommended by staff. 2. Direct staff to move forward with Options 2 or 3 on Exhibit A. 3. Direct staff to move forward with Option 4. This options in not recommended due to the fact that additional safety conflict between pedestrians and vehicles will be present with this options. 4. Direct the staff to pursue an additional option that is not shown on Exhibit A 5. Direct staff to stop work on this project. This option may result in the loss of funding for this bridge replacement and the possible closure of this roadway since the bridge is currently in need of replacement. ACTION REQUIRED: Adopt the resolution approving Option 1 and allow the City's design team to continue the design of the Southern Heights Bridge. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Options 1 through 4 = 15' _ 2' SHOULDER 11' TRAVEL WAY 2' SHOULDER RAISED PAVEMENT MARKERS ° a d OPTION 1 - CONTINUOUS WALKWAY SCALE. NTS. = 16' _ 12' TRAVEL WAY 4' SIDEWALK OPTION 2 - SEPERATED WALKWAY SCALE. N T S. 17'+ a = 12' TRAVEL WAY 4' SIDEWALK °d ° ° e d a d a e ° e OPTION 3 - BARRIER WALKWAY SCALE- N S = 12' TRAVEL WAY = s e ° OPTION 4 - 12FT ROADWAY SCALE. N T.S. EXHIBIT A SOUTHERN HEIGHTS BRIDGE RAf4 CITY OF SAN RAFAEL DEPARTMENT OF ° PUBLIC WORKS `yy WITH P _`^--- RA f, z ROUTING SLIP / APPROVAL FORM INSTRUCTIONS: Use this cover sheet with each submittal of a staff report before approval by the City Council. Save staff report (including this cover sheet) along with all related attachments in the Team Drive (T:) --> CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS 4 AGENDA ITEM APPROVAL PROCESS 4 [DEPT - AGENDA TOPIC] Agenda Item # Date of Meeting: 2/6/2017 From: Bill Guerin Department: Public Works Date: 2/6/2017 Topic: SOUTHERN HEIGHTS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT WIDTH Subject: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO DIRECT STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DESIGN OF OPTION 1 FOR THE SOUTHERN HEIGHTS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 11282) Type: ® Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Professional Services Agreement ❑ Other: APPROVALS ® Finance Director Remarks: No fiscal impact. Approved 1/31/17. Van Bach ® City Attorney Remarks: LG -Approved 1/31/17 with minor changes. ® Author, review and accept City Attorney / Finance changes Remarks: KM - Approved 1/31/17 ® City Manager Remarks: FOR CITY CLERK ONLY File No.: Council Meeting: Disposition: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DESIGN OF OPTION 1 FOR THE SOUTHERN HEIGHTS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 11282) WHEREAS, the Southern Heights Bridge is currently a one lane timber bridge located on a two lane roadway in San Rafael; and WHEREAS, the Southern Heights Bridge is structurally deficient, obsolete and has been noted by the California Department of Transportation as needing replacement; and WHEREAS, the replacement of the Southern Heights Bridge is fully funded by the local Highway Bridge Program (HBP); and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2016 the City Council of the City of San Rafael approved an agreement with Mark Thomas and Company for the design of the Southern Heights Bridge Replacement Project, Project No. 11282; and WHEREAS, the Department of Public Works met with members of the public at a public meeting on November 3, 2016 and discussed the design and replacement of the bridge; and WHEREAS, the members of the public present at the public meeting preferred the installation of a narrow bridge with no sidewalk area; and WHEREAS, the City Fire Department requires a minimum of a 12 -foot wide traveled area for emergency vehicle access; and WHEREAS, City staff and the City's design consultant studied and reviewed the applicable design codes and determined that a traveled way width of 15 feet is required for this type of bridge; which incorporates an 11 -foot traveled lane with 2 -foot shoulders at the same grade as the traveled lane, as shown in in Option 1 of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of San Rafael hereby approves Option 1 as shown in Exhibit A and authorizes City staff and the City's design consultant to move forward with the design for the replacement of the Southern Heights Bridge according to that Option; I, ESTHER C. BEIRNE, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of said City on the 6th day of February 2017, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk File No.: 16.01.266 LuBKA &WHITE LLP V-A,'PA.' _UB,<AWH1Tc COM January 26, 2017 Iiia U.S. Mail and Eniad Kevin McGowan Jeffrey Stutsman, PE City of San Rafael Department of Public Works 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 jeffery.stutsman@cityofsanrafael.org Re: Southern Heights Bridge Dear Mr. McGowan and Mr. Stutsman: I want to first thank you for keeping me informed with regard to the subject project. LAURENCE P. LUBKA Iari3 @lztbkatvhiie.com I have several very serious concerns about that project. As you know, my property, 75 Pleasant Lane, is the only property that runs the entire length of the bridge. I purchased the propertyjust a few years ago in large part due to the total privacy afforded by my property. You cannot see the bridge from the house itself. As you know, I've tried to cooperate with the City to date. Unfortunately, even during the investigation phase of the project, substantial amounts of dirt and rocks rolled down the hill and into the culvert adjacent to my house. I was appreciative of the speed at which it was cleaned up. Unfortunately, I will be involved with a trial through mid-February. Accordingly, I am sending you and my neighbors this letter. I will try to have a representative present at the February 6 City Council meeting. Before addressing the issues, let me give my full support to the 9 foot -wide bridge option. There are few houses that need to use the bridge and it is not a usual path for anyone other than the local homeowners. I understand the local homeowners endorse a 9 foot -wide bridge. I'm not sure who supports a wider bridge and how many persons that would be. I question whether a wider bridge which is larger than the neighborhood wants is in anyone's best interest. My issues are: The City will clearly be involved in a taking of my land. I will require full compensation for the taking of the land under California law. In addition to the taking of land, I understand that you will be using part of the property for construction. Again, I will require frill compensation for that use and for the other disruption of my interests. As indicated above, it is essentially certain that there will be considerable construction debris created by the bridge project. Before any demolition and construction begins, I will need to see and approve a 222 E. HUNTINGTON DRIVE - SUITE 215 - MONROVIA, CA 91016 - (626) 301-0700 - FAX: (626) 301-0200 BAY AREA OFFICE - 369-B THIRD ST. - No. 368 - SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 January 26, 2017 Page 2 plan of how my house and yard, and my neighbors' houses and yards, will be protected from that construction debris. The issue is not just the debris hitting the house, it is all the damage it will do coming down my property before it gets to the house. 4. I will need to see a critical path schedule of the project. 5. 1 will need to be an additional named insured on the demolition contractor's and construction contractor's insurance, for which there will be a certificate of insurance with limits of at least $2,000,000. I will also expect an indemnity clause in the contract, flowed down to all subcontractors, which protects me and the house should damage occur. 6. Apart from construction debris per se, it is essential that rain and water control must be considered. A project such as this will consume a lot of water and concrete. This year the culverts running through my yard have had to carry enormous amounts of water. Any debris or mud which could potentially clog the culverts and drainage pipes must be addressed before construction begins. The alternative would be having to dig my house out of a mud pile. That is not acceptable. This is to put you on notice that I have been informed that there have been historic slides on that hill. It may be that a temporary or permanent retaining wall will need to be built and/or replacement of the culverts. 7. I need information regarding what drainage the bridge itself will have when it is complete. The bridge itself should not drain into my yard. 8. My property adjacent to the bridge is littered with considerable amounts of garbage which has been tossed from the bridge. I request that the City remove that trash during the project. 9. I understand that a number of mature trees will be removed during the Project at the top of my property impairing my privacy. I will want to see the plan for replacing those trees and for maintaining the current level of privacy. How will the City replace the hill side stabilization currently provided by the existing trees? I'm not suggesting that I oppose replacement of the bridge. The City needs to do what it needs to do to provide a safe bridge. It also needs to preserve the safety of my house and of my neighbors' houses. I simply want to make sure that all of the very real issues which might arise are fully considered and addressed before the project begins. Very truly yours, 2OLaurence P. Lubka LUBKA & WHITE, LLP cc: Nita Lederman Ethan Lubka Jeffrey Stutsman From: Alezz Laielen < Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 10:27 AM To: Gary Phillips; Maribeth Bushey; Kate Colin; John Gamblin; Andrew McCullough; Jeffrey Stutsman Subject: Please read before meeting: Why option #4 for Southern Heights Bridge is the best TO: Mayor Gary Phillips, Vice Mayor Maribeth Bushey; Council Members Kate Colen, John Gamblin, and Andrew Cuyugan McCullouch, and San Rafael Staff and City's Sacramento Consultant - Please read before 7:00 meeting. Thank you. FROM: Alezz Laielen — An experienced pedestrian that has walked several times a week for many years on Southern Heights Boulevard, the beloved wooden bridge and surrounding roads that all have no sidewalks. RE: It is requested that the members of the City Council vote to honor the request of those that walk and live in the neighborhood of Southern Heights - that the Southern Heights Bridge replacement be narrow with no sidewalks as this is the safest, cost- effective, esthetically pleasing choice (12 foot #4 option) that will fit in the best with the unique, distinct neighborhood of Southern Heights and will take less time to construct. Thank you 1. Southern Heights is a unique and distinct neighborhood that has the appearance of being rural. 2. The street "Southern Heights Boulevard" is misnamed. It is not a "boulevard" which is defined as "a wide street that runs through a city". Southern Heights Boulevard is a narrow, mostly one lane, winding, hilly road that will never have sidewalks. 3. The other roads that feed into Southern Heights Boulevard are also mostly one lane, hilly, winding and never will have sidewalks. Included are: Meyer Road, Bret Harte, Pearce, Glenn, Martins & Oak. 4. Along with maybe a hundred or so individuals that run, bike, walk dogs and children I have walked Southern Heights, the bridge, Bret Harte, Glen and Pearce several times a week in the morning, during the day and at night, for over forty years. It's a stress reducing, walking meditation. s. The amber streetlights provide adequate illumination at night including on the bridge as shown in the night photo taken with no flash. The only reason I carry a flashlight at night is to shine at an oncoming car that can't see me if I have moved to the side of the road so it can pass or to identify an animal. 1 6. Those of us that walk on these hilly streets travel in the middle of the narrow roads looking and listening for approaching vehicles. From the perspective of the City Staff and Sacramento Consultants, walking on these roads with no sidewalks would be considered unsafe and dangerous. Yet in all the years I have lived in this neighborhood I have never heard of a pedestrian walking on the road or on the bridge being harmed by a car. It is an erroneous conclusion that because the approach to the bridge was recently damaged by a hit and run driver, only once in the life of the bridge, that the nine foot width of the bridge has been or is dangerous for vehicles. 7. The fact is, with cars stopping to give us pedestrians the right of way and then having to continue across the bridge at 10 MPH, makes the bridge the safest place to walk on these streets. s. A fireman at a meeting expressed concern that someone might be on the bridge when a fire truck needed to cross it. Someone walking on Meyer, the bridge, or Southern Heights Blvd, can easily hear the siren of a fire engine approaching Southern Heights from D STREET. It currently takes less than 2 minutes to walk across the bridge. Additionally a fire engine cannot go full throttle on these narrow, winding one-way roads. 9. If Southern Heights were an actual wide boulevard that ran through the middle of a city with sidewalks, or in a new subdivision, the first three "recommended" designs might make sense. i o. It is respectfully requested that the members of the City Council honor the wishes of the people that live and walk on these streets and Southern Heights Bridge; that the bridge be wide enough to allow a fire truck to drive across but for it to continue to be narrow with no sidewalk area; that pedestrians continue to be given the right of way; that the speed limit of 10 MPH crossing the bridge continue; that the amber streetlight continues to be positioned at the uphill side of the bridge that adequately illuminates the bridge at night without harming a person's night vision (as shown in the enclosed photo; that the bridge be designed as closely as possible including the railing to resemble the existing bridge; that the bridge not be made as a through fare that will invite more traffic, big trucks, etc., speeding down our streets. i 1. It is requested that City Council not vote to spend taxpayer's money on constructing a Cal -Trans monstrosity that is not necessary to protect pedestrians, is not reminiscent of our current, picturesque bridge, will cost more taxpayer money, loss of landscape, take longer and will forever blight our unique, distinct, rural - feeling neighborhood. z saw: More light shines on the bridge at night from the street light than shows in my photo. Jeffrey Stutsman From: Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 10:11 AM To: Jeffrey Stutsman Subject: Feedback for tonight's meeting: Southern Heights Bridge - City Council Meeting, Monday Feb 6, 7pm Forwarding today because I originally used an incorrect email address. I can't attend the meeting tonight, so I'm sending you my input via email. From: Chrisman, Shana Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 10:35 PM To: 'jeffrey.stutsman' Subject: RE: FYI: Southern Heights Bridge - City Council Meeting, Monday Feb 6, 7pm Dear Jeffrey, My name is Shana Chrisman, and my husband Rob and I live at 97 Southern Heights Blvd. in San Rafael. My residence is just north of the bridge. I am writing today to provide you my feedback on the bridge construction. Until today, I have not felt it necessary to provide feedback on the bridge because I just assumed that code and safety requirements would prevail over the desires of our neighbors to keep it "quaint". At this time I would like to ensure that you and the city are aware of my preference, which is to build a structure that provides what the fire department and other safety providers of the city of San Rafael require to adequately service our neighborhood during times of emergency. Other than that, I have no opinion of how wide the bridge should be. So I guess this is my de facto way of telling you that the fire department may have my vote in the matter. As for other matters, I have noticed your last name. Do you have a wife who owns a hair salon in Ross, and you have a new child? If so please tell Christie hello for me. Sincerely, Shana Chrisman Shana Chrisman -----Original Message ----- From: Sunny Lee Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 08:07 PM Central Standard Time To: Mike & Megan Schenck; Roger & Dee Roberts; Feidler Arthur; Mary Turner; Erik Krumrey; Tecla Gomez; Julie Shemano Subject: FYI: Southern Heights Bridge - City Council Meeting, Monday Feb 6, 7pm Please address any concerns regarding the meeting to one of the following neighbors. Please do not reply all. I CAN NOT mediate your questions. Thank -you. Mike & Megan Schenck < , Roger & Dee Roberts < , Feidler Arthur < ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Jeffrey Stutsman"< Date: Jan 24, 2017 2:22 PM Hello all, As you know we all met November 3`d and we discussed the design for the replacement of the Southern Heights Bridge. The main issue that was brought up at that meeting was the bridge width. Based on the difference of opinion, we have recommended that the City Council review the issue and take action on choosing one of the bridge widths options. Department of Public Works will be presenting this item to the City Council on Monday February 6, 2017 at approximately 7:OOpm. The City Council meeting is open to the public and you are welcome to attend and convey your thoughts to your elected officials. Please see attached letter for more information. Feel free to contact me if you have any other questions. Please forward this on to others neighbors that I may not have included and are interested in attending. Thanks, Jeff Stutsman, P.E. Associate Civil Engineer City of San Rafael, Dept. of Public Works Phone: (