Caltrans asks public to choose between five Albion Bridge designs for replacement and nixes discussion of rehabbing the old bridge

MENDOCINO Co., 8/20/24 — Caltrans is fast-walking a new Albion River Bridge through the approval process, holding the first and last public meeting on the proposal on Aug.13. About 150 people packed the Whitesboro Grange hall. People (including Mendocino County Supervisor Ted Williams) who couldn’t get in ended up trying to hear  outside both entry doors. Cars parked on both sides of the lane to the Grange made getting to the hall a gauntlet. There were a dozen more cars parked out on Navarro Ridge Road.  

Caltrans set a strict time limit of an hour and a half for the meeting, then spent the first 45 minutes doing all the talking, leaving time for only a dozen questions from the audience. Questions were usually quick and the answers long and/or “We don’t know at this point in the process.” When the meeting ended at 7:30 p.m., there were still 30 hands raised, including this reporter’s.

Why so many people at a Tuesday night meeting? Opponents of the bridge replacement want Caltrans to keep its early promise to work with the community and give full consideration to rehabilitating the old bridge. But Caltrans, despite public clamor, now says repair won’t work and will no longer consider reusing or renovating the old bridge or its timbers. 

Caltrans says the 80-year-old bridge is still safe but has a limited lifespan, would be dangerous in a major earthquake, and has substandard wooden guardrails. The Albion River Bridge project leapfrogged two other bridge repairs with lower quality ratings, the Salmon Creek Bridge (located less than a mile away) and the Hare Creek Bridge just south of Fort Bragg. Salmon Creek Bridge has been delayed due to a lead contamination issue. Hare Creek, which needs a new deck and also needs widening, was taken off the schedule altogether, moving a replaced Albion River Bridge to the head of the class. There has been no official explanation of what is next for Hare Creek Bridge. Caltrans officials have said inspections have found Hare Creek not needing immediate action.

During the brief Q&A period at the meeting Tuesday night, some questions weren’t answered; Caltrans project director Katie Everett said answers would be forthcoming later. A panel of Caltrans officials who have been working on the bridge tried to supplement her answers, but there was only one microphone being passed around, which unfortunately suffered periodic screeching.

“The only thing I learned was just how little they know,” said the Albion Bridge Stewards’ Jim Heid, an opponent of the bridge replacement project. The Stewards filmed the entire meeting and shared it publicly on YouTube here: Video of Albion Bridge meeting.

“So many questions were answered with ‘We don’t know that yet’ or ‘It depends on the alignment’ or ‘Those details will be developed later.’ How can the public comment on environmental documents that are as incomplete as these are?” Heid said in an interview after the meeting. 

Caltrans won’t discuss fixing up the old bridge as a walkway, which was a proposal in the past (the new bridge would be built alongside), or reusing its wood. Nor will it discuss any options for design other than two preselected designs, each with two different placements. On social media, the proponents of a new bridge have been roughly equal with opponents of tearing down the old bridge — although few people from Albion have spoken in favor of a new bridge.

With so few people getting a chance to speak, it was hard to measure the opposition and support levels. Most of the dozen people who spoke provided strong statements of opposition. Nobody spoke in favor of replacing the bridge. There was also no discussion of the only thing Caltrans officials wanted to talk about — which of the five very similar new designs people wanted.

Public beach access not part of Caltrans plans

Rixanne Wehren of the local Sierra Club said the club has made it a goal to create access, including parking, to the beach under the bridge. She said Caltrans could easily help with that, but instead is presenting finished plans and has no intent to help with public access. She mentioned that access is a prime directive of the Coastal Plan and the California Coastal Commission — which must approve the bridge.

Wehren expressed concerns about the rushed approach and the way Caltrans was treating the existing bridge purely as history.

“The existing bridge is the elephant in the room. We deserve to have more respect and discussion,” she said. She asked that the agency maintain and preserve the old bridge with additional pedestrian, bicycle and safety improvements. “We think this is possible,” Wehren said.

She also noted that “Caltrans is not only the applicant, they’re also the agency that approves it, and whatever Caltrans says pretty much is okay because it’s Caltrans on both sides.”

Caltrans had an answer to questions about water use by the construction project that have been raised throughout the debate over replacement or restoration. “Your report says you’re going to be using 16,000 gallons of water a day to create this horrific gray bridge,” said Albion’s Dave Steinrueck, who uses water from the Albion Mutual Water Company, the source of drinking water for many households. “My question is, where do you plan to get that water?”

Candice Longnecker, environmental specialist for Caltrans for the project, said there would be no need for water from the Albion Mutual Water Company. She said the 16,000 gallons was a maximum, not the amount used every day. It would take four water tankers to bring that water, and water could also be reused on the site.

After decades of battles with Albion community members over the bridge, Caltrans is now using a much more direct approach. Gone are past discussions of rehabilitation or reuse of the old bridge. Gone are the plethora of options to choose from that Caltrans once delivered in slick, colorful packets.

Caltrans offered the community only a choice of five designs, which in reality were two colorless design choices, one with an arch and one a simple concrete span without any visual amenities. Another non-arch design would be put in the same spot as the existing bridge but that fifth option is ruled out in reality by statements in the environmetnal documents that say that the old bridge would be needed to keep the road open during construction.

The five options can be seen on the Caltrans website for the bridge replacement project here: Albion River Bridge Project.

Project director Everett said the arch design matched other bridges on the route; she talked most about the arch bridge option that would be built to the west of the existing bridge in order to eliminate a hard turn at the end of the bridge on the north side. Everett said nobody would be denied access to their property during the project. Machado said the project will require property acquisitions, which Caltrans hopes to do without eminent domain.

Although Caltrans had a uniformed Mendocino County Sheriff’s deputy on hand who sat with state officials, nothing happened during the meeting to draw his attention. Caltrans staff got no applause for their speeches but when members of the Albion River Bridge Stewards spoke, or other opponents, they received applause. For example, when Norbert Dall questioned when and why Caltrans had dropped its promised consideration of rehabilitating the bridge, roughly half the audience applauded. 

“I’ve worked here in Albion on environmental matters since I was a sophomore in high school in 1965, including a long history with the Albion River Bridge,” Dall said.

Dall said he had read the 2000 pages of material Caltrans had prepared and found the documents to be grossly incomplete, without any environmental analysis of rehabilitation of the existing bridge. Caltrans had promised to consider rehab and replace on equal footing and to work with the community going forward, but then nixed rehabilitation and presented only the option to comment on very similar pre-selected designs. 

Moreover, that was the last of the public meetings.

“The meeting was held in person at a local facility in Albion as requested by the local community,” said Machado in an email after the meeting. “The public meeting was scheduled and publicized. No future meetings are planned or scheduled.” Machado said written questions about the draft environmental document sent before Sept. 9 will be answered in the continuing process of building the bridge.

“All comments and questions should be sent to the project email albionbridge@dot.ca.gov to be included in the Final Environmental Document,” Machado wrote in the email.

Caltrans has touted the wide lanes and sidewalks as being huge improvements for bikers, walkers, and those needing to use the shoulder. People will be able to walk on a sidewalk on the west side of the bridge and view the ocean, but not the east side for Albion River views. 

However, there is no plan to extend the sidewalk past the end of the bridge. Hiking and biking would be extremely dangerous on the north side even if the first curve was removed and would involve walking on narrow dirt shoulders on the south side.

“There are three thousand cars that cross the bridge every day according to your report,” said Steinrueck in the meeting. He questioned how having a beautiful walkway that is connected to no sidewalk on either end makes sense.

 “Are you asking people, including small kids, and elderly people, to walk across Highway 1 to reach the end of the walkway where they will find nothing, then to turn around and walk back across the bridge, once again to nowhere?” 

Caltrans officials answered that bridges are built on 75-year plans, meaning no major maintenance will be needed in that time, but other developments, such as improvements to the California Coastal Trail, could be expected during that time period. Presumably, these developments would create walkways that would connect to the one on the bridge.

What’s next?

Machado said in his email that all comments will be considered and a final preferred alternative selected. Then a document called the Final Environmental Document (FED) will be prepared. “The FED will include responses to comments received,” he said.

When the FED process is done and that document final, a notice of determination will be published for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and a record of decision will be published for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, Machado said.

With Caltrans at the finish line, there was little to talk about at the meeting. The last public meeting was about five years ago, and residents assumed that Caltrans would bring both rehab and replace to the table for further discussion. There was also no explanation given at the meeting as to why increased public access to the Albion River and beach had been nixed.

Although nobody from the public who spoke at the meeting favored tearing down the old bridge, there have been numerous comments posted at the end of the previous Mendocino Voice story and on Facebook posts about it. 

Albion Bridge Stewards to confront Caltrans at meeting Tuesday about plan changes for the iconic bridge

Wrote Fort Bragg artist John Hewitt on Facebook, “I just attended a local meeting at a Whitesboro grange hall in Albion CA where a group of devoted locals defended their town bridge built in 1944 with discarded materials from other places 80 years ago. I was 3 years old and spent summers in the shadow of that bridge since the age of five or six most years since then.

“I love these people who tilt at windmills in totally lost causes such as this bridge that isn’t even attractive. It is many years past its life span and will be replaced with a new cement arch bridge like so many along Highway one in California. It isn’t earthquake or flood safe according to new state regulations although it has withstood both in the past. Like my old body it will be needing excessive expensive maintenance now to stay standing. It is too narrow to have even a bicycle or pedestrian lane. Yet they love it still like an old dog. If we can save lives and increase bicycle and pedestrian safety, then that is what we must do. Goodbye bridge, my old friend,” Hewitt wrote after the meeting.

During the meeting, Everett said the bridge was one of two that is weight-restricted on State Route 1. However, no signs are posted about any weight limit and local truckers with logging trucks cross it regularly with the maximum legal load of 40 tons. Machado wrote in his email that the comment by Everett referred to overweight loads, which would require a special permit. Some of those loads might be restricted.

“Weight limits are posted on a structure when the bridge does not meet legal limits. The structure meets legal limits, no weight limit sign is posted,” Machado wrote. “The restrictions are for permit vehicles, which are overweight/oversize vehicles. These vehicles will always need a permit and they are required to travel along pre-approved routes.”

Increased public access has always been an issue the Albion community wanted from the new bridge. The Albion riverfront and the beach is one of the least accessible spots along the Mendocino Coast. Machado said there are no plans to increase public access, nor any discussion of that issue either.

“There was a feasibility study completed in 2023 related to public access at the project location. The finding in the feasibility study was that ‘The Albion River Bridge project would not impact the existing access to Albion River if a new bridge were to be constructed. It is not practical to construct new public access routes and/or facilities to Albion River within the existing and proposed State right of way as part of the replacement bridge project.’”

Caltrans speakers claimed that the bridge replacement was being done to obey a mandate from the county, a claim that has not been made in the past. The mandate is actually about fixing that hard left turn at the north end of the bridge.

Machado explained: “This comment may be referring to the county having identified the intersection to the north as a safety concern. This is based on Section 4.9 of the Mendocino County Coastal Element, which states that: ‘a hazardous turn immediately North of the Albion Bridge is the site of numerous Highway 1 accidents. Spot improvement of this turn should be given high priority by Caltrans.’” This document can be found here: Coastal Plan Link

A sizable portion of the meeting was devoted to microphone mishaps and feedback (see video), and it did not follow meeting protocols such as Robert’s Rules of Order. Facilitator Ramona McCabe didn’t ask people to give their names and coming to the front to speak was impossible with people packed shoulder to shoulder. It was nearly impossible to follow who was speaking or to hear the questions much of the time.

The Stewards’ Heid said, “It wasn’t a public meeting. It was their chance to check a box saying they held one.”