Date: June 17, 2021
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Valte, Acting Director of Public Works
Subject: Pier Bridge Replacement Project – Environmental Document Introduction
The City has endeavored to replace the Santa Monica Pier Bridge (Bridge) for nearly 30 years. Staff is currently working on a third iteration of the environmental document with the goal of completing the Pier Bridge Replacement Project (Project) in advance of the Olympic Games – Los Angeles 2028. Over the course of three draft environmental documents in the last fifteen years, the City has analyzed numerous project alternatives. Since 2013, elevators have been included with some of the analyzed project alternatives. However, after recent consultation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) regarding the effects elevator towers would have on adjacent cultural resources and attempts to mitigate those effects, it is evident that including alternatives with elevators in the Revised Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (REIR/EA) would jeopardize the project schedule and federal funding. To meet the goals of replacing the Bridge before the 2028 Olympics while maintaining federal funding, staff is moving forward with an REIR/EA that would include three alternatives: (1) Alternative 1 – wider (15’) sidewalk on the north side of the bridge; (2) Alternative 2 – wider (15’) sidewalk on the south side of the bridge and (3) No Build. Alternatives 1 and 2 would replace the existing bridge with a new seismically sound structure.
Information Item
Background
The Pier Bridge is the sole vehicular route and a vital pedestrian link to one of Santa Monica’s most prominent destinations, the Santa Monica Pier. In a typical year, it carries millions of visitors from Palisades Park to the Santa Monica Pier and the Beach. The reinforced concrete structure was constructed in 1939 and is owned by the City. The Bridge was rated 33.4 out of 100 in the 2008 bridge inspection report prepared by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. In 2020, the bridge was rated 17 out of 100, meaning a 50% deterioration in the past 12 years. The primary purpose of the Project is to replace a decaying 82-year-old bridge and to provide a seismically sound and functional bridge for the residents, pier businesses, and visitors ahead of the 2028 Olympics.
Efforts to replace the Bridge in the 1990s ended when federal funding was derailed. The City resumed the Project in 2006 with a proposal to rehabilitate the existing bridge, which was ultimately rejected by Caltrans. In August 2010, City Council authorized staff to apply for federal funding for the current replacement project; federal funding for design and construction of the Bridge was subsequently secured in 2012. The last EIR/EA, which circulated for public review between December 11, 2017 and March 15, 2018, could not be finalized because during its circulation, a scenic corridor along Ocean Front Walk was established and Carousel Park was landmarked by the City. The technical analysis provided by the 2017 EIR/EA did not analyze the effects the Project would have on these newly established cultural resources and therefore, the environmental document and project alternatives had to be revamped. Past Council actions are summarized below in Table 1.
Table 1 - Past Council Actions
Meeting
Date Description
06/13/1995 Authorized an agreement for Professional Services w/WRT Inc. for Beach Improvement Group Project (included Pier Bridge)
11/28/2000 Authorized a modification to WRT Inc. to begin design of CA Incline and Pier Bridge 02/26/2002 Authorized a contract for outreach services for the CA Incline and Pier Bridge 08/20/2010 Authorized staff to proceed with initiation of a project to replace the Pier Bridge 09/11/2012
Awarded Professional Services Agreement with T. Y. Lin to provide public outreach, conceptual design and environmental documentation services for the Pier Bridge Replacement Project
02/26/2013 Authorized staff to modify Pier Bridge sidewalk to enhance safety 11/26/2013 Authorized City Manager to negotiate a third modification to agreement with TY Lin 10/09/2018 Established 15-ton weight restriction on Pier Bridge 12/17/2019 Authorized a fourth modification to agreement with T.Y. Lin Discussion
The Pier Bridge site has numerous constraints that limit the size, scale, and features that can be included with the replacement bridge. Beyond the physical constraints of tying into Ocean Avenue to the east and the Santa Monica Pier to the west, the site is surrounded by cultural resources, including the scenic corridor along Ocean Front Walk, the locally landmarked Carousel Park, and the nationally landmarked Looff Hippodrome. Both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) require that project proponents identify the potential effects project alternatives would have on cultural resources and implement the least impactful alternative.
Staff collaborated with the Project stakeholders to develop eight new alternatives for consideration (Attachment A). With a goal of improving the existing ADA compliant routes to the Santa Monica Pier (Attachment B), the community supported alternatives with a pedestrian path sloped at 5% that connected to elevators. As a result, six alternatives included elevators.
Community Outreach
Staff has conducted the following outreach:
09/09/2019 Disabilities Commission – Development of the eight alternatives 09/16/2019 Pier Board – Development of the eight alternatives 10/30/2019 Notice of Preparation – CEQA public/community scoping meeting 11/11/2019 Landmarks Commission – Project update
11/16/2020 Pier Board – Project update
01/11/2021 Landmarks Commission – Project update
03/04/2021 Pier Board, Pier Bridge Subcommittee – Update regarding potential effects of elevators
03/22/2021 Pier Board – Update regarding potential effects of elevators; meeting invitation extended to Landmarks Commission, Santa Monica Conservancy, Disabilities Commission
04/05/2021 Disabilities Commission – Update regarding potential effects of elevators During preparation of the REIR/EA and the required technical studies, it became apparent that the six alternatives with elevators, including the preferred alternative, would result in a finding of adverse impacts on the adjacent cultural resources: the elevator towers would obscure the view of the Looff Hippodrome. Staff proposed mitigating these effects by incorporating various design features that minimized the presence of the elevators.
However, the mitigated alternatives would not preclude a technical finding of adverse impacts under federal law and would result in a prolonged state and federal review process that would likely conclude with the elimination of the alternatives with elevators because there are viable alternatives without adverse impacts. Staff engaged in numerous consultations with Caltrans, the lead agency for compliance with NEPA and undeniably, these challenges place both the project schedule and federal funding at risk.
Staff estimates that an effort to maintain alternatives with elevators may add two years to the project timeline and cause construction to extend into the 2028 Olympics. The effort, in itself, poses a funding risk as state and federal funds are unlikely to be approved for a project with elevators when alternatives with no elevators are feasible and have lesser, or zero, impacts on cultural resources.
Moving Forward
Staff evaluated two options of moving the project forward.
Option 1 has the least schedule and funding risks and explores an REIR/EA with the following three alternatives:
(1) Alternative 1 – wider (15’) sidewalk on the north side of the bridge (2) Alternative 2 – wider (15’) sidewalk on the south side of the bridge, and (3) No Build.
The key benefits and shortfalls of this option are summarized in Table 2. Pedestrian access routes shown in Attachment B would be enhanced under Alternatives 1 and 2.
Table 2 - Pros and Cons of Alternatives without Elevators Pros Cons
Complete construction before 2028 Olympic Games May not fully address concerns of stakeholders who prioritize accessibility enhancements
Support from stakeholders who prioritize schedule
and risk mitigation
Would not enhance accessibility to the beach and
Pier as much as inclusion of elevators
Support from stakeholders who prioritize minimizing
impacts to cultural resources
Cost effective; Project alternative is 100% fully
funded by FHWA.
Shorter construction reduces impacts to Pier
businesses
Mitigates risk of losing federal funding
Option 2 continues with the current eight alternatives, including those with elevators. This would add two years to the environmental approval phase and jeopardize currently programmed federal funding. There is no guarantee alternatives with elevators would ultimately be approved and published in the REIR/EA. Federal and state reviewers with jurisdiction over the environmental document would most likely require the City to select a least impactful alternative on cultural resources like Looff’s Hippodrome. This anticipated outcome is based on the interpretation by staff and the City’s environmental consultant of Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (49 USC 303) in consultation with the City Attorney’s Office. The key benefits and shortfalls of this option are summarized in Table
3. Figure 1 summarizes the Federal and State approval process.
Table 3 - Pros and Cons of Including Elevators in Scope Pros Cons
Fully address concerns of stakeholders who
prioritize accessibility enhancements
Construction would occur during and/or after the
Olympics, which could impact the number of
visitors allowed on the Pier during a time of peak
travel into the Los Angeles area.
Accessibility community is familiar and supportive of
elevators
Two additional years of operational and
maintenance risks for an 80+ year old bridge
structure
Elevators may not ultimately be permitted under
state and federal requirements due to impacts to
cultural resources
City would have to select least impactful alternative
(i.e., alternative without elevators)
Additional project time jeopardizes federal funding
timelines
Minimal support for elevators from stakeholders
concerned about impacts on cultural resources
Requires additional local funds = $7 to $10 Million
(separate pedestrian path and elevators not eligible
for federal reimbursement)
Requires operating and maintenance costs for
elevators in perpetuity
Project schedule would be increased by 2+ years
Increases construction cost by an estimated $1.9M
due to escalation over two years
Actual elevator performance may not meet
expectations; operating elevators in a marine
environment presents significant maintenance
challenges and extended downtime due to
maintenance would generate community concerns.
For example, elevators in the City’s downtown
parking structures have been misused and
subjected to extended occupation by unhoused
residents. Installing elevators for the Pier bridge
may cause this same unintended consequence.
Figure 1 State & Federal Approval Process Summary
Schedule
The schedule for each approach is shown below in Figure 2. Moving forward with the alternatives that include elevators would add approximately two years to the Project (with no guarantee that elevators would ultimately be permissible). Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) authorized the federal reimbursement for preliminary engineering funds in March 2012 and require construction to start within ten years (“ten-year rule”).
Extensions to the ten-year rule may be requested and while the City would request such an extension under both options, delaying the project schedule an additional two years to pursue option 2 would increase the risk of the extension being denied. The City would consequently be required to return the currently obligated $1,625,000 in federal funding.
Figure 2 – Schedule Comparison
While Option 2 would continue to explore the possibility of elevators being constructed with the proposed project, the City’s environmental subconsultant ICF (through coordination with Caltrans) has advised that it is extremely unlikely that elevators would be cleared environmentally, and the process would ultimately lead to Alternatives 1 and 2 (no elevators) being the only options feasible. The time lost pursuing an alternative that would likely lead to the dismissal of elevators from the Project would add an estimated $1.9 million of escalated construction costs to the Project. There is also the additional risk that the Federal grant would not be adjusted to cover these costs and that local funds would need to be identified to cover the increase.
In addition to the additional design costs, the proposed elevators and walkways in Alternatives 3 – 8 are estimated to add $7-10 million in construction costs to the Project (which Caltrans has informed the City will not be reimbursed), as well as annual maintenance costs in perpetuity.
Summary and Next Steps
Based upon recently updated technical studies, consultations with Caltrans, and a comparison of the options, it is evident that including alternatives with elevators in the REIR/EA would jeopardize both the Project schedule and federal funding (currently programmed for $27,225,000 in total). Staff believes that Option 1 is the only viable approach.
Staff will continue working with the project stakeholders and will return to them with this memorandum explaining the basis for why the City is moving forward with an REIR/EA with three alternatives that do not include elevators.
Staff will begin revising the REIR/EA and NEPA technical studies by reducing the existing eight alternatives to the three Project alternatives listed above, and will continue coordination with Caltrans regarding Project funding and ensuring construction of a new, functional and seismically sound bridge is completed in advance of the 2028 Summer Olympics.
Prepared By: Curtis Castle, Principal Civil Engineer, Public Works Department Attachment A: Pier Bridge Alternatives
Attachment B: ADA Compliant Routes
Alternative #1
3/23/2021 City of Santa Monica | Public Works Department | 6 Attachment A
Alternative #2
3/23/2021 City of Santa Monica | Public Works Department | 7 Attachment A
Alternative #3
3/23/2021 City of Santa Monica | Public Works Department | 8 Attachment A
Alternative #4
3/23/2021 City of Santa Monica | Public Works Department | 9 Attachment A
Alternative #5
3/23/2021 City of Santa Monica | Public Works Department | 10 Attachment A
Alternative #6
3/23/2021 City of Santa Monica | Public Works Department | 11 Attachment A
Alternative #7
3/23/2021 City of Santa Monica | Public Works Department | 12 Attachment A
Alternative #8
3/23/2021 City of Santa Monica | Public Works Department | 13 Attachment A
Attachment B