City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 13, 2023
Agenda Item: 11.A
1 of 12
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Valte, Public Works Director, Public Works, Engineering and Street Services
Subject: Certification of Recirculated Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment for the Pier Bridge Replacement Project and Authorization to Proceed with Final Design and Bidding Documents Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) certifying the Recirculated Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) (Attachment B) and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Pier Bridge Replacement Project (Attachment C).
2. Approve the preferred alternative bridge design (Alternative 2) described in the Recirculated Final EIR/EA and authorize staff to proceed with the final design and development of bidding documents for construction of the Pier Bridge Replacement Project as recommended in the Recirculated Final EIR/EA and as described in this report.
2 of 12
Summary
The City of Santa Monica (City) owns and maintains the Santa Monica Pier Bridge (Bridge), a reinforced concrete structure built in 1939 that serves as the sole transportation access for over six million annual visitors to the Santa Monica Pier. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works performs routine inspections of the Bridge and has deemed it structurally deficient. The Pier Bridge Replacement Project (Project) would replace the existing bridge with a new structure designed and constructed to current standards. The Bridge is programmed for replacement using federal Highway Bridge Program (HBP) grant funding, and therefore, the Project is subject to federal, state and City environmental review requirements.
The City studied eight alternatives to replace and reconstruct the Bridge, held a public scoping meeting in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and solicited community feedback on the eight alternatives. However, due to impacts identified in the technical analyses required under CEQA for six of the alternatives, the number of acceptable build alternatives was reduced to two (2) plus the “No Build” alternative. Both build alternatives would provide an in-kind replacement bridge with the same alignment and profile as the existing bridge but would differ in design configuration and location of the sidewalk. Staff recommends that Council approve the locally Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2). This alternative includes a 15-foot-wide sidewalk on the south side of the bridge.
The environmental process complies with both the CEQA and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and results in the joint document of an Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA). The City is the lead agency for CEQA and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the lead agency for NEPA. A Recirculated Draft EIR/EA was circulated in September 2022 for public review and comment. The Recirculated Final EIR/EA has been updated based on public feedback, and all public comments have been responded to. To proceed to the final design phase of the Project, staff is recommending that the City Council approve Alternative 2, certify the Recirculated Final EIR/EA, adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and authorize staff to proceed with the final design of Alternative 2 and 3 of 12
development of bidding documents in accordance with the Recirculated Final EIR/EA with a goal to complete construction prior to the Los Angeles 2028 Summer Olympics.
Background
The Pier Bridge connects the iconic Santa Monica Pier to the intersection of Ocean Avenue and Colorado Avenue within the downtown district of the City. The Pier Bridge Replacement Project is proposed to address the existing operational and structural deficiencies of the 84-year-old bridge.
During times of high use, the Pier Bridge is not wide enough to accommodate the volume of pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles that use the facility. Queuing affects the Colorado Avenue/Ocean Avenue intersection and other nearby intersections during peak periods. When the volume is high, pedestrian traffic overflows into the roadway.
This creates potential safety concerns, which have been documented by both the City’s Police and Fire Departments.
Figure 1 – Photo of high pedestrian volumes
The original construction of the Bridge does not meet current seismic standards and has a sufficiency rating of 8.2 (on a scale of 100). Bridges that are found to be seismically deficient, as defined by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for bridges with sufficiency ratings of less than 50, are eligible for federal funding for replacement under the Highway Bridge Program (HBP). The HBP sufficiency rating is applicable to all 4 of 12
bridges that carry either highway or local vehicular traffic. Because of the need for emergency and delivery vehicles to access Pier businesses, the Pier Bridge must be designed and constructed to always carry vehicular traffic even if it were to be closed to public vehicular traffic.
Since 2012, the City has worked with consultants to provide public outreach, conceptual design, and environmental documentation services for the Project, including the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment. The proposed Project would replace the Bridge with a new bridge meeting current design and seismic standards and provide a service life of 75 years. Due to the federal HBP grant funding, the Project is subject to both the CEQA as well as NEPA. The City previously prepared a Draft EIR/EA, in accordance with CEQA and NEPA, for the Project in 2017. The Draft EIR/EA (2017 Draft EIR/EA) identified three alternatives for the replacement of the Bridge and was circulated for public review from December 11, 2017, through March 15, 2018. Immediately after circulation of the 2017 Draft EIR/EA, significant cultural and environmental changes to the Bridge’s surroundings occurred, including the identification of a new scenic corridor along Ocean Front Walk from Pico Boulevard to the 1550 Parking Lot, as part of the City’s Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program, as well as the designation of Carousel Park as a local Landmark by the City’s Landmarks Commission. These changes rendered the three alternatives impracticable and relegated some of the technical studies, such as the cultural resources studies, incomplete. Additionally, comments were received during the public review period concerning the lack of range of alternatives under consideration and the lack of perceived impacts associated with the alternatives considered.
Discussion
As a result of significant cultural and environmental changes to the Bridge’s surrounding, which took place circa 2018, a Notice of Preparation for a Recirculated Draft EIR/EA for the Pier Replacement Bridge Project (Recirculated Draft EIR/EA) was prepared identifying a new set of alternatives for the Project. Through consultation with stakeholders – including the Santa Monica Pier Corporation Board, Disabilities Commission, the Santa Monica Conservancy, as well as staff from the Public Works 5 of 12
and Community Development Departments, the City prepared eight new build alternatives and submitted a Notice of Preparation for a Recirculated Draft EIR/EA. The City held a public scoping meeting on October 30, 2019, to solicit community feedback on the alternatives, with the reception to the alternatives being favorable. Since October 2019, staff have met and presented at numerous public meetings, including four with the Pier Board, two with the Landmark Commission, and two with the Disabilities Commission. Staff also held meetings with members of the Santa Monica Conservancy, the Pier Board’s Large Projects Subcommittee, the Pier Lessees Association, Coastal Commission staff, and internal city stakeholders.
Further technical analysis required under CEQA reduced the number of acceptable alternatives to two (2) build alternatives. In June 2021, staff submitted an Information Item to Council (Attachment D) regarding the removal of the six (6) build alternatives that included elevators, as the elevators were found to have adverse, unmitigable impacts to adjacent cultural resources. Staff then proceeded with analyzing the remaining alternatives below in the Recirculated Draft EIR/EA:
(1) Alternative 1 – wider (15’) sidewalk on the north side of the bridge (Figure 2) (2) Alternative 2 – wider (15’) sidewalk on the south side of the bridge (Figure 3), and
(3) No Build.
6 of 12
Figure 2 – Alternative 1 rendering with sidewalk on the north side Figure 3 – Alternative 2 rendering with sidewalk on the south side The preferred alternative was identified as Alternative 2, with a 15-foot sidewalk on the south side of the bridge. Stakeholders supported the new sidewalk on the south side as it aligns better with the Colorado Esplanade and the general pedestrian flow on the Pier.
The structure is expected to be a largely cast in place post-tensioned concrete 7 of 12
structure, with spans over Moomat Ahiko Way being pre-cast to limit impacts to the public.
Staff completed and published the Recirculated Draft EIR/EA for a 49-day public review period between September 22, 2022, and November 10, 2022. A public meeting was held on October 13, 2022, to present the Project and collect written comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR/EA. The City received 16 separate comment letters regarding the Recirculated Draft EIR/EA. Comments were raised regarding construction noise impacts, impacts on nearby historic resources, and concerns about potential trespassing on adjacent properties. Responses to all comments received are included in the Recirculated Final EIR/EA.
Environmental Review
Alternatives Studied
The selection of alternatives studied in the Recirculated Final EIR/EA are based on CEQA and NEPA requirements as well as consideration of public comments received during the 2017 Draft EIR/EA public review period. The Recirculated Final EIR/EA studied the No-Build Project Alternative (required by CEQA/NEPA) and two build Alternatives. Alternative 1 (In-Kind Pier Bridge Replacement with Northside Sidewalk), and Alternative 2 (In-Kind Pier Bridge Replacement with Southside Sidewalk – locally Preferred Alternative) both would provide an in-kind replacement bridge with the same alignment and profile as the existing bridge. The replacement bridge would be approximately 448 feet in length and approximately 39 feet wide, about 5 feet wider than the existing bridge. The sidewalk on the new bridge would be 15 feet in width, 5.5 feet wider than the existing north side walkway. Due to clearance constraints for Moomat Akiho Way, the downward slope of the replacement bridge would be approximately 10 percent, the same as existing bridge. However, the two alternatives differ in design configurations, as described below.
• Alternative 1 – Under Alternative 1, vehicles and bicycles would use a 20-footwide roadway on the south side of the bridge. A 15-foot-wide sidewalk would be provided on the north side of the bridge. The roadway from Ocean Avenue would 8 of 12
require a northeast-to-southwest taper from the existing curbs. The existing historic pier sign would be removed during construction and reinstalled at the same location but elevated to provide a minimum vertical clearance of 17’-0” per Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). This alternative would also require an approximately 4-foot-wide extension of the existing pier deck, running approximately 157 feet, on the north side of the pier. Under Alternative 1, the footprint of the existing bridge on the south side would remain unchanged from existing conditions.
• Alternative 2 – Under Alternative 2, the locally Preferred Alternative, the path locations would be reversed; vehicles and bicycles would use a 20-foot-wide roadway on the north side of the bridge and a 15-foot-wide sidewalk on the south side of the bridge. The length of the bridge would be essentially the same (448 feet) as under Alternative 1. The historic pier sign would be temporarily removed during construction and would require relocation to approximately 10 feet north of its existing location and elevated to provide a minimum vertical clearance of 17’- 0”. The curbs from Ocean Avenue would not require a taper under this alternative. The same pier deck extension on the north side would also be required under this alternative. Under Alternative 2, the footprint of the existing bridge on the south side would remain unchanged from existing conditions. For both Alternatives 1 and 2, ADA-compliant access to the pier would be provided by the existing routes.
Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts
In accordance with CEQA and NEPA, the Recirculated Final EIR/EA provided a comprehensive analysis of the Project’s impacts under both alternatives for the following environmental impact issue areas:
• Visual and Aesthetics
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
9 of 12
• Energy
• Geology/Soils/Seismicity/Topography
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazardous Waste and Materials
• Hydrology (Storm Drain) and Water Quality
• Land Use/Community Character
• Noise
• Growth (including Population)
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation/Traffic
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems (water supply, solid waste, electricity) • Wildfire
Other issue areas such as wild and scenic rivers, farmlands, and timberlands were determined to be less than significant in Chapter 2 of the Recirculated Final EIR/EA and therefore were not analyzed in detail.
As analyzed in the Recirculated Final EIR/EA, project impacts would be less than significant with no mitigation required in the issues of growth (including population growth), community character and cohesion/land use, water supply, storm drains, visual and aesthetics, hydrology, noise, energy, wetlands and other waters, and threatened species.
The Recirculated Final EIR/EA determined that the project would result in potential significant environmental impacts on land use, relocations and real property acquisition, solid waste and electricity, police and fire protection, traffic and transportation, cultural resources, water quality and stormwater runoff, geology/soils/seismicity/topography, paleontology, hazardous waste and materials, air quality, greenhouse gases, natural communities, plant and animal species, and invasive species. However, all of these 10 of 12
impacts could be reduced to less-than significant levels after implementation of mitigation measures. Therefore, with mitigation, the Pier Bridge Replacement Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.
Environmentally Superior Alternative and Preferred Alternative According to Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of an Alternatives analyses is to identify alternative developments that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project but that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. The EIR found that neither build alternative would result in significant impacts. Notwithstanding, the EIR provided an analysis of the environmentally superior alternative. Alternative 2, would be the environmentally superior alternative and has been defined as the “Project”. This alternative would reduce impacts as compared to the No-Build Alternative and Alternative 1. The No-Build Alternative was found to be seismically deficient, would not address safety concerns with the pedestrian staircase at Appian Way, and during times of high use, would not provide adequate space to accommodate the volume of pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles that use the facility.
Alternative 2, the “Project”, would achieve project objectives, such as accommodating vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian travel; providing ADA-compliant access to/from the Pier Bridge; and have minimal environmental effects. The Project would also be cost efficient, would reduce temporary and permanent impacts, and would address comments received on the previous Draft EIR which circulated from December 2017 to February 2018.
Alternative 2 was found to be environmentally superior over Alternative 1 because it would provide pedestrians with a sidewalk and access along the south side of the bridge, which would align with the Colorado Esplanade at the eastern limit and the majority of the destinations on the Pier which are located on the south side of the Pier. The south side walkway would also reduce the need for pedestrians to cross vehicle traffic at both the top and bottom of bridge. Therefore, Alternative 2 would greatly facilitate pedestrian flow over Alternative 1, which has the sidewalk located along the north side of the bridge. Alternative 2 would also remove the need to taper the existing curbs compared to Alternative 1.
Between the two build alternatives under consideration, Alternative 2 has been identified as the “preferred alternative.” Alternative 2 achieves project objectives, such 11 of 12
as accommodating vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian travel; providing ADA-compliant access to/from the Pier Bridge; and having minimal environmental effects. Among the factors considered were:
• Project cost
• Engineering considerations
• Temporary and permanent impacts
• Public comments
To complete the environmental review phase of the Pier Bridge Replacement Project, it is recommended that the City Council: 1) certify the Recirculated Final EIR/EA and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and 2) approve Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative and authorize staff to proceed with the final design and development of bidding documents for construction of the Pier Bridge Replacement Project as recommended in the Recirculated Final EIR/EA. The Recirculated Final EIR/EA will also require approval from Caltrans, as the lead agency for NEPA. Upon certification of the Recirculated Final EIR/EA by Council and final sign-off from Caltrans, final design would begin. The design is expected to take approximately 12 months.
Construction would be expected to begin in Fall of 2025 and take between 18-24 months, with an estimated construction completion prior to the Los Angeles 2028 Summer Olympics.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There are no financial impacts associated with the recommended actions.
Prepared By: Curtis Castle, Principal Civil Engineer
Approved Forwarded to Council
12 of 12
Attachments:
A. Pier Bridge EIR Reso - Final
B. Recirculated Final EIR/EA (Web Link)
C. Pier Bridge MMRP
D. Information Item - Pier Bridge Project