SR-11-26-2014-8Aa
Ya i Council Report
Santa Monica'
City Council Meeting: November 26, 2013
Agenda Item: Or
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Martin Pastucha, Director of Public Works
Subject: Pier Bridge Replacement Project Status
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Review and comment on the proposed conceptual alternatives for the Pier
Bridge Replacement Project.
2. Direct staff to move forward with the NEPA and CEQA environmental review
phase of the Project considering the proposed conceptual alternative number 1
and alternative number 4.
3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a third modification to
Professional Services Agreement #9642 (CCS) in the amount of $400,000 for a
total contract amount not to exceed $1,250,000 with T. Y. Lin International
(TYLIN), a California -based company, to provide additional public outreach,
NEPA and CEQA environmental review documentation and preliminary design
development. This will result in an amended agreement with a new total
amount not to exceed $1,250,000.
Executive Summary
Constructed in 1939, the Santa Monica Pier Bridge is a concrete structure connecting
Ocean Avenue to the Municipal Pier. Bridge inspection reports prepared by the Los
Angeles County Public Works Department indicated that the existing bridge is structurally
deficient and functionally obsolete. The proposed bridge replacement project is eligible for
federal Highway Bridge Program (HBP) funding. This project includes the construction of
a new bridge solving the functional and structural deficiencies of the existing bridge.
Staff and the City's bridge consultant T. Y. Lin International (T. Y. Lin) engaged in
extensive public outreach efforts in the community to inform staff on the conceptual
design process. Based on the survey results and guiding design principles received, staff
and the consultant team studied the various project constraints and developed four
conceptual alternatives.
These alternatives were presented at a community workshop with over 40 community
members participating in an active discussion resulting in majority support for Alternative
#1 and Alternative #4 of the four proposed conceptual alternatives. Alternative #4 was
favored due its benefit of the separating the vehicles from pedestrians and bicycles. The
Board of the Santa Monica Pier Corporation supports the community's recommendations
and approved recommending the proposed conceptual alternatives for further study.
Based on the discussions and support received from the Boards and Commissions and
the community, staff recommends that Council provide input and direct staff to move
forward with the NEPA and CEQA environmental review phase of the project to consider
the proposed conceptual alternatives.
Staff also recommends that Council authorize a modification to the agreement with T. Y.
Lin in the amount of $400,000 for a total contract amount not to exceed $1,250,000 to
complete NEPA/ CEQA environmental review and preliminary design development.
Background
On August 20, 2010, Council authorized staff to proceed with the initiation of a project to
replace the Pier bridge and submit an application for federal transportation funding.
Subsequently, the proposed bridge replacement project was determined to be eligible for
funding under the Federal Highway Bridge Program.
In May 2012, staff received authorization from the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) and Caltrans (administering agency for federal funds) for the preliminary
engineering phase of the project, under the Highway Bridge Program (HBP)
On September 11, 2012, Council authorized a professional services agreement with T. Y.
Lin for an amount not to exceed $850,000, to provide public outreach, conceptual design,
and environmental documentation services for the Pier Bridge Replacement Project. Of
the authorized $850,000, a contract was executed in the amount of $237,200 to complete
the public outreach and concept design phase.
On February 26, 2013, Council authorized staff to implement interim modifications to the
Pier bridge sidewalks to improve safety and prevent conflicts between vehicles and
pedestrians on the Pier bridge sidewalks that were inadequate for the large volume of
pedestrians traversing.
2
Discussion
The Pier bridge project was initiated in the late 1990's. In 2006, the City circulated a draft
Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Assessment EIR /EA with technical studies
identifying alternatives for rehabilitation of the existing bridge. However, Caltrans
concluded that the cost of rehabilitation would not be eligible for federal funding and that
the bridge replacement alternative would be preferred.
The replacement of the existing bridge is eligible to receive federal funding under the
FHWA's Highway Bridge Program (HBP) administered by Caltrans. HBP has general
guidelines determining the funding eligibility for the components of a replacement bridge.
Most of the mitigation measures required for the project are considered to be eligible
while guidelines disqualify unusual architectural treatments (decorative fascia, tile work,
architectural lighting, exotic bridge railing, belvederes, etc.). Generally, special treatments
should not exceed 5% of the total construction contract.
During the Pier bridge study efforts in 2006, many technical reports and public input were
incorporated into the draft EIR /EA environmental document which identified project
constraints and set priorities for the bridge replacement project
Staff and T. Y. Lin reviewed the project's history and conducted meetings with staff from
the Office of Pier Management, Community and Cultural Services, Planning and
Community Development, Fire, and Police to present concept development, share ideas
and ensure proper coordination between the bridge project and other adjacent projects in
progress.
In addition, the Pier Corporation Board formed a three - member study group to work with
staff on the Pier bridge and Pier access. The study group provided the following guiding
design principles for development of the conceptual alternatives;
® Safety: Separation of cars, bicycles and pedestrians to improve traffic conflicts at
Colorado and elsewhere on the Pier.
® Construction Simplification: Maintain continuous Pier access to its users and
visitors and provide optimum construction duration with cost - effective design.
�3
• Pleasant Pier experience: Enhance the Pier experience, from entry to departure.
Consider how visitors will experience their entire Pier stay, including logistics, in
addition to its spectacular views and amenities.
• Compatibility with Historical Resources: Design the new bridge to complement the
historical appearance of the Pier.
• Eliminate or reduce the high point of the current bridge: Provide unobstructed view
of the Pier from Colorado Ave. intersection.
• Shorten the Bridge: land earlier (sooner) on the Pier; recapture real estate to open
more of Pier deck at east; improve "entrance."
• Improve Way finding: Advanced circulation signage to direct people and vehicles
efficiently.
Current Functionality and Use
The bridge serves as the primary access point to
Pier businesses and is the sole access for on -Pier
parking and emergency vehicles. The Pier serves
various City departments including the Santa
Monica Harbor Patrol, Santa Monica Police
Department's downtown substation, and beach /pier
maintenance facilities. In addition, the Pier is also
the site of the non - profit Heal the Bay Aquarium,
Pacific Park family amusement -park, various
restaurants, vendors, street performers, as well as
special event performers and their crews.
The large volume of pedestrians using the bridge
creates a substantial conflict with vehicles resulting in safety concerns and delays in
accessing the Pier by car. At the request of the Santa Monica Police Department, bridge
sidewalks were recently removed from the bridge and a K -rail was added to separate
pedestrians and vehicular traffic, providing better protection for pedestrians using the
bridge.
According to the 2006 draft EIR /EA, peak weekend average daily traffic (ADT) is
approximately 3,667 comprised of a mix of beach/ Pier patrons and service /delivery
17
vehicles. However, the largest groups of bridge users by far are pedestrians and
bicyclists accessing the Pier and beach access points from Ocean Avenue. When Pier
deck parking (277 parking stalls) is full or during periods of high pedestrian usage (typical
summer day), the bridge is closed to vehicular traffic and functions as a
pedestrian /bicycle facility, which makes exiting for vehicles very difficult and creates yet
another safety conflict. It is notable that Pier usage is heavy not only in the summer
months, but year- round. Other busy periods for Pier businesses and attendance are the
winter holiday season and the spring break in April.
Completion of the Expo Light Rail and the Colorado Esplanade Projects further increase
pedestrian and bicycle use of the Pier bridge. The Colorado Esplanade project calls for
modifying Colorado Avenue from the Expo Station at 4th Street to the Pier bridge with
extra wide pedestrian walkways and a dedicated two -way cycle track.
The existing bridge is built with a 10% grade resulting in slow pedestrian speeds in both
directions. The steep slope can be especially difficult to traverse for families, those with
limited mobility, elderly, and disabled patrons. A key objective is to make the Pier bridge
fully ADA compliant from the Ocean and Colorado intersection — main route — while
maintaining full federal funding participation.
Considerations
The following factors contribute greatly in challenging the design of the bridge;
1. Geometric:
Bridge profile — The current structure provides a direct route from Ocean Avenue
to the Pier at a steep 10% grade. The bridge grade is controlled by several street
crossings passing under the bridge such as Moomat Ahiko Way and Appian Way.
Current vertical clearance over Moomat Ahiko Way is at the minimum 15 feet
required for most City streets. Therefore, the bridge profile cannot be lowered
further without having an adverse effect on the road network below. Alternatively,
granting an exception to the minimum vertical clearance requirements could also
be considered; which is subject to Caltrans approved.
Moomat Ahiko Way — Conversely, consideration was given
to lowering Moomat Ahiko Way in order to lower the bridge
profile and thus lessen the bridge grade. However, initial
5
review indicated the profile of Moomat Ahiko Way is controlled by the adjacent
Caltrans owned McClure Tunnel serving Pacific Coast Highway 1 (PCH).
Lowering Moomat Ahiko Way would increase the grade of the approach roadway
to PCH and may trigger the need for Caltrans approval based on decreasing sight
distance with limited benefit.
® ADA Compliance — Pathways and sidewalks following the natural slope of a street
are exempt from meeting ADA requirements. The existing bridge has a 10% slope
and does not meet ADA standards. The steep slope makes it difficult to walk,
especially for families, those with limited mobility, elderly, and disabled patrons.
There are several ADA compliant segments serving the Pier within the immediate
area including:
• Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF)
• From Ocean Front Walk to the Pier
However, no continuous ADA compliant access exists from Ocean Avenue to the
Pier, which is a difference in elevation of 35 feet.
2. Maintaining Vehicular and Pedestrian Pier Access:
Rebuilding a bridge in its original location involves careful planning of construction
procedures and bridge structure type selection to maintain continuous access to
the Pier and minimize business impacts. Two primary alternatives in bridge
replacement include:
o Staged Construction: Keeping at least one vehicular lane open at all times
during construction (shared by pedestrians, bicycles, delivery and
emergency vehicles) will require staged bridge construction. Typically,
stage construction involves removing half the bridge at a time while
maintaining traffic on the remaining half. Since the existing structure is only
34 feet wide, removing half the bridge results in a structure too narrow to
safely accommodate one lane vehicle and pedestrian access, while
undertaking construction.
o Closure: To mitigate safety and retrofit concerns involved in staged
construction, full bridge closure alternatives were investigated. Providing
alternative Pier access during construction would eliminate the need to
stage the bridge construction and would ensure pedestrian and bike safety
as well as time and cost savings. The need for alternative Pier access led
to the Moss Avenue bridge alternative discussed later in this report.
0
3. Right -of -Way, Business & Utilities
Right -of -Way (ROW) requirements will be evaluated with each alternative in terms
of number of parcels and impacts to businesses. All ROW activities will follow the
Federal Acquisition Regulations to be eligible for federal funding participation.
Extensive utility coordination and temporary/permanent relocation is anticipated
given the location of the project and the close proximity to existing facilities:
o The Santa Monica Aquarium, located immediately adjacent to the bridge,
will have direct impacts to its business from bridge construction activities.
The aquarium also has seawater pumping /piping and backup electrical
generators that may be impacted by bridge demolition and construction
activities.
o Pier bridge construction will impact public restrooms located beneath the
western most spans.
With significant utility requirements on the project, the benefit and eligibility of HBP
funds for utility relocation will be explored. Temporary business relocation impacts
are anticipated to play a significant role on the overall project planning and
execution.
4. Environmental Impacts
Important environmental and historical resources adjacent to the project area are
not expected to be impacted by the project at this time, including the Pier Sign,
Hippodrome Building, and Palisades Park. However, complete environmental
evaluation and technical studies will be conducted during the environmental review
and document phase to confirm these assumptions.
Overview of Presented Concepts
Based on the public input received, the challenges and constraints associated with the
Pier replacement, the following alternatives were identified to address the priorities of the
Pier Corporation Board and the constraints and requirements of the Federal funds
associated with the Highway Bridge Program. This section describes the alternatives
7
developed. Also, "Attachment #1: Comparison of Proposed Alternatives" provides the list
advantages and disadvantages of the proposed alternatives.
Alternative #1
Alternative #1 replaces the Pier bridge with a wider bridge. The proposed bridge would
be approximately 58 feet wide (70% wider than existing) with standard vehicular lanes,
shoulders, bike lanes, wider sidewalks in the same location. This alternative is considered
to provide baseline functionality of the bridge while addressing the current bridge
structural deficiencies, therefore alternative #1 is recommended for further study and
consideration in the environmental review.
1*
Alternative #2 replaces the Pier bridge with a bridge of the current width and constructs a
separate ADA/ pedestrian path north of the Pier. Due to the long length (60% longer than
existing bridge) required to meet ADA compliance, this alternative poses potentially
significant right -of -way impacts to the 1550 parking lot — State -owned land — as well as
impacts to parking spaces and creates adverse visual impacts to the landmarked
Hippodrome building. This alternative was not preferred by the public and was
eliminated, not recommended, from further study.
E
A 94- -- -4h- 444
Alternative #3 replaces the Pier bridge with a pedestrian /bicycle bridge and a vehicular
access bridge at Moss Avenue. The community and the Landmarks Commission
requested a direct and linear path from Ocean Avenue to the Pier to maintain the historic
character of the setting. Due to the need to maintain delivery and emergency vehicle
access from Ocean Avenue to the Pier and lack of public support, this alternative was
also eliminated, and not recommended, from further study.
10
A /4n. #h,. did
Alternative #4 replaces the Pier bridge with a bridge of the current width designed
primarily for pedestrian and bicycle use, as well as limited /controlled use for delivery and
emergency vehicles. ADA access would be provided either by an adjacent ADA pathway
or an elevator. This alternative provides a separate vehicular access bridge at Moss
Avenue and received wide support in public and community meetings as well as from the
Pier Corporation Board, therefore alternative #4 is recommended for further study and
consideration in the environmental review.
Bicycle Connection
As outlined in the Santa Monica Bicycle Action Plan a bicycle network connection directly
from the Colorado - Ocean Avenue intersection to the regional beach bicycle trail is
needed at the Pier. Therefore all of the proposed alternatives suggest a new ramp for
bicycles and pedestrians from the Pier deck down to the beach bicycle path, which would
create the continuous bicycle network connection between the downtown and the
regional beach bicycle trail. Bicycle connection was included in the 5 -year bikeway
11
recommendations in the Bicycle Action Plan and staff will continue to seek grants to fund
the proposed ramp as it is currently not eligible under the Federal Highway Bridge
Program.
Public Outreach
The community input process started with on -line
surveys. Forty -one responses were received.
Priorities included pedestrian safety and separation
of vehicles and people.
Staff and T. Y. Lin held various meetings and
presentations with a wide range of stakeholders
including residents, local and regional community organizations, businesses on the Pier,
the Pier visioning consultant, the Pier Corporation Board study group, the Landmarks
Commission, and the Pier Corporation Board during the development of conceptual
alternatives. Presentations covered project components, funding guidelines, site
constraints, and concept selection criteria, and highlighted the schedule of upcoming
public engagement opportunities. Members from these stakeholder groups serve as
important communication links between the evolving project and their various community
groups, ensuring that project information and updates are communicated throughout the
community.
The June 18, 2013 concept development public workshop was attended by approximately
40 people and focused on the four design concepts. Attendees had the opportunity to
respond to ideas about bridge design, ADA compliance, federal funding, and Pier
business impacts. Overall, the community supported the separation of cars from
pedestrian /bicycles to minimize traffic conflict and enhance safety. The proposed Moss
Avenue Pier access concept was generally preferred due to its ability to address these
issues.
12
Commissions Action
On August 12, 2013, alternatives were presented at the Landmark's Commission meeting
for discussion. The Landmark's Commission expressed the historical significance of
maintaining the direct linear connection from Ocean Avenue to the Pier. The elevator
component in alternatives may be a more direct path and visually less intrusive compared
to the longer ADA pathways in all the alternatives. Commissioners found the proposed
Moss Avenue Bridge intriguing and compelling because of the separation of vehicles and
pedestrians. Also the proposed Moss Ave Bridge would provide immediate relief at the
Ocean and Colorado intersection. The Landmark's Commission would be involved in the
environmental studies to review and comment on the historical aspects of the project.
Staff and T. Y. Lin conducted five presentations to the Pier Corporation Board during the
development of the conceptual designs while periodically meeting with the Pier Board
study group
On August 19, 2013, all four alternatives were presented to the Pier Corporation Board
along with the public workshop comments and Landmarks Commission's input. The
presentation was followed by open public comment. The Pier Board unanimously
approved the recommendation of Alternatives #1 and #4 for further study in the
environmental review process considering the public comments and mitigation of any
environmental and traffic impacts.
On November 5, 2013, staff presented the project at the Disabilities Commission meeting
Overwhelming majority of the commissioners favored Alternative #4 and indicated that
providing an elevator in lieu of an ADA pathway would not be preferred.
On November 20, 2013, staff is scheduled to present the project at the Commission for
the Senior Community meeting.
13
Next Steps
To maximize the funding participation of outside agencies, staff and T. Y. Lin are
developing partnership discussions with Caltrans and FHWA to focus on the public's
interest in the safety and separation of vehicles and pedestrians, usage of the Pier bridge
and the importance of context sensitive design. As the project develops further through
environmental review, T. Y. Lin and staff will work with Caltrans to determine if there are
any components on the project that are not eligible for funding under the federal funding
guidelines.
Based on Council input and direction, staff and T. Y. Lin would start the NEPA / CEQA
environmental review phase and continue working with the Pier Board, Caltrans, and
interdepartmental teams. Technical studies would be conducted as required for the
environmental review. Staff would provide updates to Council periodically at major
milestones of the development process, as follows:
• Draft Environmental Document Circulation
• Final Environmental Document Circulation
• Design Refinements
Modification to Professional Services Agreement
Council previously authorized professional services agreement with T. Y. Lin for an
amount not to exceed $850,000. Of the authorized $850,000, a contract was executed in
the amount of $237,200 to complete the public outreach and concept design phase.
In addition to the remaining $612,800 previously authorized by Council, an additional
$400,000 is necessary, in order to complete environmental review, additional preliminary
engineering, and architectural design.
Staff recommends a contract modification to Professional Services Agreement No. 9642
(CCS) with T. Y. Lin in the amount of $400,000, for a total contract amount not to exceed
$1,250,000. The additional scope would include preparation of environmental technical
studies, advance planning studies, mapping and surveying, preliminary utility
coordination, geotechnical analysis, obtaining required permits, and NEPA / CEQA
IEll
environmental documentation services Staff anticipates that the environmental review
phase would be completed by end of 2015. The final design would be completed in fall of
2016 while construction would be completed 12 -18 months thereafter, under separate
modifications.
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
The environmental review is one hundred percent reimbursable by FHWA through
Caltrans. The proposed modification to Professional Services Agreement #9642 (CCS) is
$400,000, for a total contract amount not to exceed of $1,250,000. Funds in the amount
of $400,000 were included in the FY 2013 -14 Capital Improvement Program budget at
account 0200655.589000. The City anticipates receiving the grant reimbursement of
$1,250,000 from the Highway Bridge Program funds once the project is complete. All
funds in account C200655.589000 are Federal grant funds which would be reimbursed
quarterly to the City until the completion of the project.
Prepared by: Selim Eren, Civil Engineer
roved:
Martin Pastucha
Director of Public Works
Attachments:
Forwarded to Council:
Rod Gould
City Manager
1. Comparison of Proposed Alternatives
2. Alternatives At- a- Glance
3. Additional Renderings of Alternatives
15
(
/
-
) {)Z))
--
,
q
-
[ } \\\) \)!\!f$!
<
! \! !
§
\`)
}t } {\)()() \ {i]
\
\\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
®
E.
.......
........ ...
§
\
-
\ \
\
777\\
=
i\;t)!3!{{
- -
\]\
\t! }#!!; Q
!�;! «_ : ;,�,
; Q !!
o
'w
ro
c
d
EN
u
b
R
R
a+
is
s�.
@
N
s
4
\>
\>
b
m
\>
N
c
ns
O
N
v
N
>
C
O
m
Q
u
c6
O
"O
T
U
ns
N
MID
MID
c
�
o
U
ali
�
i
O
U
i
0
L�
C
m
m
Q
Ov
v
i
Q)
L
w
N
L
Q)
E
U
W
O
O
L
N
O.
L
>
Q
U
O
L
6
m
ca
a)
O_
O
)
3
x
+O+
3
cOO
C
O
N
N
O
O
L
m
N
U
O
O
N
U-
N
U
W
O
Lmn
_
-6
L
U
Q
U
U
U
U
O
r
.�
.�U+
o
U
E
Cp:
v
CL
Q
p
o
L
v
Q
E
m
L e
+
O
Q
u
t
'....
Q
to
o
N
O
O
N
U
L
+
'
N
O
a)
O
U
to Y
aj
•�
CL
>
w
v
u
c t
y
o i
v
3
E
`o
'�
"
own
E
o�
w
v
o
Q +;
U
o
U
L
oil
41
c
a,
a-
w
a
p
Z
c
�
Q
Z
2'
V
a
m
M
C
U
E
L
U
ca
Q
teM OY!4Vlewooyy
E
I'
II;
II
/ t
A%ueiddy
auoy v.,
M
O
N
m
O
i
m
0
N
W
O
0
N
m
W
O
W,
C
N
t
U
N
Q
M
O
N
m
d
O
i
M,
M
O
N
W
O
W
m
IN
8
V_
Q
N
0
a:
ro
0
0
a�
0
0
N
Qi
O
N
O�
W
O
SJ
l
3 off
f^
4
v
d !
l °
.o
v
� « °l -
�
§�
2\
' '
\
§�
2\
_ ..
<jMr
\ � \
yZ /7
\
0
aw
a
0
O
N
O�
O
N
Z
w
w
V
Q
J
d
W
W
Q
G
m
G
W
2
Q
V
Z
O
Q
6
O
N
W
O
H
Z
W
W
V
Q
J
0.
W
G
W
G
m
W
6
Q
U_
Z
Q
Z
Q
N
0
m
a
0
H
Z
W
w
V
Q
J
a
w
w
V
m
w
a
Q
V
Z
O
Q
H
Z
Q
N
Reference:
Agreement No. 9642
(CCS)