Vince Taylor
May 31, 1999

Presentation of Grounds for Revocation

Section 13105(a) Violations

Permit 1-98-100 meets the conditions for revocation because of Caltrans’s violation of Section 13105(a).  The grounds for revocation under Title 14 CCR Section 13105(a) contains three essential tests:

1.   Did the application include inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information relative to the permit?

2.   Would accurate and complete information have caused the Commission to require additional or different conditions or deny the application?

3.                    If the application included inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information, was the inclusion intentional?

Following sections apply these tests separately for information presented on 1) bridge railings and 2) bridge width.

Errors and Omissions on Bridge Railings

This section presents the evidence on violation of Section 13105(a) in the area of Caltrans’s testimony on bridge railings.

Test 1: Did the applicant include inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information?

Throughout the permit hearings in Fort Bragg and before the Coastal Commission, Caltrans insisted that the limited “see-through” railing used in its bridge design was the only one currently approved.[1]  This assertion is erroneous. At the time Caltrans was making these statements, there existed a number of existing railing systems that met federal and state safety requirements and that would better preserve existing Noyo views.

Figures in Appendix 1 show several railing designs that are federally approved to at least the crash level of the proposed railing for the Noyo Bridge.[2]  (Copies of the approval letters from the Federal Highway Administration for these railings are provided in Appendix 2.[3])

·        Figures 1-1 through 1-3 are for “combination railings” that can be used by themselves on the outer side of bridge sidewalks.  They provide a protection barrier for both pedestrians and automobiles. 

·        Figures 1-1 shows a cross-section of the Massachusetts S3-TL4 Steel Bridge Railing.  The spacing of the pickets (Figure 1-2) would need to be reduced below that shown to meet California standards for pedestrian railings (maximum 4” spacing), but this change would not require further testing.

·        Figure 1-3 shows the NETC 4-Bar Sidewalk-Mounted Bridge Railing, developed by the New England Transportation Consortium (NETC).  As designed and tested, this railing has no vertical pickets, because it meets the federal standards for pedestrian railings of a maximum 6” opening between members.  Because California requires maximum 4” spacing on pedestrian railings, it would not be acceptable in California unless vertical pickets were added to it. 

·        Figure 1-4 shows the Wyoming 2-Tube traffic railing. It is only one of many approved traffic railings, but stands out because of its low visual obstruction. This railing is of particular interest for the Noyo Bridge because it allows a railing solution that offers both increased safety for pedestrians and maximum views for motorists.

Traffic railings, such as the Wyoming Railing provide protection for vehicles but do not meet standards for pedestrian protection.  However, federal and California bridge standards allow use of traffic railings to separate pedestrians from vehicle traffic[1] on bridges, allowing use of a lighter-weight pedestrian railing on the outside of the bridge. Because pedestrian railings can be of much lighter material than combination railing, they allow for much greater visibility.  A picket-type railing, which has most members oriented vertically, provides almost unimpeded visibility for motorists because vertical elements are essentially invisible from moving vehicles.

Figure 1-5 shows the cross section of the Redwood Creek Bridge in Humboldt County, California.  This bridge uses a combination railing to separate the sidewalk from traffic and uses a pedestrian/bicycle railing on the outside. Figure 1-6 shows the picket-style pedestrian railing for this bridge.  As noted above, this type of railing provides essentially unimpeded views to pedestrians. 

This bridge was designed in 1996 and meets current California safety regulations.

The railing system used on the Redwood Creek Bridge provides a starting point for designing an environmentally outstanding railing for the Noyo Bridge.  The Type 27 Concrete Railing used on the Redwood Creek Bridge as a traffic barrier would be replaced with the Wyoming Railing.  The outer pedestrian railing would be similar to the one used on the Redwood Creek Bridge, perhaps modified to provide more architectural interest but retaining the vertical-element design.  The result would be a railing system that would provide almost unimpeded views for motorists. The railing system would meet current federal and state safety standards.

The evidence confirms that the first essential test for revocation is met.

Test 2: Would accurate and complete information have affected the conditions or the approval of the permit?

A major factor in the acceptance by the Coastal Commission of the proposed bridge design was Caltrans insistence that no “see-through” railing design other than the one proposed met current safety standards:

 “… this [proposed] design does not fully protect views as required by Section 30251 [of the Coastal Act].  Alternative designs that provides for increased visibility certainly exist. Many railings on other roads and bridges provide for more visibility … However, Caltrans points out that its safety standards have changed, and the ‘see-through’ barrier incorporated in the project is the only one currently approved. Caltrans estimates that the design, crash testing and approval process for an improved ‘see-through’ barrier could take from 2 to 4 years.” [1] The Staff Report further states that "Caltrans has taken the position that such a delay is not acceptable (Exhibit 18)." [Emphasis added.]

Based on these statements, the Staff Report concluded, "Thus, no available feasible alternative railing design currently exists that meets the necessary safety criteria."[2]  This conclusion was instrumental in the staff's recommendation to the Commission to accept the Caltrans design and to compensate for the loss of views by attaching Special Condition No. 6, which provides for Caltrans to pay a mitigation fee.[3]

The evidence confirms that the second essential test for revocation is met.

Test 3: Was the inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information included intentionally?

In attempting to determine whether or not errors and omissions of Caltrans were intentional, it is necessary to consider two statements put forth simultaneously by Caltrans in their testimony on their application.

Statement 1: Federally approved railings are acceptable to Caltrans.

The Staff Report on the application for the Noyo Bridge permit states:

Caltrans’ policy is that “all bridge railings must be crashworthy by testing following AASHTO [American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials] guidelines” and be accepted by the Federal Highway Administration (FWHA).”[1]

Eldon Davisson, Chief, Office of Structural Design, Caltrans, confirmed that the above quote accurately represents Caltrans policy.[2]

Statement 2: The “see-through” barrier incorporated in the project is the only one currently approved.

Rick Knapp, Director of Caltrans District 1, in which Fort Bragg is located, stated in a letter to the Mayor of Fort Bragg:

At that meeting [held on September 16, 1998], Caltrans committed to include a see-through railing if we could get an approved, safety-tested design before construction of the project.  Subsequent to the meeting, a design was safety-tested and approved by Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration which has “see-through’ component.  While some are not happy with the proposed railing, I must emphasize that we do not have the luxury to provide railings that do not meet State and Federal safety standards.[3]

The Staff Report on the permit application states, “However, Caltrans points out … the ‘see-through’ barrier incorporated in the project is the only one currently approved. [Emphasis added.][4]

Statements 1 and 2 are not compatible with facts that Caltrans knew or should have known.

First, Caltrans testified that federally railings approved could be used on the proposed Fort Bragg Bridge (Position 1). Second, Caltrans professionals insisted that there were no approved railings other that the one proposed (Position 2).  These positions together imply that Caltrans had done a thorough search for federally approved “see-through” railings and had come up empty handed.  Certainly, given the amount of controversy over the proposed railing, any reasonable person would expect Caltrans to have done the thorough search implied by its unconditional statement that there were no other approved railings.

As has been shown herein, there are a number of federally approved railing designs in addition to the one proposed.  Is it possible that Caltrans professionals could have made a thorough search but not found the approved alternative railings?  No, it does not seem possible. It took me, who had no prior knowledge of the Federal Highway Administration, only a few phone calls to determine that there were two federally approved see-through pedestrian/traffic railings (combination railings) and numerous approved traffic railings that can be used as barriers between sidewalk and traffic lanes (traffic railings).[1]  Caltrans professionals are much better connected to the bridge safety section of the Federal Highway Administration than I.

Another possibility is that the Caltrans professionals on the Noyo Bridge project did not know that railings approved by the Federal Highway Administration are generally acceptable to the state, even though this is the Caltrans policy.  But, this is not a realistic possibility, because the Structures Division of the Engineering Service Center of Caltrans was the source within Caltrans for its proposed “see-through” railing and also the source of the confirmation that federally approved railings were acceptable to the state.

There are only two realistic possibilities:

·        Caltrans professionals knew that there were approved alternative railings but intentionally omitted mention of them from their testimony, or

·        Caltrans professionals did not search for federally approved alternative railings, but intentionally implied that they had done so and found no other approved railings.

Regardless of which possibility is correct is irrelevant to determining whether there was “intentional inclusion of inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete

information” by Caltrans, because both possibilities involve intentional misrepresentation by Caltrans.

The evidence confirms that the third essential test for revocation is met.

All tests for revocation are met

In the area of Caltrans’s information supplied to the Commission on bridge railings, all of the tests of Section 13105(a) are met, providing the Commission with the necessary grounds for revoking Permit 1-98-100.

Errors and Omissions on Bridge Width

This section presents the evidence on violation of Section 13105(a) in the area of Caltrans’s testimony on the minimum feasible bridge width.

Background

Although railing designs for the Noyo Bridge have received the most attention in regulatory hearings, the excessive width of the proposed design contributes equally to its destruction of coastal values.  The bridge is described as a “four-lane bridge”, but it has not just four traffic lanes and two sidewalks, but an unused 12’ center median and two eight foot shoulders.  Including sidewalks, the proposed bridge is 87 feet wide, wider than the Golden Gate Bridge[1], almost completely filling its right of way and coming within 10 feet of a restaurant and motel on the seaward side of the bridge.

The excessive width of the bridge directly violates the Fort Bragg LCP Scenic Corridor Combining Zone regulations, which requires that structures in this zone contribute to the “character and image of the city as a place of beauty, spaciousness and balance.”

The excessive width, as well as the Caltrans railing design, makes impossible the preservation of existing views. The shoulders plus pedestrian lanes total 13.5 feet, compared to 4.5 feet on the current bridge; thus drivers are moved 8.5 feet further away from the edge and have a significantly shallower downward angle of view. 

Maintaining the present downward angle of view for motorists is critically important to maintaining the harbor views.  The boundary between the water and buildings in the harbor is relatively close to the bridge.  To see the pilings of the piers requires the present downward angle.  On the proposed bridge, drivers would be unable to see the waters of the harbor even if there were no railing at all.

Decreasing the width of the bridge is essential to maintaining the present coastal views. 

Test 1: Did the applicant include inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information?

Caltrans plans to construct the Noyo Bridge in two stages.  In Stage 1, two outlying bridge sections will be built along side the existing bridge.  When they are completed, the existing bridge will be dismantled and Stage 2 construction will fill in the gap between the Stage 1 sections, creating a single, unified bridge span. 

Caltrans has insisted throughout all permit hearings that the constructed bridge is the minimum width that could be constructed “without accepting major impacts to motorized and/or non-motorized traffic during construction.”[1]  Therefore, it has not presented any alternative, narrower designs.

Caltrans explains its position:

The easterly [Stage 1] bridge section will be 25.3’ wide; …This width is necessary for construction safety of traffic, non-motorized traffic, and construction workers.

The westerly [Stage 1] bridge section will match the easterly bridge section and carry one lane of traffic also, but with one exception.  It will not have a sidewalk built initially. The additional width will be used to accommodate two lanes of traffic during a limited period of time when a large piece of equipment will need to sit on the easterly bridge section to begin dismantling the existing bridge.  During this time, the easterly bridge will not be available to traffic during the day.  The westerly bridge section will be 25.3’ wide…

To provide less than these temporary construction widths would mean that either some or all of the pedestrian, disabled, bicycle, and motorized traffic would be subject to major delays or would be unable to get across the bridge altogether during construction.[2]

Bridge width not justified by need to maintain two-way traffic.  Caltrans proposes to build lanes on each side of the existing bridge equal to 24.3 feet during Stage 1.  But, only a 18.7’ lane would be needed to provide an 11-foot traffic lane, a 1-foot-wide railing, a temporary 4-foot pedestrian lane, a 2-foot edge barrier, and 0.7 foot of overhang.  Omitting the pedestrian lane on one side in Stage 1, as Caltrans proposes to do, the second Stage-1 bridge

section could be 14.7’ wide.  The total width of the bridge would then be 69.4 feet, rather than the 87-foot width of the bridge proposed by Caltrans.

Caltrans dismantling plan determines bridge width. The critical factor that drives the width of the proposed bridge is Caltrans’s assertion that “a large piece of equipment will need to sit on the easterly bridge section to begin dismantling the existing bridge.”  Closing the east section creates the need to build the west section sufficiently wide to carry two-way traffic in order not to create “major delays.”  The proposed west section width of 25.3’ is just sufficient to allow two 11’ traffic lanes (0.8 feet less than a “standard” lane), even omitting a sidewalk.

Caltrans omitted consideration of alternative ways to dismantle bridge. If it were true, as Caltrans asserts, that a “large piece of equipment” (a crane) were needed on the east section, the proposed bridge would be the minimum width that would allow staged construction and avoid extended one-way traffic.  However, what Caltrans omitted from its testimony was that the proposed dismantling plan is merely conceptual.[1]  The dismantling scenario described is not an essential aspect of the staged construction plan that Caltrans prefers. 

There are many different possible ways to dismantle the bridge, not all of which require a crane to be located on one of the new bridge sections.  I discussed alternative dismantling plans with two crane-rental companies and with Caltrans personnel.  Some points that emerged from these conversations and Caltrans documents:

·        Caltrans’s current dismantling scenario envisions that a section of approximately 100’ would be cut from the center of the bridge and lowered as a single piece without the use of cranes.  “Draw works” would be attached to the section to be lowered. The lowering cables would be attached to the remaining sections.[2] The center section of the bridge could be lowered to the temporary trestle to be built as part of construction and then barged to land; the entire operation should not take longer than one day.[3]

·        “At least two” large cranes (200-250 tons) are envisioned by Caltrans as being located below the bridge, on temporary trestles, during bridge construction and dismantling.[4] 

·        The size of the crane envisioned by Caltrans as being placed on the new east section would be restricted by the 21’ clear width (including the sidewalk) of the section.  Only “a small hydro-type crane could fit in 21 feet.”[1] 

·        Cranes could operate from below the bridge or from the ends of the bridge as substitutes for the crane envisioned by Caltrans as being placed on the new bridge section.  There is no question of feasibility, only of cost.[2] 

·        With respect to the cost of alternative dismantling approaches, note that narrowing the bridge by 15 feet, an entirely feasible amount, would save $3 million in construction costs – far more than the possible additional cost of a dismantling alternative that avoids use of a new bridge section.[3]

What emerges clearly is that there exist feasible alternatives for dismantling the bridge that do not require long-term closure of one of the new sections of the bridge.[4] Caltrans omitted any discussion or analysis of these alternatives in its testimony.  By omitting discussion of dismantling alternatives, Caltrans precluded consideration of narrower-bridge designs.

The Coastal Commission Staff Report also omits any discussion of a narrower-bridge alternative.  When queried about why this omission occurred, the Commission staff person in charge of preparing the report said that Caltrans rejected all suggestions for a narrower bridge.[5]

The evidence confirms that Caltrans presentation of information was incomplete; thus the first essential test for revocation is met.

Test 2: Would accurate and complete information have affected the conditions or the approval of the permit?

Protection of the existing scenic views is a major objective of the Coastal Act and was a major concern expressed in the Staff Report on the Appeal and Application:

The area framed by the Noyo Rive bluffs in and around Noyo Harbor, the mouth of the river and Noyo Bay is an area of exception visual interest and scenic qualities.  This fact is fully reflected in the Fort Bragg

LCP … it calls for the protection of these scenic values and views. … The proposed bridge would introduce a significantly enlarged, urban-type structure into the views of this scenic corridor area.  The proposed bridge would be highly visible from visitor destinations … and would affect views to and from the bluff, the scenic setting at the mouth of the Noyo, and the ocean.[1]

…

The particular configuration and design of the existing bridge, especially the high visibility afforded by its current railings, afford generous views for motorists from the bridge itself to and along the ocean and the scenic coastal area of Noyo Harbor and the Noyo River.  The bridge is in fact one of the few places in Fort Bragg where the ocean is visible from Highway 1.  The bridge is also a highly visible feature of the coast views afforded from visitor destination points and recreational area in and around Noyo River.  The prominence of the bridge makes the bridge one of the most significant elements defining the character of the area.[2]

The excessive width of the proposed bridge makes it fundamentally incompatible with the requirement of the Coastal Act “to protect the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas.” The present bridge is 34 feet wide. Including sidewalks, the proposed bridge is 87 feet wide, wider than the Golden Gate Bridge[3], almost completely filling its right of way and coming within 10 feet of a restaurant and motel on the seaward side of the bridge.

Detracts from spaciousness, balance, and appearance.  Because of its excessive width, the proposed bridge cannot possibly conform to Fort Bragg LCP Scenic Corridor Combining Zone, Section 18.58.050(C), which includes the following requirements (emphasis added):

·        The structure shall be so designed that it in general contributes to the character and image of the city as a place beauty, spaciousness and balance.

·        The exterior design and appearance of the structure is not of a quality or scale so as to cause the nature of the neighborhood to materially depreciate in appearance and value.

Rather than contributing to a sense of spaciousness and balance, the bridge would crowd up against the existing buildings and destroy the balance between open spaces and structures, materially

depreciating the appearance of the neighborhood.  All of this would occur in an area of exceptionally important coastal resources.

Makes impossible the preservation of valuable coastal views. The proposed bridge would place drivers about 20 feet from the edge of the bridge, nine feet further than they are on the present bridge.  Thus, on the proposed bridge, drivers would have a significantly shallower downward angle of view. 

The staff report recognizes the decreased downward angle of view[1], but does not recognize that maintaining the downward angle of view is critically important to maintaining the harbor views.  The boundary between the water and buildings in the harbor is relatively close to the bridge.  To see the pilings of the piers requires the present downward angle.  On the proposed bridge, drivers would be unable to see the waters of the harbor even if there were no railing at all. [2] 

In my testimony before the Coastal Commission on the Noyo-Bridge permit, I showed how a narrower bridge, combined with a different railing approach, could completely preserve existing views from the bridge.[3]

A narrower bridge, thus, would contribute significantly to preserving important coastal resources.  Had Caltrans presented the Commission with the option of a narrower bridge, the Commission seems likely to have required different conditions or to have denied a permit for the proposed bridge.

The evidence confirms that the second essential test for revocation is met.

Test 3: Was the inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information included intentionally?

I discussed the subject of bridge width with the Caltrans Project Leader for the Noyo Bridge, Karen Tatman, several times, beginning in Fall of 1998.  I argued for a narrower bridge in my testimony before the Fort Bragg Planning Commission on December 9, 1998.[4]  In my testimony to the Coastal Commission, which was known to Ms. Tatman prior to the Coastal Commission hearing, was the assertion by John Anderson of Bragg Crane that placement of

[To be supplied]
 

Appendix 2

Federal Approval Letters for Selected Bridge Railings