Transcript Excerpts

Excerpts from the Transcript of Coastal Commission Hearing on Noyo Bridge Appeal and Application

Friday, March 12, 1999

Excerpts made by Vince Taylor

The emphasis and comments in "[]" brackets are mine.

The excerpts demonstrate several points:

In discussing what made railings acceptable to it, Caltrans only cited the need to meet current safety standards, nothing more. Several of the remarks make the inference that federal crash-testing standards are what determine the acceptability of railings.

The staff repeatedly asserts that Caltrans told them that any changes in railing design or bridge width would lead to unacceptable delays that would kill the project.

The staff asserts that because no changes were acceptable to Caltrans, the only way to meet the requirements of preserving coastal visual resources was to impose "Condition No. 6," a $2 million mitigation fee (reduced to $1 million by the Commission).

Jack Liebster, staff No changes or redesign were acceptable to Caltrans	p. 18. Now, one of the things that we looked at was what kind of alternatives would be available to avoid the impacts from the proposed design of the bridge. But, basically, anything that we really could suggest, in terms of physical changes, was not considered acceptable by Caltrans, for the simple fact that it would delay the construction of the bridge. p. 19. We also looked at the impact – or the possibility of a narrowed design of the bridge, but underlying all of these suggestions, or alternatives, was the simple fact that all of these would require some change in the existing plans, and also most likely a lot of study, and exceptions to the present approval, or actual changes in the present Caltrans guidelines that could not be accomplished within the timing that Caltrans preferred for this project.
Rick Knapp, Caltrans Critical seismic safety project. Quickly as possible. Underway by July of ’99. Can’t afford any further delays Negative declaration approved. [?] Safety standards for bridge railings Must build railings that meet safety standards Golden Gate doesn’t meet current standards. Difficulty of getting CTC approval for extra funding	p. 23. This is a critically important seismic safety project. It is one of only 27 of the 1155 safety seismic projects that are left to be built in the state. We have a legislative mandate. We were required to be done with all of the retrofits by December of ’97, so we are down to the real tough ones…. … It must be replaced as quickly as possible. We are done with the environmental process, with the design process, with the public phase of the project, and we are down to the acquisition of the final permits, this one, and the permit from the Coast Guard, and then we will have this project underway in July of '99. We can’t afford any further delays if we are going to get this project underway this season. We have short work windows, due to the Cojo, and other environmental constraints on the project, and we can’t work past October 15 in the stream. We are now in the 5^th month of our effort to get the coastal permits for this project. … This project has a negative declaration, and finding of no significant impact both approved by Caltrans and FHWA, Federal Highway Administration. … We have included the first ever see-through bridge railing in response to concerns expressed by the public. [This is quite a statement – what about all the older bridges that have wonderful, visually transparent railings?] While it does not provide the visibility as you saw of the existing railing, the existing railing does not meet safety standards, and for an agency that pays over $50 million a year in torte liability, we don’t go out and build railings that don’t meet safety standards. We cannot do it. We would be paying many, many, many millions more. The other railings that Mr. Liebster showed you do not meet current standards. The Golden Gate Bridge does not meet current standards, and if it were built today it would be 150-feet wide. Now, it is important – and the Bay Bridge will be somewhere in the 175-feet wide. So, you know, looking at bridges that were build 75 years ago isn’t, you know, is not the standard we use to determine what we should build today. [The Golden Gate Bridge could almost certainly meet current standards, having a 42" high, smooth steel barrier rising from the roadway, backed by the sidewalk at 27" in height. The fact that no vehicle has surmounted this traffic barrier in 50 years suggests how successful is the design. Because current standards require crash testing, it would be necessary to build a section of the railing and test it to gain formal acceptance – something not likely to happen, but which doesn’t change the reality of the safety of its design.] … We have already exceeded the cost that was programmed for this project by 20 percent. That is the maximum we can go. We will have to go back to the California Transportation Commission. If we don’t get the money – you know, if we need additional money for conditions, and I can’t tell you what the fate of the project will be. It is very, very difficult to go back and get additional money. [Ha! The Commissioners of the CTC were chomping at the bit to approve funding at their June meeting, in spite of my testimony showing how a better design would save $4.5 million.]]
Karen Tatman, Caltrans Cost of new railing high because it has never been built	p. 38 … Standard railing would only cost about $200,000 -- $250,000 on this bridge, and by standard railing I mean the solid concrete, what we term as Type 26 railing. The additional cost to build this see-through railing is another $220,000, so the cost of providing – or the see-through railing is consisting over and above by $220,000, about that cost. It is important to point out that because the see-through railing has never been built before, the contractors don’t have the forms. …This rail has never been built before, so the forms aren’t readily available, so a contractor is going to have to create those forms. That is what makes it so much more expensive.
Mark Massara 2 years to develop new rail	p. 61. More importantly, even better view protecting rails can and are being developed. Caltrans says it will take approximately 2 years to invent better rails. You have compelling incentive to force this issue now, that being the dozens of coastal bridge projects that will come before you over the next decade.
Rick Knapp Safety standards need to meet those for federally supported highways	p. 75. I would be happy to respond to any other comments that were raised that challenged things that Caltrans has done. One would be, I guess, the see-through railing. Certainly, there are numerous see-through railings. They don’t meet standards. And, we don’t get to set standards in Fort Bragg, you know, for national highways, federally supported highways. We go through rigorous testing of railings, and we were able to be successful in accelerating that testing process, in order to the first see-through safety railing approved. [Again note the only qualification is "rigorous testing" to get approval.] [Note also that there was no argument with 2-years to develop railing.] As was pointed out by your last speaker …[interruption] there are lots of solid ones that are being built. And, that is why, because we didn’t have an approved safety one. [ Again, "safety one"]
Peter Douglas, Exec. Director Caltrans asserted that any delay or redesign would defeat the new bridge.	p. 76. We did wrestle with the question of design, and scale, and, you know, how it would fit into the community, but were also told, in no uncertain terms, that any delay or redesign like that would defeat the new bridge. … The Commission has faced on numerous occasions, Caltrans’ projects where your conditions of mitigation were argued, or characterized as conditions that would kill the project, only to find that somehow there was a way found to make both the project work, and implement mitigation measures.
Commissioner Desser	p. 78. So, I would like to hear a little bit more about why site-specific design isn’t appropriate, or possible in this case.
Douglas Caltrans: any redesign would kill the project.	p. 78. I think we would ask the Caltrans’ representative to respond. Our staff did have discussions with them, about a redesign, narrowing of the bridge, and other kinds of issues that deal with the scale, and we were told that that delay and the costs associated with that would probably kill the project, and so we relied on that.
Desser	p. 79. And, I guess just want to point out that either way, we are going to be living with this bridge for a very, very long time, so if it takes a little bit longer to design the right thing, that we are going to be living with for the next 40 years, that seems like a small price to pay up front.
Knapp Comment on scare tactics. Difficulty of getting more funds	p. 80. The comment about tactics, I heard this kind of thing, inn which were using scare tactics, and we were threatening that we were going to take away the project … What I am saying is that I can’t tell you. I am not the California Transportation Commission. I cannot tell you, if I go back and say, "We increased the cost of this project by 20 percent already, from $20 million to $24 million," that was the maximum flexibility we had, "we’ve spent $4 million more, and I need $2 million more." I cannot tell you, and I know how excruciatingly painful it is when we go back and ask for more money, so I know management of our organization will have to look at it and say, "Do we want to go back and ask for that additional money?"
Tatman Minimum bridge width	p. 83. So, what we do is build the minimum amount of bridge outside, and we build it in pieces. Stage 1, we are actually building 25.3 feet of bridge. And, that is accounted for, again, in Exhibit 19, and Vince Taylor mentioned only building 16 feet of bridge width. In fact, that is what we are building, but that 16 feet is from here to here. What Vince doesn’t recognize, and hasn’t recognized throughout our discussions – I’ve been talking with Vince since last August. We have had some very nice discussions – we also need, because you have the end of the bridge here, you have to have some k-rail to keep people from driving into the existing bridge. We are going to have to have some construction workers on that side of the k-rail walking along, so we have to provide that. We are only providing one-foot of width. p. 85 What we have developed here is a plan that doesn’t delay traffic at all, and if we can accomplish that, and meet the needs, and do these enhancements of shoulders, sidewalks, and match the roadway on either side, that is the plan we were looking for, and a plan that doesn’t impact the adjacent businesses. That is what we have strived for, and that is what we have achieved.
Tatman Need for crane Vince Taylor’s contention Non-response to Taylor’s contention	p. 86. On one of the bridges, the westerly structure, we actually don’t build the sidewalk in the first stage, and the reason is that a crane, in order to dismantle the existing structure – which we start to do in stage 2 – only during the day. We end up having to put, for a short period of time, 2 lanes of traffic on this westerly structure, because the crane needs to sit on the easterly structure. That is a very limited period of time, in which that happens. And, I believe Vince Taylor, in his information to you, says he has talked to some crane operators, and there are actually some cranes that can dismantle this bridge and don’t need to sit up there at all, so therefore we can build less width. But, I would point out to you that we are concerned also about pedestrian access and bicycle access during construction, not just the final configuration, but also during construction, and that is why we are providing a 12-foot lane, and a 4-foot shoulder, and building one of the sidewalks during the first stage of construction.
Desser	p. 87. And, how long do you anticipate construction taking under these various scenarios?
Tatman Construction time	Altogether, about two years. I think about a year to get these, this first stage done, then probably a month or two to dismantle the existing structure, and then another like 10 to 12 months to get this [interruption] center piece built.
Commissioner Detloff Question about acceptability of Caltrans railing design. Access to Mr. Taylor’s proposals? Douglas reply: Caltrans assertion that new railings would be prohibitive in terms of cost and time. Accepted that was no feasible alternative, and that is how came up with Condition 6.	p. 88. … because I don’t see a condition that directly address that, you came to the conclusion that the design of this particular system that Caltrans is proposing, with some views, would be acceptable. And, then the width of the bridge was not something that became a point of study with the Commission. And, I am wondering if you had access to the statements, or the proposals made by Mr. Taylor, when you were going over. Well, first of all, relative to the design of the rail, we did discuss with Caltrans the possibility of a redesign, and they went through what it would take to meet the safety standards, the crash tests, and all of that, and that that delay, and the costs, would make it prohibitive. So, we pretty much felt that there wasn’t a feasible alternative to the rail design, even though we thought that technically there probably could be a more see-through kind of rail, and that is why we focused on the mitigation of the visual [Detloff: Exactly] impacts, and that is how we came up with Condition 6. [This is killer!]
Detloff Douglas Detloff Douglas Had to take what Caltrans represented	p. 89 So, we really have come down to what the Coastal Act demands of both the staff and the Commission, and that is visual resources, and thus Condition No. 6. That’s right. So, we have taken it down to, we have narrowed our focus as to what our requirements to meet the Coastal Act are. That was our view of it, because we felt that we weren’t expert to redesign and exactly what you were presented was presented to us, and we pretty much had to take what they represented.
Detloff Existing railings don’t meet current standards. Douglas	p. 89. So, we have had several examples, by public comment, on various railings that are being used around the state, but I think that the comment made during their presentation by Caltrans that many of those railings no longer meet state or federal safety requirements. Is that a true statement? That is what we were told, yes, and we have not reason to question that.
Commissioner McClain-Hill Douglas Lack or alternative rail led to Condition 6.	p. 91 And, with respect to the visual impacts, am I correct in understanding that it is both the impact of the new railing, in terms of views as you cross the bridge? and the impact from looking, views from off of the bridge, looking across. … That is why we felt if they are not going to be able to redesign the rail, then an off-site mitigation measure that would enhance public recreational, and visual resources would be an appropriate tradeoff.
Commissioner Reilly Is a seismic safety issue, and dysfunctional to have restriction on trucks going across bridge	p. 95. … I am convinced that there does exist a public safety issue requiring replacement of the current bridge, and I think Caltrans has made that representation. I have no reason not to believe that, in terms of the seismic issues. And, I think it would be dysfunctional for what is still a logging town to have restriction on trucks going across that bridge, and I don’t know how that would work. [Referring back to a comment by Knapp that a retrofit would require restrictions on trucks.]
Reilly Why a $1 million cap on mitigation	p 96. I think the amount, probably, the amount that I would support would be $1 million, as opposed to $2 million, as a cap, for a couple of reasons. … And the second thing is that, you know, in terms of having to go back to the Department of Transportation [I think he means CTC], somebody else, I think the $1 million is enough to send a message to Caltrans that we are serious about the view-shed impacts, and it will not jeopardize the bridge project, and so that is where I am at with it.
Commissioner Potter Move to accept per staff, with $1 million	p. 98. I am prepared to move this item, and I am prepared to move per staff, but with a modification as Commissioner Reilly has suggested, regarding the $1 million versus $2 million cap …
Potter Can build a safe, visual rail Coast is an attraction to drivers. Precedent setter: either better rail or off-site mitigation.	p. 99 Okay I want to speak to this briefly. And, that is this whole thing revolves around the visual resources side of the Coastal Act for me. I think this is a precedent-setting project. I think that we have , as we acknowledged, recognize there will be other bridge projects here. And, I have heard this argument that you can’t build a safe rail that addresses the visual issue. I would suspect that, you know, you can. The building contractor in me says that there is a way to do it. I mean, we can build glass that stops bullets. It seems to me that there must be a way to address the visual side of this. And, I can’t set any store in the argument that the coast is a distraction, as a driver. It is an attraction. If we took that argument that you were really being distracted as you drove down the coast, we would be allowing sound walls down the entire west side of the coast. So, I don’t think we can advocate for, you know, a concrete pipeline as we go down Highway One. And, so I think, from that standpoint there is a justification to use this project as the precedent setter, to go ahead and either construct or design a more appropriate rail, or have an off-site mitigation that deals with the public’s access and visual side of the Coastal Act.
McLain-Hill Public safety concerns result in impacted views. Puts a lot of stock in funding issues Supports Caltrans bridge, opposes fee.	p. 103. .. well, it is clear to me that other reviewing bodies have come to the conclusion that this is a public safety matter, that the bridge, in fact, meets – and that there are constraints that are dictated by public safety concerns, and that those constraints may very well result in views that are not what we would like them to be. … also, I put a lot of stock in issues raised with respect to funding, and the fact of the matter is this state is facing a tremendous crisis with respect to infrastructure investment, and dollars are very hard to come by. And, you know, a million here, a million there, after awhile it is real money, and so in my view we really do need to balance that issue, vis-avis what we gain, by an uncertain mitigation measure … And, so with that, I am supportive of the building, or replacement of this bridge, and frankly disturbed at the additional imposition of a fee, with respect to Caltrans moving forward.
Commissioner Nava	p. 104. … I think, in April of 1997, and it was at that juncture that I made reference to the fact that all of the views, from whatever vantage point, constitute links of the chain, and that every time that we interfere, impede, with one of those links of the chain, we destroy the integrity of this coastline. And, it is just beyond my ability to believe that Caltrans, with all of the engineers, and all of the degrees, and all of the science, and all of the materials, and all of its ability to accomplish good work, can’t come up with a bridge design that is esthetically attractive, that maintains the ambience of the community, that contributes to the glorification of this coast, rather than the urbanization of it. [Right on, Pedro!]
Potter	p. 113. I just want to go on the record as quite frankly I am sorry to see this existing bridge go. I am surprised it didn’t have historic designation. I think it is an attractive structure. The new one looks just a little bit too much like the next millennium for me. Maybe it is my age, or maybe it is the fact that I am from New England, but we still even have some old covered bridges around this country that are of incredible historic value. We just designated three very similar truss designed bridges in Monterey Count as historic resources, so they would be preserved in perpetuity. So, I am truly sorry to see this, in the name of progress, and in a desire to move more vehicles more quickly, creating a concrete structure of this type.