1.   Introduction and Recommendations

Deficiencies in the Staff Report

In recommending approval of the proposed Noyo Bridge, with conditions, the staff report errs in three crucial respects:

1.      The staff report ignores the bridge’s violation of the 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.

The bridge violates these provisions because it would be wider than the Golden Gate Bridge, practically fill the entire highway right-of-way, and come within 10 feet of a restaurant and a motel, both located on the Noyo bluffs to the seaward side of the bridge.  Rather than contributing to a sense of spaciousness and balance, the bridge would crowd and unbalance the entrance to the city and materially depreciate the appearance of the neighborhood.

2.      The staff report fails to recognize that the width of the proposed bridge substantially exceeds that required to support four lanes of automobile traffic plus bicycle and pedestrian lanes.  The proposed bridge has not four but seven traffic lanes (four driving lanes, one unused median lane, plus two shoulder lanes). 

The staff report therefore fails to recommend the single condition of approval that would contribute most to reducing the negative impacts of the proposed bridge: narrow the width of the bridge from 86.6 feet to 70 feet, a width that would generously meet vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic needs.

3.      The staff report fails to recognize that alternative bridge designs are currently available that would provide the vehicle crash protection required by Caltrans, while improving pedestrian and cyclist safety and providing drivers with harbor views better than those from the present bridge.  Because the report fails to consider these alternative designs, it fails to recommend as a condition of approval that the new bridge maintain drivers’ views at least equal to those from the current bridge.

Recommended Added Conditions for Approval

It is recommended that the Commission add the following special conditions to approval of the permit for construction of the Noyo Bridge (following the numbering in the staff report:

III-11.  Maximum Width

The maximum width of the bridge shall be 70 feet. 

III-12.  Maintenance of Existing Views

The bridge shall be constructed in a manner that will allow drivers in the outermost lanes to have a downward angle of view that is no less than the angle of view from the present bridge.  The railing shall be of a design that provides drivers with views at least as good as from the present bridge (allowing for the fact that narrow railing verticals are not visible to moving drivers).

Local Political Support for Caltrans Bridge Based on Caltrans’s Fear Campaign and Should Be Disregarded by the Commission

Bragg City Council received over 1000 signatures on a petition to approve the Caltrans bridge design. The Coastal Commission is likely to receive a similar petition, perhaps with even more names, and to hear from many local citizens and politicians fervently supporting the bridge.  This outpouring of support is the result of a campaign orchestrated by Caltrans that convinced most people in Fort Bragg that Caltrans would cancel the four-lane bridge if its design were not approved immediately.  Almost everyone wants a bridge with more traffic capacity; thus Caltrans’s explicit threats of cancellation were very effective in marshalling political support for its bridge design.

The Coastal Commission should not be swayed by Caltrans’s fear campaign.  Its threat of cancellation is empty.  Caltrans very much wants to build a new bridge because this will cost the state much less than the alternative of retrofitting the bridge.  Eighty percent of a new bridge will be paid from federal funds; whereas Caltrans would need to use state funds to pay for the entire cost of a retrofit and the much higher future maintenance costs of the existing as compared to the new bridge.  The new bridge is Caltrans most cost-effective solution.

By requiring that Caltrans provide a four-lane bridge design that protects coastal views and is less than or equal to 70 feet in width, the Coastal Commission can both fulfill its mandate to protect coastal resources and meet the desires of Fort Bragg for a bridge with greater traffic capacity and safety.

2.   Bridge Excessively and Unnecessarily Wide

Excessive Width Unacceptably Degrades Coastal Resources

There is no possible way to make the present bridge design conform to the requirements of Fort Bragg’s or the state’s coastal protection laws.  The fundamental problem with the current design is its excessive width.  The present bridge is 34 feet wide.  The proposed bridge is 87 feet wide, two and a half times as wide as the current bridge and wider than the Golden Gate Bridge!  The bridge almost entirely fills Caltrans right of way and comes within ten feet of a restaurant and a motel.

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):

4.      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.

5.      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.  Major contributors to the excessive width of the bridge are two eight-foot shoulder lanes. 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. 

The staff report recognizes the decreased downward angle of view (p. 17), 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.

As explained in a later section, if the shoulders are removed from the bridge and a safety barrier is placed at the edge of the traffic lanes, a pedestrian and bicycle lane of 8 feet would be consistent with maintaining the present downward angle of view. Thus, decreasing the width of the bridge is essential to maintaining the present coastal views while meeting the needs for safe pedestrian and cyclist access.

Excessive Width of the Proposed Bridge Completely Unnecessary

Over time, Caltrans has moved from one supposed justification to another for the excessive width of the proposed bridge.  None of the reasons put forth by Caltrans have sufficient benefits to justify the great harm that the excessive width would cause to extremely valuable coastal resources. 

Bridge width not justified by need to maintain two-way traffic.  Initially, Caltrans maintained that the width of the proposed bridge was the minimum width consistent with maintaining two-way traffic during construction.[1]  Exhibit II-g of the final Caltrans EIR (November 1998), however, shows lanes on each side equal to 24.3 feet, well in excess of the 18 feet that would be needed to provide a traffic lane plus a temporary 4 foot pedestrian lane plus 2 feet for edge barriers. 

Indeed, the Caltrans plan has a pedestrian lane only on one side of the bridge. The other side contains a 21.3-foot roadway, which will be used for two-way traffic during part of the bridge construction.  Two conclusions can be drawn from this:  1) Caltrans does not consider it necessary to provide pedestrian/bicycle lanes on both sides of the bridge during construction; 2) Caltrans considers a 10.7 foot lane to adequately safe during construction of the bridge.

Bridge width not justified by need to dismantle the existing bridge.  In verbal testimony before the Fort Bragg Planning Commission, December 9, Karen Tatman explained that the 21.3-foot temporary roadway would be used for two-way traffic during dismantling of the existing bridge.  The other new lane would be used during this time to hold dismantling equipment. 

Dismantling of the existing bridge could be accomplished without utilizing one of the newly constructed lanes.  According to John Anderson, Bragg Crane Company, Richmond, CA, cranes are available that could do the job without needing to be placed on the new traffic lanes.

Safety considerations do not justify the excessive width. The existing two-lane bridge has experienced very few instances when traffic has been entirely blocked for any extended period.  An accident that would seriously block all four traffic lanes of the proposed bridge would be a rare event indeed.  The proposed addition to the bridge of shoulders and an unused central median would provide a small margin of additional safety – but at an extremely high cost in terms of degradation of exceptional coastal resources.  Only those who attach little value to the Noyo Harbor scenic values could consider the added margin of safety worthwhile. 

 Alignment with roads to north and south provides no justification for excessive width. Caltrans has argued that the proposed width of the bridge is justified because it will duplicate the planned configuration of the roadways on both ends of the bridge..  In considering this argument, it is useful to consider the median and the shoulders separately.

Removal of bridge shoulders would have no affect on traffic flow.  The shoulders are only for emergency use.  Normal traffic would not experience any change moving to or from the bridge if the shoulders were eliminated from the bridge.

Removal of the bridge median would have a relatively imperceptible effect on traffic movement.  The proposed median is 11 feet wide.  If it were eliminated, the traffic lanes would need  to adjust by 5.5 feet entering and exiting the bridge.  If the transitions were made over 250 feet, drivers would need to shift only 1” every four feet, hardly a traffic hazard.

3.   Modified Design Meets Traffic Objectives, Improves Safety, Preserves Coastal Resources, and Reduces Construction Costs

A straightforward modification of the Caltrans design meets all of the important traffic and safety concerns of Caltrans, while maintaining coastal views and greatly reducing the negative impact of the bridge on the spaciousness, balance, and appearance of the area in which it is placed.  Further, the modified design will significantly improve the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists.  Because the modified bridge will be smaller than the proposed bridge, it would cost less to build.

Safety barrier key element in modified design. The modified design provides four twelve-foot vehicle lanes and two eight-foot pedestrian/cyclist lanes.  The vehicle lanes are separated from the pedestrian/cyclist lane on each side by a one-foot wide safety barrier.  Placing the safety barrier adjacent to the traffic lanes has extremely important benefits:

·        Pedestrians and cyclists are protected from vehicle accidents.  With the Caltrans design, any vehicle that loses control to the extent that it crashes into the railing will cross both the cyclist and pedestrian lanes, sometimes killing those unfortunate enough to be in these lanes.  Thus, the modified design would save lives lost with the proposed Caltrans design.

·        A relatively lightweight iron railing could be used on the outside of the pedestrian bicycle lane, because it would not need to withstand vehicle impacts.  The type of railing used on the Golden Gate Bridge and many other older bridges could be used. 

·        An iron railing would provide almost unobstructed views, because the vertical rods in such railings are not visible to moving drivers. 

·        An iron railing would give the bridge a traditional look, helping to preserve the “earlier-era” appearance of Noyo Harbor.

·        The pedestrian/cyclist lane could be at the same level as the vehicle lanes, one foot lower than in the proposed design.  This puts the edge of the bridge one-foot lower relative to drivers’ eyes, increasing their downward angle of vision.  They would have the same downward view on the proposed bridge with an eight-foot pedestrian/cyclist lane as on the present bridge with its four-foot pedestrian walkway.  In contrast, because of the shoulders and the raised sidewalks, the proposed Caltrans design wouldn’t allow drivers any views of the harbor waters, even were it not for the additional view blockage caused by its concrete railing. 

Modified design preserves harbor views.  Figures 1 and 2, appended, contrast drivers’ views of the harbor from the modified-design bridge and the proposed Caltrans bridge.  (Vertical elements of the railings have been omitted because they would not be perceived by drivers moving across the bridge.)  These Figures show how the modified design preserves the important harbor views, whereas the Caltrans design badly degrades these views.

Modified bridge would better contribute to spaciousness and balance. In contrast to the Caltrans design, the modified design would not crowd up against the buildings around it.  The North Cliff Motel and Cliff House Restaurant would be less than 10 feet from the Caltrans bridge.  The modified design nearly doubles the space between the bridge and these buildings.  As required by the Fort Bragg LCP, the modified design better “contributes to the character and image of the city as a place of beauty, spaciousness and balance.” (Emphasis added.)

Modified bridge would be cheaper to construct.  The modified bridge would be 70 feet wide, compared to 86.6 feet for the Caltrans design.  This is a reduction of 20 percent in width.  A significant proportion of the costs of the bridge will be proportional to its width, because not only the road would be scaled down but also the supporting piers.  The bridge is estimated to cost $24 million; thus a 20 percent reduction in costs would represent a savings of almost $5 million.  Because not all costs are proportional to width, actual savings would be somewhat less.