Caltrans failed to file a timely substantive response to Vince Taylor’s request for revocation of the coastal permit for the Noyo Bridge replacement project. When the Commission initiated revocation proceedings on June 4, 1999, it told Caltrans that if it wished to make a written response to the contentions raised in the request prior to completion of a staff recommendation on the request, "we would need your response no later than June 16, 1999."

Rather than responding to the evidence submitted by Taylor, Caltrans attacked the Coastal Commission for its handling of the revocation request. In a one-page letter dated June 16, Tony Anziano, Deputy Attorney of the Legal Division of Caltrans, wrote:

[The Commission] provided the Department with 7 working days to respond to a very delicate matter pertaining to a significant public safety project. The Department does not believe that this period of time is appropriate. The Department will be submitting a written response to Mr. Taylor’s allegations at a future date and prior to the hearing on the matter. The Department is similarly concerned that the revocation request was accepted by Commission staff for hearing within 2 days of its receipt. It would appear that such a significant decision on a public safety project merited more that a 2 day review…

Finally, by this letter I am requesting a copy of any commission policies or guidelines regarding the standards by which a revocation request is deemed to be frivolous or not frivolous and subject to a Commission hearing.

Mr. Anziano requested and was granted a private meeting with commission staff on June 17. Soon after this meeting, commission staff contacted Mr. Taylor and informed him that the staff was preparing to recommend to the Commission that it deny his request for revocation. He was also given a verbal description of the arguments made by Mr. Anziano to the staff.

In a June 21, 1999 response to Peter Douglas, Executive Director of the Coastal Commission, Taylor protested Caltrans attack on the Coastal Commission and the staff’s subsequent action:

This type of response by Caltrans -- belligerent and antagonistic, rather than accommodating and cooperative -- exemplifies the attitude that Caltrans has exhibited toward all sincere efforts to work together to achieve better solutions. When the Caltrans treats all efforts to bring about change as an attack on itself and responds antagonistically, what chance do citizens have to affect the outcome of a design process that vitally affects their community’s well-being?…

In view of Caltrans’s failure to meet the commission’s deadline for making a written response to the contentions raised in my request, I am surprised at this decision [to recommend denial of the revocation request]….

I consider it irregular and improper that Caltrans can give the staff arguments verbally, rather than in writing as the commission requested. Verbal arguments are not part of the record. I’m thereby put into the position of having to try to answer something that Caltrans can later claim it never said. This may seem an unwarranted anxiety on my part, but based on Caltrans performance in this case to date, I believe it is highly warranted.

Commenting on the events of last week, Mr. Taylor said, "A state agency with enormous political power writes the Coastal Commission a belligerent letter in which it refuses to provide written responses to my contentions, then demands and receives a private meeting with the Commission staff, at the end of which the staff announces it is going to recommend denial of my revocation request. All of this is very irregular –granting a private meeting, reaching a decision on the staff’s position prior to evaluating the written response from Caltrans, and announcing the staff decision before the staffs’ report has been written. This has all of the appearances of undue use of influence by a powerful state agency."

The controversial Noyo Bridge replacement project received a coastal permit in March,1999 by a 5 to 4 vote. The operation of the permit is automatically suspended until the Coastal Commission votes to deny the request for revocation. The hearing on the revocation request is tentatively scheduled for the Commission’s meeting of July 13-16, 1999.