The California Coastal Commission today announced that it had initiated revocation proceedings on its permit for Caltrans’s Noyo River Bridge replacement project in Fort Bragg, Mendocino County. The controversial 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.

The Commission acted on a request for revocation submitted by Vince Taylor on behalf of the Dharma Cloud Foundation. The request provided evidence that Caltrans violated Title 14, Section 13105(a) of the California Code of Regulations by intentionally providing erroneous and incomplete information in two areas critical to the Commission’s decision: 1) the availability of alternative approved "see-through" railings, and 2) the feasibility of meeting construction traffic-objectives with a narrower bridge.

A key element in the case for revocation was the unequivocal assertion by Caltrans that the limited "see-through" railing used in its proposed bridge design was the only one available that met federal and state safety standards. Further, Caltrans asserted that gaining approval for another railing design would take from 2-4 years. Taylor’s submission included three federally approved railing designs that were available when Caltrans made these statements. Because California generally accepts federal standards for safety, all of these designs should have been provided to the Commission as alternatives.

The revocation request also stated that Caltrans misled the Commission by asserting that the proposed bridge was the narrowest that could be built without major impacts on traffic during construction. The request showed that the proposed width of the bridge was actually determined by Caltrans’s assumed dismantling plan and that, further, this plan was only one of many feasible dismantling plans. By using alternative dismantling procedures, the bridge could be made 15 feet narrower than the proposed bridge, while still maintaining two-way traffic during construction.

Taylor’s request emphasized that there is not now an urgent safety issue. In its application for its Coastal Permit, Caltrans emphasized the need for immediate approval because the present bridge would be subject to failure in a major earthquake. Taylor’s request noted, "Now, at the earliest, significant work on the new bridge will not commence before June 1 of 2000. Caltrans contributed to the permitting delays that are responsible for the postponement of this supposedly time-urgent project."

In commenting on the Commission’s action, Taylor said, "I am very happy. Caltrans obtained its permit on the basis of false information. The vote to approve the permit was only 5 to 4. This will give Commission a chance to reconsider Caltrans’s permit with full and correct information. I am confident of the outcome."

In a separate action Taylor recently submitted testimony to the California Transportation Commission. The Commission is scheduled to hear a request from Caltrans for funding approval of the Noyo Bridge at its meeting of June 7-8. In his testimony, Taylor presents an alternative bridge design that would save $4.5 million dollars and provide views of the harbor that are even better than those from the present bridge. He urges the Transportation Commission deny the funding request until Caltrans presents a design that preserves the great scenic beauty of Noyo Harbor.

Taylor emphasized that his efforts are not aimed at preventing construction of a new bridge, "Fort Bragg needs a new bridge, but it needs a bridge that is appropriate to the scale of Noyo Harbor and that preserves the present spectacular views of the harbor and ocean."