I would like to formally request that you withhold consent of the consolidated coastal development permit involving the widening and upgrade of the Jack Peters Creek Bridge-CDP_2021-0019. I find it very difficult to understand the need for this consolidated approach, which is particularly problematic in this COVID era which has limited public assess to information and comment.
I am requesting that you pull item 4aw from the consent calendar and discuss the merits of this Consolidated Coastal Development Permit at a future meeting.
This item does not feel like a routine item and also not a non-controversial item, and in my mind it warrants discussion.
As any Board member may request that any item be removed from the Consent Calendar for individual consideration I am asking you to support that. I am asking you to retain County jurisdiction.
Can the County make the necessary findings under the Coastal Act to support yielding the County’s jurisdiction to the Coastal Commission?
Having the Planning Commission deal with CalTrans' Jack Peters Creek Bridge project in Mendocino provides more chances for public involvement.
The PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE – DIVISION 20 of the CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT was designed to protect the “widest opportunity for public participation.” According to Section 65033 of the State Planning, Zoning, and Development Law (Government Code) the Legislature recognizes the importance of public participation at every level of the planning process. It is therefore the policy of the state and the intent of the Legislature that each state, regional, and local agency concerned in the planning process involve the public through public hearings, informative meetings, publicity and other means available to them, and that at such hearings and other public forums, the public be afforded the opportunity to respond to clearly defined alternative objectives, policies, and actions.
The CEQA Guidelines, at Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15201 about PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, or any of the CEQA (Public Resources Code section 21000 and after) contain many specific provisions about required notice of environmental documents, and opportunities for public comments on them relating to the a project proposal. Each public agency should include provisions in its CEQA procedures for wide public involvement, formal and informal, consistent with its existing activities and procedures, in order to receive and evaluate public reactions to environmental issues related to the agency’s activities.
Do you know whether any part of the CalTrans' Jack Peters Bridge project is physically located in Coastal Commission retained original permit jurisdiction (the 30601.3(a)(1) test).
There is no guarantee that the Coastal Commission is able to meet the public participation test (the 30601.3(a)(2) test, given their meeting schedule for the rest of 2021.
Coastal Act (Pub. Res. Code) section 30601.3 provides as follows:
(a) Notwithstanding Section 30519, the commission may process and act upon a consolidated coastal development permit application if both of the following criteria are satisfied:
(1) A proposed project requires a coastal development permit from both a local government with a certified local coastal program and the commission.
(2) The applicant, the appropriate local government, and the commission, which may agree through its executive director, consent to consolidate the permit action, provided that public participation is not substantially impaired by that review consolidation.
(b) The standard of review for a consolidated coastal development permit application submitted pursuant to subdivision (a) shall follow Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200), with the appropriate local coastal program used as guidance.
(c) The application fee for a consolidated coastal development permit shall be determined by reference to the commission’s permit fee schedule.
(d) To implement this section, the commission may adopt guidelines, in the same manner as interpretive guidelines adopted pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 30620.
Thank you for considering to remove the item 4aw from the consent calendar and thank you also for your continued engagement,
Annemarie Weibel
According to the agenda you would adopt the Resolution authorizing the Processing of a Consolidated Coastal Development Permit, CDP_2021-0019 (Caltrans, Jack Peter Bridge), by the California Coastal Commission, for the California Department of Transportation, to Widen and Upgrade the Jack Peters Creek Bridge.
00. CDP_2021-0019 BOS Public NOTICE (FINAL)
02. CDP_2021-0019 Memo to BOS - (FINAL)
A. CDP_2021-0019 (CalTrans Jack Peter Bridge) BOS Resolution (FINAL)
B. CDP-2021-0019 REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATION
C. CDP_2021-0019 ( App)
D. CDP 2021-0019 Location
E. CDP 2021-0019 Appeals
F. CDP_2021-0019 Site Map
I would like to formally request that you withhold consent of the consolidated coastal development permit involving the widening and upgrade of the Jack Peters Creek Bridge-CDP_2021-0019. I find it very difficult to understand the need for this consolidated approach, which is particularly problematic in this COVID era which has limited public assess to information and comment.
Dear Supervisors,
I am requesting that you pull item 4aw from the consent calendar and discuss the merits of this Consolidated Coastal Development Permit at a future meeting.
This item does not feel like a routine item and also not a non-controversial item, and in my mind it warrants discussion.
As any Board member may request that any item be removed from the Consent Calendar for individual consideration I am asking you to support that. I am asking you to retain County jurisdiction.
Can the County make the necessary findings under the Coastal Act to support yielding the County’s jurisdiction to the Coastal Commission?
Having the Planning Commission deal with CalTrans' Jack Peters Creek Bridge project in Mendocino provides more chances for public involvement.
The PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE – DIVISION 20 of the CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT was designed to protect the “widest opportunity for public participation.” According to Section 65033 of the State Planning, Zoning, and Development Law (Government Code) the Legislature recognizes the importance of public participation at every level of the planning process. It is therefore the policy of the state and the intent of the Legislature that each state, regional, and local agency concerned in the planning process involve the public through public hearings, informative meetings, publicity and other means available to them, and that at such hearings and other public forums, the public be afforded the opportunity to respond to clearly defined alternative objectives, policies, and actions.
The CEQA Guidelines, at Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15201 about PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, or any of the CEQA (Public Resources Code section 21000 and after) contain many specific provisions about required notice of environmental documents, and opportunities for public comments on them relating to the a project proposal. Each public agency should include provisions in its CEQA procedures for wide public involvement, formal and informal, consistent with its existing activities and procedures, in order to receive and evaluate public reactions to environmental issues related to the agency’s activities.
Do you know whether any part of the CalTrans' Jack Peters Bridge project is physically located in Coastal Commission retained original permit jurisdiction (the 30601.3(a)(1) test).
There is no guarantee that the Coastal Commission is able to meet the public participation test (the 30601.3(a)(2) test, given their meeting schedule for the rest of 2021.
Coastal Act (Pub. Res. Code) section 30601.3 provides as follows:
(a) Notwithstanding Section 30519, the commission may process and act upon a consolidated coastal development permit application if both of the following criteria are satisfied:
(1) A proposed project requires a coastal development permit from both a local government with a certified local coastal program and the commission.
(2) The applicant, the appropriate local government, and the commission, which may agree through its executive director, consent to consolidate the permit action, provided that public participation is not substantially impaired by that review consolidation.
(b) The standard of review for a consolidated coastal development permit application submitted pursuant to subdivision (a) shall follow Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200), with the appropriate local coastal program used as guidance.
(c) The application fee for a consolidated coastal development permit shall be determined by reference to the commission’s permit fee schedule.
(d) To implement this section, the commission may adopt guidelines, in the same manner as interpretive guidelines adopted pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 30620.
Thank you for considering to remove the item 4aw from the consent calendar and thank you also for your continued engagement,
Annemarie Weibel
According to the agenda you would adopt the Resolution authorizing the Processing of a Consolidated Coastal Development Permit, CDP_2021-0019 (Caltrans, Jack Peter Bridge), by the California Coastal Commission, for the California Department of Transportation, to Widen and Upgrade the Jack Peters Creek Bridge.
00. CDP_2021-0019 BOS Public NOTICE (FINAL)
02. CDP_2021-0019 Memo to BOS - (FINAL)
A. CDP_2021-0019 (CalTrans Jack Peter Bridge) BOS Resolution (FINAL)
B. CDP-2021-0019 REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATION
C. CDP_2021-0019 ( App)
D. CDP 2021-0019 Location
E. CDP 2021-0019 Appeals
F. CDP_2021-0019 Site Map