Albion Bridge Stewards
PO Box 363
Albion, CA 95410
March 9, 2026
Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
501 Low Gap Road
Ukiah, CA 95482
Re: LCP
_
2025-0006 — Request for Consolidated Coastal Development Permit Processing for the
Albion River Bridge Project
Dear Chair and Members of the Board:
Albion Bridge Stewards, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation, is dedicated to advocating for the
maintenance and preservation of the Albion River Bridge, a state and federal historic landmark, and the
last timber trestle bridge remaining on California’s State Route 1.
Albion Bridge Stewards respectfully requests that the Board remove Items C16 and C17 from the
consent calendar and hear them as regular business items with full opportunity for public comment.
These matters concern the proposed Albion River Bridge Project and associated geotechnical
investigation, both of which raise significant issues of local oversight, environmental review, and public
process. Public participation is especially critical here.
Further, Albion Bridge Stewards respectfully urges not to authorize consolidated Coastal Development
Permit processing for the Albion River Bridge Project at this time.
This request is premature and ill-advised. The project’s EIR/EIS is currently under active legal
challenge in Mendocino County Superior Court. Authorizing consolidated permit processing now would
inject the County into an unsettled and contested environmental review process and create avoidable
procedural risk if the court determines that the EIR/EIS is inadequate.
Separate permit review by the County and the Coastal Commission is the ordinary process for a project
spanning both jurisdictions, and there is no sound reason for the County to surrender its direct role
while the project’s foundational environmental document remains under dispute. As the County’s own
memo explains, absent consolidation, separate permits would be processed by the County and the
Commission.
Consolidation would also reduce local oversight over a project with sweeping consequences for Albion.
The County’s memo makes clear that Caltrans seeks consolidation so that the California Coastal
Commission can process a permit for the entirety of the project, rather than preserving County permit
review for the portions within County jurisdiction.
Surrendering local permit review is not a minor procedural adjustment for a project of this magnitude –
one that not only affects a small rural coastal community but also proposes the destruction of a historic
landmark that could and should be as well-known as the historic Highway 1 bridges in Big Sur.
Surrendering local permit review is a significant transfer of local authority away from the community
most directly affected. The statute permitting consolidation requires that public participation not be
substantially impaired, and the Board should not assume that shifting review into a single state-level
process satisfies that standard in a case of this scale and controversy.
The geotechnical investigation now being advanced through separate permit proceedings provides yet
another reason to deny consolidation. The Final EIR/EIS expressly acknowledges that additional
geotechnical work was anticipated, stating, for example, that pile dimensions may change “pending
additional geotechnical surveys.” Yet the County’s own memo shows that Caltrans is now separately
seeking permit consolidation for a geotechnical investigation in support of the bridge project, while the
Coastal Commission’s boundary determination identifies a distinct “Albion River Geotechnical Boring
project” that may qualify for a consolidated permit.
If additional geotechnical surveys were foreseeable enough to be referenced in the EIR/EIS, they were
foreseeable enough to be described clearly and transparently before Caltrans came back seeking
further permit approvals. At a minimum, this sequence raises serious questions about whether the
project description and environmental review presented to the public were as complete and stable as
CEQA requires.
The Board does not need to facilitate this shortcut. It can and should insist on the normal permitting
process, preserve local oversight, and avoid entangling the County more deeply in a project whose
environmental review remains under active judicial challenge.
Nor is the Board powerless here. In 2023, Monterey County demonstrated exactly the kind of local
oversight that is warranted when Caltrans proposes changes to a historic coastal structure. There, after
the Monterey County Planning Commission twice rejected Caltrans’ proposal to replace the historic
railings on the 1931 Garrapata Bridge in Big Sur, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors voted 5–0
to reject the same plan, despite Caltrans’ insistence that the existing railings were outdated and unsafe.
Supervisors emphasized the need to preserve the bridge’s historic character, with one warning that
decisions made there would set a precedent for other historic coastal bridges, including Bixby Bridge.
Mendocino County should take the same view here. The Board is not obligated to clear a smoother
path for Caltrans simply because Caltrans prefers it. It has every right to retain local authority, insist on
full accountability, and refuse to surrender its role in reviewing a project that will permanently alter one
of this county’s most important historic coastal resources.
For all of these reasons, we respectfully request that the Board decline to authorize consolidated
Coastal Development Permit processing at this time. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Albion Bridge Stewards
Jim Heid, president
Janet Ecklund-Cook, treasure
Arlene Reiss, secretary
Albion Bridge Stewards
PO Box 363
Albion, CA 95410
March 9, 2026
Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
501 Low Gap Road
Ukiah, CA 95482
Re: LCP
_
2025-0006 — Request for Consolidated Coastal Development Permit Processing for the
Albion River Bridge Project
Dear Chair and Members of the Board:
Albion Bridge Stewards, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation, is dedicated to advocating for the
maintenance and preservation of the Albion River Bridge, a state and federal historic landmark, and the
last timber trestle bridge remaining on California’s State Route 1.
Albion Bridge Stewards respectfully requests that the Board remove Items C16 and C17 from the
consent calendar and hear them as regular business items with full opportunity for public comment.
These matters concern the proposed Albion River Bridge Project and associated geotechnical
investigation, both of which raise significant issues of local oversight, environmental review, and public
process. Public participation is especially critical here.
Further, Albion Bridge Stewards respectfully urges not to authorize consolidated Coastal Development
Permit processing for the Albion River Bridge Project at this time.
This request is premature and ill-advised. The project’s EIR/EIS is currently under active legal
challenge in Mendocino County Superior Court. Authorizing consolidated permit processing now would
inject the County into an unsettled and contested environmental review process and create avoidable
procedural risk if the court determines that the EIR/EIS is inadequate.
Separate permit review by the County and the Coastal Commission is the ordinary process for a project
spanning both jurisdictions, and there is no sound reason for the County to surrender its direct role
while the project’s foundational environmental document remains under dispute. As the County’s own
memo explains, absent consolidation, separate permits would be processed by the County and the
Commission.
Consolidation would also reduce local oversight over a project with sweeping consequences for Albion.
The County’s memo makes clear that Caltrans seeks consolidation so that the California Coastal
Commission can process a permit for the entirety of the project, rather than preserving County permit
review for the portions within County jurisdiction.
Surrendering local permit review is not a minor procedural adjustment for a project of this magnitude –
one that not only affects a small rural coastal community but also proposes the destruction of a historic
landmark that could and should be as well-known as the historic Highway 1 bridges in Big Sur.
Surrendering local permit review is a significant transfer of local authority away from the community
most directly affected. The statute permitting consolidation requires that public participation not be
substantially impaired, and the Board should not assume that shifting review into a single state-level
process satisfies that standard in a case of this scale and controversy.
The geotechnical investigation now being advanced through separate permit proceedings provides yet
another reason to deny consolidation. The Final EIR/EIS expressly acknowledges that additional
geotechnical work was anticipated, stating, for example, that pile dimensions may change “pending
additional geotechnical surveys.” Yet the County’s own memo shows that Caltrans is now separately
seeking permit consolidation for a geotechnical investigation in support of the bridge project, while the
Coastal Commission’s boundary determination identifies a distinct “Albion River Geotechnical Boring
project” that may qualify for a consolidated permit.
If additional geotechnical surveys were foreseeable enough to be referenced in the EIR/EIS, they were
foreseeable enough to be described clearly and transparently before Caltrans came back seeking
further permit approvals. At a minimum, this sequence raises serious questions about whether the
project description and environmental review presented to the public were as complete and stable as
CEQA requires.
The Board does not need to facilitate this shortcut. It can and should insist on the normal permitting
process, preserve local oversight, and avoid entangling the County more deeply in a project whose
environmental review remains under active judicial challenge.
Nor is the Board powerless here. In 2023, Monterey County demonstrated exactly the kind of local
oversight that is warranted when Caltrans proposes changes to a historic coastal structure. There, after
the Monterey County Planning Commission twice rejected Caltrans’ proposal to replace the historic
railings on the 1931 Garrapata Bridge in Big Sur, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors voted 5–0
to reject the same plan, despite Caltrans’ insistence that the existing railings were outdated and unsafe.
Supervisors emphasized the need to preserve the bridge’s historic character, with one warning that
decisions made there would set a precedent for other historic coastal bridges, including Bixby Bridge.
Mendocino County should take the same view here. The Board is not obligated to clear a smoother
path for Caltrans simply because Caltrans prefers it. It has every right to retain local authority, insist on
full accountability, and refuse to surrender its role in reviewing a project that will permanently alter one
of this county’s most important historic coastal resources.
For all of these reasons, we respectfully request that the Board decline to authorize consolidated
Coastal Development Permit processing at this time. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Albion Bridge Stewards
Jim Heid, president
Janet Ecklund-Cook, treasure
Arlene Reiss, secretary