This is such an excellent letter from the Albion Bridge Stewards group in support of our efforts to maintain the historical and visual significance of the bridge railings as they have existed for 90 years, I decided to publish it in toto. It is long, but well worth the read if this issue is of any importance to you. Attend the meeting by zoom tomorrow. The info re the zoom meeting for the By-ways organization is contained here: https://bigsurkate.blog/2023/12/01/big-sur-by-ways-organization-meeting/ and the info for the zoom meeting of the Board of Supervisors is:

NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the Monterey County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the project and appeal described above. The hearing will be held on
Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. The agenda for the Board of Supervisors’ meeting will explain how the public may observe and provide testimony telephonically, electronically, or in person, at the Monterey County Board of Supervisors’ Chambers, Government Center, 168 W. Alisal St, Salinas, CA, 93901. At least 72 hours ahead of the Board meeting, the agenda will be posted at 168 W. Alisal Street, Salinas,
CA, and on the County website at:
https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/government/departments-a-h/clerk-of-the-board

MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 4, 2023
TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
cob@co.monterey.ca.us
FROM: Jim Heid, Albion Bridge Steward
RE: Board Item 16, Wednesday, Dec. 6, 2023
Dear Monterey County Clerk,
Enclosed please find the comment letter of the Albion Bridge Stewards regarding Board of Supervisors December 6, 2023 meeting item 16, the Caltrans appeal of the Planning Commission’s action to deny CDP application PLN 220090, the Garrapata Bridge balustrade matter.
Please distribute a copy of this letter to the Chairman and Members of the Board and County staff, as applicable.
Thank you.
Jim Heid
Albion Bridge Steward
1

By Electronic Mail
cob@co.monterey.ca.us
December 4, 2023
The Hon. Luis A. Alejo, Chairman and Members Monterey County Board of Supervisors
168 West Alisal Street
Salinas, California 93901
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA ITEM 16 WEDNESDAY, DEC. 6, 2023
RE: PLN220090 – Caltrans Appeal: Historic Garrapata Bridge Balustrade
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board of Supervisors,
We respectfully request, for the reasons summarized below, that the Board affirm the Planning Commission’s factually and legally proper denial of Caltrans coastal development permit (“CDP”) application PLN220090 that would:

• substantially alter the historic view-protective character of the Garrapata Bridge balustrade (the “Project”), which Caltrans has euphemistically nicknamed a “railing” project to reduce its apparent scope; and,
• thereby significantly – both directly and cumulatively in the Carmel-San Simeon Highway Historic District – adversely affect protected visual access to and along the regionally, nationally, and internationally treasured Big Sur coast, in violation of the County’s Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) and the Coastal Act’s applicable public access requirements.
  The Albion Bridge Stewards are a public interest party of record in the Planning Commission’s proceedings on PLN220090 by (a) our detailed letter in opposition to the Caltrans project to Planning Commission Chair Monsalve and Members (March 7, 2023, incorporated herein by reference), and (b) the appearances of Steward Annemarie Weibel in the Commission’s March 8, 2023 public hearing on this case. The Albion Bridge Stewards are a volunteer community- public interest organization, founded in 2017 to preserve the historic Albion River Bridge on Highway 1 in coastal Mendocino County. Our members and supporters include agriculturalists, artists, business owners, conservationists, educators, environmentalists, preservationists, professionals, retirees, students, and
  workers in Mendocino County, California, the United States, and other countries. The Albion Bridge Stewards are also co-founders of the Coast Highway Alliance (in formation).
  We understand that County staff negotiated, unsuccessfully, with Caltrans to increase the width of the Project “windows” relative to the bridge concrete barrier elements (vertical “balusters”, horizontal “railings”, and the increased height curb/”bump stop”) to reduce the Project’s indisputably significant adverse effects on visual access to the Big Sur coast. However, even if Caltrans were to agree to staff’s 10-inch barrier window width, the Project would by its other component dimensions and the proposed elimination of the (albeit narrow) bridge pedestrian walkway remain inconsistent with the LCP and the Coastal Act (Public Resources Code [“PRC”] §§ 30210-30212.5), and thus require the Board to uphold the Commission’s denial of the Caltrans CDP application (or, in the alternative, deny it on further articulated grounds).

1. Introduction. As the Board recalls, Big Sur LCP Key Policy 6.1.3 mandates that “Visual access shall be maintained by directing all future development out of the viewshed” and harmonized General Policy 6.1.4.4 provides that “Visual access should be protected for long
   2

term public use”. LCP Implementation Plan (Coastal Zoning Ordinance) section 20.145.020.MMMMM specifies that the term “visual access” means “”access for scenic viewing of the shoreline and/or ocean from, among other places, a public road such as Highway 1, a trail, or a vista point”. Section 20.145.020.SSSS further clarifies that in the context of such access, the term ‘shoreline” is synonymous with the Big Sur “coast”. The LCP, page 5, defines it to extend between the Santa Lucia Mountains and the sea, and along some 70 miles in the upcoast-downcoast direction.
The Board staff report, page 2, appropriately summarizes the Commission’s three bases for denial of the CDP application to consist of findings of fact and law – based on substantial evidence in the record as a whole, which Caltrans in its appeal elects to ignore – that:

• the Project is inconsistent with the referenced LCP standards (because the reduced width, height, and number of openings reduce visual access for the travelling public and the proposed 86H design does not meet the exacting LCP standards for visual resource protection;
• other design options have not been given adequate consideration; and
• the Project has the potential for setting cumulative direction (“precedent”) for Caltrans’ five other proposed/programmed barrier projects in the Carmel-San Simeon Highway Historic District, at:

1. the Bixby Creek Bridge,
2. the Rocky Creek Bridge,
3. the Granite Canyon Bridge,
4. the Malpaso Creek Bridge, and 5. the Big Creek Bridge.
   Together these historic or historic designation-eligible “Big Sur Arches” bridges are graced by nearly one mile (+5,166 lineal feet) of classic balustrades that afford bicyclists, motorists, and pedestrians traveling on them irreplaceable public views to and along the Big Sur coast’s protected critical viewshed.
   We would be remiss to not also note that while these six projects are located in Caltrans District 5, the precedent set by an approval of the Caltrans 86H (or Texas) bridge barrier for the Garrapata Bridge may also in turn be embraced by Caltrans District 1 in its campaign to destroy and replace the State- and federally-listed historic(al) 960-foot long, to 150-foot high Albion River Bridge on Highway 1 in Mendocino County, and within the protected Highly Scenic Area of the area through which the wild and scenic Albion River flows.
   We further note that that Caltrans’ self-serving environmental document (reproduced in Board staff report Attachment C) in Table 2-2 contains a wholly incomplete list of currently programmed and proposed Highway 1 bridge and related infrastructure projects that implicate bridge and other highway barrier (e.g., guardrail) development, destruction or degradation of protected visual resources in and outside the coastal zone in areas where local government has delegated Coastal act CDP regulatory jurisdiction, and therefore require description, analysis, and related/proportional mitigation pursuant to the California Environmental Quality act (“CEQA”) and the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). For this reason, alone, the environmental document(s) contained in Board staff report’s two Attachments C are incomplete, inadequate, and incapable of Board certification because Caltrans has denied you the ability to review and consider that essential cumulative impact analysis of the Project and its (in CEQA
   3

terms) past, present, and reasonably foreseeable related Highway 1 projects, including, but not limited to, the Albion River Bridge and multiple other similar projects upcoast and downcoast from the Garrapata Bridge and the Big Sur.

2. The Project Has Quantified and Unmitigated Substantial Adverse Effects on Protected Visual Access to the Protected Big Sur Critical Viewshed. Our further analysis of the “86H” alternative barrier Project version indicates that it is the only one for which Caltrans has provided plans, elevations, and cross-sections to staff, the Planning Commission, or the Board. Specifically, Caltrans has apparently not provided plans, elevations, and cross-sections for the “Texas DOT C142” bridge barrier alternative to which the Project environmental document(s) and Project application materials refer. Caltrans has thus denied the County the ability to review and consider whether the Texas barrier alternative may constitute an environmentally less damaging, and therefore preferred, alternative to the proposed Project, inconsistent with CEQA, the LCP, and (in relevant part to lateral coastal recreational access on the Garrapata bridge) the Coastal Act.
   Review of the Caltrans plans, elevations, and cross-sections for the “86H” Project indicates that it would have significant, quantifiable, direct and unmitigated adverse effects on protected visual access to the protected Big Sur critical viewshed, including through:

• Reduction of the number of Garrapata Bridge arched view portals (“arch window widths”) to the site-specific coastal viewshed by 36% (from 760 to 486 such portals), with a cumulative 86H Project loss of some 390 lineal feet in the horizontal visual access space to the Big Sur coast viewshed.1
• Shrinkage of the vertical dimension of each arched vertical view portal (on the bridge deck-facing side) by 26% to 40% (variously described by Caltrans as reductions in the vertical dimension [“height”] from “1 foot 7 inches” (19 inches) or +2 feet (24 inches) to a proposed width of 1 foot 2 inches (14 inches), with a cumulative Garrapata Bridge 86H Project loss of some 636-968 feet in the vertical visual access space (“arch window height”) to the Big Sur coast viewshed.
• Extension of the unsightly and also visual access impairing “Midwestern Guardrail System” length the ends of the bridge by up to 26% (Planning Commission staff report, exhibit B, page 43.)
  The simulations that Caltrans has produced in its “barrier studies” are inapposite (unsuitable, out of place), including because of their (A) undisclosed, undated photo origination locations, and telephoto focal points; (B) elevated and oblique photo angles (relative to the bridge deck, existing or proposed balustrade components, and the protected Big Sur critical viewshed); (C) inexplicably cropped and erroneously labeled photos; (D) partial (incomplete) photo coverage of the Project’s substantial horizontal and vertical elimination or constrictions of the visual access portals; (E) utilization of undated older elevation drawings, without the necessary vertical scale, as the base for superimposition in various parts, but not their entirety, of the proposed 86H bridge barrier, barrier ends, and its companion Midwestern Guardrail System; and (F) contorted (reverse travel lane direction) and elevated photo angles that do not illustrate what typical
  1 Based on (1) the Caltrans project plans, elevations, and sections in Exhibit B, pages 6 and 15-20, to the Planning Commission staff report, and (2) Table 1-1, Comparison of Garrapata Bridge “original” and 86H project arch window height and width dimensions and other structural dimensions.
  4

bicycle, motorist, or pedestrian users of the Garrapata Bridge see while they are on it or its north and south approaches.
Ironically, Caltrans’ simulations in Planning Commission staff report Exhibit B, pages 9 and 10 demonstrate that the constricted 86H Project portals effectively block all visual access through them to the protected Big Sur critical viewshed.
The simulations thus do not constitute substantial evidence on which the Board may rely to overturn the Planning Commission’s denial of CDP application PLN 220090.

3. The Project is Inconsistent with the Big Sur LCP and Coastal Act Public Recreational Access Standards. Pursuant to the settled California coastal program, the Project is located between the nearest public road and the sea. Big Sur LCP Land Use Plan Public Access General Policy 6.1.4.1, page 106/129, in relevant part requires that “Overall, the best locations for public access to the shoreline, public lands and along the coast are already in use or have been used in the past. Major access areas, whether in public or private ownership, shall be permanently protected for long term public use.”
   Coastal Act (PRC) § 30210 requires that “maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs [and other criteria not applicable here]”. PRC § 30212(a) in relevant parts requires that “Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided in new development projects except where (1) it is inconsistent with public safety and other criteria not applicable here, and adequate access exists nearby…”. PRC § 30604(c) renders §§ 30210 and 30212(a) applicable to the County’s action on the Caltrans appeal [“ Every coastal development permit issued for any development between the nearest public road and the sea or the shoreline of any body of water located within the coastal zone shall include a specific finding that the development is in conformity with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200).”].
   However, Section A-A, on page 13 of Planning Commission staff report Exhibit B, indicates that the 86H Garrapata Bridge barrier Project would remove the existing (albeit narrow) pedestrian walkway along the seaward side of the bridge in favor of a 12-foot wide vehicular travel lane, and thereby functionally preclude lateral walking public access by members of the public on the bridge, inconsistent with LCP General Policy 6.1.4.1 and Coastal Act §§ 30210 and 30212(a). The Project plans thus preclude the Board from making the findings, required by LCP Implementation Plan (Coastal Zoning Ordinance) § 20.70.050.B.3 that it is in conformance with the Monterey County Local Coastal Program and § 20.70.050.B.4 that the Project is in conformity with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976 (commencing with Section 30200 of the Public Resources Code), and therefore require the Board to uphold the Planning Commission decision to deny CDP application PLN 220090 (or in the alternative, deny the Project on appellate de novo review).
4. Caltrans’ Grounds for the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Denial of CDP Application PLN 220090 Are XYZ. The Caltrans appeal of the Planning Commission’s carefully considered decision to deny CDP application PLN 220090 asserts, erroneously, that the Commission’s “findings or decision or conditions are not supported by the evidence” and “the decision was contrary to law”. (Caltrans appeal form, Board staff report Attachment B, page 4.) In a letter over the signature of Caltrans District 5 Scott Eades to the Clerk of the Board, dated March 21, 2023 (in Attachment B, pages 5-16, with Enclosures 1-8), Caltrans produces some 17 arguments in support of its contention. Each one of them fails to state a valid basis for appeal, as follows:
   5

• The Commission’s finding of Project inconsistency is unsupported by accurate evidence.
• The nature and extent of communications received by the Commission that indicate project
  inconsistencies with LCP text, policies, and regulations are undisclosed, or “vague”.
  To the contrary, the written communications are in the Planning Commission’s record on its proceedings on CDP application PLN 220090, oral testimony is available for review on the videos of those proceedings, the Commission’s minutes further identify the speakers, and no Commissioner apparently disclosed any ex parte communications regarding this matter. The recorded written and oral testimony by the public before the Planning Commission was Project and site specific, factual, referenced relevant LCP and other provisions in law.
• “The County’s” finding of Project inconsistency with LUP Public Access Key policy 6.1.3 is inaccurate.
  To the contrary, the Commission’s Finding 2.g on point is clear in its specified recognition that the harmonized LCP requirements “require the highest possible degree of protection” for the aesthetic beauty of the viewshed in which the Project would be located, with an equally specified enumeration of how the Project balustrade components fail to meet those standards. The Caltrans appeal here also fundamentally misconstrues the operative terms by which the LCP effectuates that high level of protection, erroneously limits the public that is its beneficiary to “drivers”, mistakenly claims the out-of-place visual simulations to constitute substantial evidence (which they are not), and in typical Caltrans fashion reverts to claims of Project safety that are unsupported or even disclaimed by Caltrans’ own contributions to the Commission’s record.
• As evidenced by the visual simulations, there are no views to the ocean through the balustrade, views of motorists traveling at 55 mph would be blurred, and cyclists and pedestrians would also see through the openings.
  To the contrary, Caltrans presented no simulations to the Planning Commission whatsoever that support these contentions; instead, the photo images on which the simulations are grafted depict no origination points for bicyclists, motorists in typical vehicles (not high Caltrans trucks), or pedestrians while they traverse the bridge at their varied respective speeds. The experience of our members indicates that views through the existing balustrades to blue and white water are available from the northbound lane along the axis of Garrapata Creek and from the hill east of the bridge, looking seaward at a commensurate elevation.
• The EIR contains a thorough cumulative impact analysis of the Project.
  To the contrary, as discussed above, the EIR specifically contains an incomplete listing and analysis of the spectrum of comparable projects along Highway 1 that may likely have a significant adverse effect on protected visual quality and lateral public access. Speculative future environmental analysis or mitigation of other projects is inadmissible as substantial evidence.
• Caltrans has given extensive and exhaustive consideration of (sic) all of the options [alternatives] raised by the County and the public during the Caltrans bridge inspection process, environmental review, Caltrans Project programming, and Project design.
  6

Neither the Caltrans environmental document nor the Planning Commission record of proceedings contains substantial evidence (e.g., copies of writings, plans) that support this contention. The stated sequence of Caltrans consideration of alternatives to the Project is imaginary (e.g., Caltrans Highway 1 bridge inspections do not entail review of comments by local officials or the public).

• The Garrapata Bridge has experienced “gross deterioration”, including as described in a 2009 bridge inspection report (“BIR”).
  The 2009 BIR is outdated and not current substantial evidence; presumably Caltrans has – or should have — performed repairs and maintenance on the balustrade in the subsequent 14 years. Caltrans has failed to produce a copy of each bridge report/BIR on the Garrapata Bridge to the County to document the maintenance recommendations and performance of maintenance regarding this bridge.
• Replacement of the balustrade is the only repair strategy.
  Caltrans has not subjected the 86H Project to independent expert peer review. Based on the information in the record before the Planning Commission through March 8, 2023, it appears that the contention represents Caltrans’ wishes and strategy to avoid proper maintenance and repair of the bridge, rather than a fair, objective assessment of this obvious alternative approach, including, but not limited to, in light of the current State and federal mandates for maintenance and repairs to preserve existing transportation assets.
• Caltrans contends that the Planning Commission’s finding that “it is unclear if options for reduced speed zone and other traffic calming or control devices to induce lower speeds [or alternative balustrade designs] have been sufficiently explored in this case” is inaccurate and speculative.
  To the contrary, the referenced alternatives have been shown to be feasible in other instances, including where Caltrans has implemented them, and the LCP, CEQA, and NEPA require Caltrans to analyze the range of reasonable alternatives to the Project. The Commission’s finding is therefore accurate and lawful.
• The 86H rail is context-sensitive and compatible with the historic character of the Garrapata Creek Bridge and the Carmel-San Simeon Highway Historic district.
  To the contrary, the proposed Project balustrade constitutes a quantitatively significant, environmentally significantly adverse departure from the architecture and visual accessibility of the existing bridge balustrade, as well as of the other historic (-eligible) bridges in the Historic Highway District.
• The Planning Commission’s identified purpose of the ≤6-inch opening in the lower 27-inches of each view window is inaccurate and misleading.
  A fair, objective reading of Caltrans’ response, all its verbiage notwithstanding, indicates that the finding accurately summarizes the here relevant underlying reason previously given by Caltrans for wanting to constrict the portal by which the public can obtain site-specific visual access from and through the bridge to the area’s protected Big Sur viewshed. Continued maintenance and repairs, as needed, and reduced vehicle speeds over the bridge would avoid Caltrans’ becoming mired in the MASH requirements for new bridge construction.
  7
• Caltrans will be creating an historic Big Sur bridges interpretive website to serve as a cultural resource mitigation measure.
  Such proposed “mitigation” is neither related nor proportionate to the identified significant direct and cumulative adverse impacts of the Project on protected visual access to the protected viewshed/highly scenic area, nor in the public interest as defined in the Big Sur LCP, and therefore unreasonable and void ab initio.
• Caltrans contends that the Commission’s finding regarding the relationship of the denied Project to the health and safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the bridge, or in the County, “is not true and is not supported by evidence”.
  To the contrary, the Caltrans safety analyses associated with the Project do not address the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the bridge, or in the County.
• In opposition to the Commission’s finding, the Garrapata bridge rails have not remained in their current configuration because of “gross deterioration”.
  Caltrans provided no disclosed copy of the as-built balustrade or any subsequent repair, maintenance, or replacement of any baluster, railing, or curb/bump stop to the Planning Commission that documents any change in the layout, design, or position of any balustrade component over the time the bridge has been in existence. Spalling, fracturing, and similar changed in situ conditions – all of which can be repaired or replaced in situ – do not constitute a change in configuration of the balustrade, or of its end posts.
• Denial of the Project is in conflict with State law.
  Caltrans errs in its incomplete summary of applicable laws to highway development in the coastal zone. The Garrapata Bridge is located in the coastal zone, where the Coastal Act requires that “All public agencies [reference to federal agencies omitted] shall comply with the provisions” of the Coastal Act, including, as here, the certified Big Sur LCP and the Coastal Act public access standards. (PRC § 30003.) In addition, the CDP requirement is in addition to any other permit requirement. (PRC §30600(a).)
• Denial of the Project is in conflict with the Coastal Act and Monterey County’s public access policies and would directly increase the chances that Caltrans must close or restrict use of State Route 1 in the Garrapata Creek Bridge area.
  Caltrans proposes to stand the Coastal Act and the LCP on their respective heads, to avoid their requirements. First, Caltrans has an affirmative duty under the Coastal act to ”Protect, maintain, and, where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial [human-built] resources. Second, as discussed above, the Project would remove the improved lateral public pedestrian accessway from the bridge to install the proposed 86H balustrade, and thus not maximize public access for all the people, inconsistent with PRC § 30210. Third, as also discussed above, the Project would substantially decrease and otherwise degrade visual public access through the balustrade to the subject area of the protected viewshed.
• Denial of the Project is in conflict with Monterey County’s public safety policies.
  8

The references to LUP Policies 4.1.2.1. and 6.1.4.6 to support this contention are misplaced. Policy 4.1.2.1 by its own terms requires Highway 1 safety improvements to “be consistent with its retention as a scenic two-lane road”. However, the Project, as discussed above, would substantially blind that scenic quality in terms of its visual accessibility through the 86H balustrade, which constitutes the first (foreground) plane of sight for many persons who cross the bridge on foot, by bicycle, or by personal motor vehicles. Policy 6.1.4.6, to the extent that it applies to the State of California (if the State owns the subject right of way, a fact not supported by substantial evidence in Caltrans’ CDP application materials for PLN 220090), implements PRC § 30214, which by its own terms provides that it shall not be construed as a limitation on the rights guaranteed to the public under Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution, which appears to render this LCP Policy inapplicable to the Project.
Like all sensible people, the Albion Bridge Stewards support highway safety, and are also mindful that advances in vehicle design, such as collision impact avoidance, and speed controls function toward that end.
In short, Caltrans has not met the burden of proof that public safety at the Garrapata Bridge requires abandonment of public pedestrian lateral access over it and substantially reduced and degraded visual access through its balustrade.

5. Conclusion and Request. Caltrans has plainly failed to demonstrate with requisite specificity, requisite substantial evidence, or reference to requisite substantial evidence that

• the project environmental document(s) are complete and sufficient to analyze all direct and cumulative significant effects of the Project on the environment, and that no feasible alternatives exist that would mitigate them (by avoidance or reasonable compensatory actions); and,
• its appeal to your Board of the Planning Commission’s action to deny CDP application 220090 was unjustified or inappropriate because of a lack of substantial evidence for it, or that it was contrary to law. (LCP Implementation Plan Coastal Zoning Code §§ 20.86.040.C, 20.86.040.D, and 20.86.040.E.)
  We therefore respectfully request the Board to affirm the denial decision of CDP application PLN 220090. (LCP Implementation Plan Coastal Zoning Code § 20.86.070.D.)
  Thank you for your consideration.
  Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Albion Bridge Stewards (by authorized electronic signature):
  Tom Wodetzki Jim Heid Ali van Zee
  c: district1@co.monterey.ca.us ; district2@co.monterey.ca.us ; district3@co.monterey.ca.us district4@co.monterey.ca.us ; district5@co.monterey.ca.us ; phil.angelo@ co.monterey.ca.us
  9

************************************************

The following are photos submitted as attachments to Martha Diehl’s letter (reproduced in full in the comments section). Comments do not provide for including photos, so I am putting them here.