Mendocino County Grand Jury
• 2007-2008
Kafka Goes Coastal Amending the Fort Bragg Local Coastal Progam a report of the
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 34 findings
F1
LCPs are basic planning tools used by local governments to guide development in the coastal zone. They contain ground rules for development and protection of coastal resources.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
An LCP includes a land use plan (LUP), which may be relevant parts of a local general plan (GP) and an implementation plan (IP, also known as a Land Use Development Code or LUDC). The IP consists of relevant zoning codes, maps and other legal instruments required to implement the LUP.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Local or County governments cannot legally apply an LCP or amendments to an LCP prior to certification by the CCC.4 An LCP is not deemed certified until all four of the following steps have been completed: • a local or County government has formally adopted the LUP and IP/LUDC; • the Coastal Commission has certified the LCP as being in compliance with Coastal Act policies; • the local government agency has formally accepted the Commission's approval, along with any suggested modifications adopted by the Commission; and • the CCC has filed a Notice of Certification with the State Resources Agency. 4Public Resources Code §30514 may be accessed at www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
pursue certification of the pending amended Local Coastal Program with all due diligence to ensure that it is: • certified at the July 11, 2008 CCC meeting, and • the CCC files a Notice of Certification with the State Resources Agency. (Findings 3-4, 15, 31, 33-34)
R3
join with the County of Mendocino and with the consortium of coastal cities to demand that the California Coastal Commission: • establish clear guidelines and streamline the process for review and amendment of LCPs • provide timelines that specify required CCC response times both for the LCP amendment process and for applicants whose projects are subjected to the CCC appeals process. (Findings 3-8, 12-13, 28-29, 33-34) Comments The City of Fort Bragg was not well served by Coastal Commission staff. Prevailing CCC regulations and processes are complex and poorly articulated. This, however, does not excuse the deliberate and persistent application of the uncertified LCP to local development permit applications by the Community Development Department. Jurors found substantial evidence that the Community Development Director failed to keep the City Council accurately informed about the status of the LCP amendment application and that most, if not all, Council Members were unaware that the uncertified LCP was being applied until this was brought to their attention by members of the public in April 2006. After a long and onerous process, the amended LCP now appears to be on its way to effective certification in July 2008, five years after the initial application was submitted. Even now, at least one substantive issue remains unresolved that will require further amendment. The loss of the Hazelwood Townhouses appears irrevocable. The Coastal Commission was established ostensibly to protect the coastal environment, not to preclude human habitation and necessary development. Although periodic review of Local Coastal Programs is required by law, it is effectively precluded by Byzantine rules and a process of implementation that is nothing short of Kafkaesque. Addressing malfunctioning State government entities is beyond the purview of County Grand Juries. We cede this task to our elected officials and to county and local governing bodies throughout the State.
F4
Most development in the Coastal Zone requires a Coastal Development Permit (CDP).5 Once an LCP and its IP/LUDC have been effectively certified, authority for issuing Coastal Development Permits is vested in the local agency “…for developments landward of the mean high tide line.”6
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
pursue certification of the pending amended Local Coastal Program with all due diligence to ensure that it is: • certified at the July 11, 2008 CCC meeting, and • the CCC files a Notice of Certification with the State Resources Agency. (Findings 3-4, 15, 31, 33-34)
R3
join with the County of Mendocino and with the consortium of coastal cities to demand that the California Coastal Commission: • establish clear guidelines and streamline the process for review and amendment of LCPs • provide timelines that specify required CCC response times both for the LCP amendment process and for applicants whose projects are subjected to the CCC appeals process. (Findings 3-8, 12-13, 28-29, 33-34) Comments The City of Fort Bragg was not well served by Coastal Commission staff. Prevailing CCC regulations and processes are complex and poorly articulated. This, however, does not excuse the deliberate and persistent application of the uncertified LCP to local development permit applications by the Community Development Department. Jurors found substantial evidence that the Community Development Director failed to keep the City Council accurately informed about the status of the LCP amendment application and that most, if not all, Council Members were unaware that the uncertified LCP was being applied until this was brought to their attention by members of the public in April 2006. After a long and onerous process, the amended LCP now appears to be on its way to effective certification in July 2008, five years after the initial application was submitted. Even now, at least one substantive issue remains unresolved that will require further amendment. The loss of the Hazelwood Townhouses appears irrevocable. The Coastal Commission was established ostensibly to protect the coastal environment, not to preclude human habitation and necessary development. Although periodic review of Local Coastal Programs is required by law, it is effectively precluded by Byzantine rules and a process of implementation that is nothing short of Kafkaesque. Addressing malfunctioning State government entities is beyond the purview of County Grand Juries. We cede this task to our elected officials and to county and local governing bodies throughout the State.
F5
Depending on the type and location of a permitted project, it may or may not be subject to appeal to the Coastal Commission. With the exception of major public works and energy projects, denials by local government are not subject to appeal to the Coastal Commission and may only be challenged through the courts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
join with the County of Mendocino and with the consortium of coastal cities to demand that the California Coastal Commission: • establish clear guidelines and streamline the process for review and amendment of LCPs • provide timelines that specify required CCC response times both for the LCP amendment process and for applicants whose projects are subjected to the CCC appeals process. (Findings 3-8, 12-13, 28-29, 33-34) Comments The City of Fort Bragg was not well served by Coastal Commission staff. Prevailing CCC regulations and processes are complex and poorly articulated. This, however, does not excuse the deliberate and persistent application of the uncertified LCP to local development permit applications by the Community Development Department. Jurors found substantial evidence that the Community Development Director failed to keep the City Council accurately informed about the status of the LCP amendment application and that most, if not all, Council Members were unaware that the uncertified LCP was being applied until this was brought to their attention by members of the public in April 2006. After a long and onerous process, the amended LCP now appears to be on its way to effective certification in July 2008, five years after the initial application was submitted. Even now, at least one substantive issue remains unresolved that will require further amendment. The loss of the Hazelwood Townhouses appears irrevocable. The Coastal Commission was established ostensibly to protect the coastal environment, not to preclude human habitation and necessary development. Although periodic review of Local Coastal Programs is required by law, it is effectively precluded by Byzantine rules and a process of implementation that is nothing short of Kafkaesque. Addressing malfunctioning State government entities is beyond the purview of County Grand Juries. We cede this task to our elected officials and to county and local governing bodies throughout the State.
F6
When a locally approved CDP is appealed, the Coastal Commission has 49 days to hold a hearing. At a minimum, it must determine whether or not the local approval raises a substantial issue with respect to consistency with the policies of the certified LCP.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
join with the County of Mendocino and with the consortium of coastal cities to demand that the California Coastal Commission: • establish clear guidelines and streamline the process for review and amendment of LCPs • provide timelines that specify required CCC response times both for the LCP amendment process and for applicants whose projects are subjected to the CCC appeals process. (Findings 3-8, 12-13, 28-29, 33-34) Comments The City of Fort Bragg was not well served by Coastal Commission staff. Prevailing CCC regulations and processes are complex and poorly articulated. This, however, does not excuse the deliberate and persistent application of the uncertified LCP to local development permit applications by the Community Development Department. Jurors found substantial evidence that the Community Development Director failed to keep the City Council accurately informed about the status of the LCP amendment application and that most, if not all, Council Members were unaware that the uncertified LCP was being applied until this was brought to their attention by members of the public in April 2006. After a long and onerous process, the amended LCP now appears to be on its way to effective certification in July 2008, five years after the initial application was submitted. Even now, at least one substantive issue remains unresolved that will require further amendment. The loss of the Hazelwood Townhouses appears irrevocable. The Coastal Commission was established ostensibly to protect the coastal environment, not to preclude human habitation and necessary development. Although periodic review of Local Coastal Programs is required by law, it is effectively precluded by Byzantine rules and a process of implementation that is nothing short of Kafkaesque. Addressing malfunctioning State government entities is beyond the purview of County Grand Juries. We cede this task to our elected officials and to county and local governing bodies throughout the State.
F7
If no substantial issue is found, the local approval stands; if the Commission determines that there is a substantial issue, there is no limit on how long it can take to hold a full de novo hearing.7
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
join with the County of Mendocino and with the consortium of coastal cities to demand that the California Coastal Commission: • establish clear guidelines and streamline the process for review and amendment of LCPs • provide timelines that specify required CCC response times both for the LCP amendment process and for applicants whose projects are subjected to the CCC appeals process. (Findings 3-8, 12-13, 28-29, 33-34) Comments The City of Fort Bragg was not well served by Coastal Commission staff. Prevailing CCC regulations and processes are complex and poorly articulated. This, however, does not excuse the deliberate and persistent application of the uncertified LCP to local development permit applications by the Community Development Department. Jurors found substantial evidence that the Community Development Director failed to keep the City Council accurately informed about the status of the LCP amendment application and that most, if not all, Council Members were unaware that the uncertified LCP was being applied until this was brought to their attention by members of the public in April 2006. After a long and onerous process, the amended LCP now appears to be on its way to effective certification in July 2008, five years after the initial application was submitted. Even now, at least one substantive issue remains unresolved that will require further amendment. The loss of the Hazelwood Townhouses appears irrevocable. The Coastal Commission was established ostensibly to protect the coastal environment, not to preclude human habitation and necessary development. Although periodic review of Local Coastal Programs is required by law, it is effectively precluded by Byzantine rules and a process of implementation that is nothing short of Kafkaesque. Addressing malfunctioning State government entities is beyond the purview of County Grand Juries. We cede this task to our elected officials and to county and local governing bodies throughout the State.
F8
The only recourse in the event of a contested CCC decision is to the courts. The City of Fort Bragg LCP Amendment Application
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
join with the County of Mendocino and with the consortium of coastal cities to demand that the California Coastal Commission: • establish clear guidelines and streamline the process for review and amendment of LCPs • provide timelines that specify required CCC response times both for the LCP amendment process and for applicants whose projects are subjected to the CCC appeals process. (Findings 3-8, 12-13, 28-29, 33-34) Comments The City of Fort Bragg was not well served by Coastal Commission staff. Prevailing CCC regulations and processes are complex and poorly articulated. This, however, does not excuse the deliberate and persistent application of the uncertified LCP to local development permit applications by the Community Development Department. Jurors found substantial evidence that the Community Development Director failed to keep the City Council accurately informed about the status of the LCP amendment application and that most, if not all, Council Members were unaware that the uncertified LCP was being applied until this was brought to their attention by members of the public in April 2006. After a long and onerous process, the amended LCP now appears to be on its way to effective certification in July 2008, five years after the initial application was submitted. Even now, at least one substantive issue remains unresolved that will require further amendment. The loss of the Hazelwood Townhouses appears irrevocable. The Coastal Commission was established ostensibly to protect the coastal environment, not to preclude human habitation and necessary development. Although periodic review of Local Coastal Programs is required by law, it is effectively precluded by Byzantine rules and a process of implementation that is nothing short of Kafkaesque. Addressing malfunctioning State government entities is beyond the purview of County Grand Juries. We cede this task to our elected officials and to county and local governing bodies throughout the State.
F9
The original City of Fort Bragg LCP was completed and certified in 1983/85.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
The Fort Bragg City Council adopted a new General Plan in December 2002, including an updated Coastal Element.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
In May 2003, the City of Fort Bragg Community Development Director submitted to the Coastal Commission an application for comprehensive amendments to the City’s LCP. This submission did not include amendments to the Implementation Plan.8
No recommendations for this finding
F12
The CCC responded eight months later (1/29/04), acknowledging receipt of LCP amendment application # FTB-MAJ-1-03. The CCC requested extensive revisions in format and content, and additional information, including a required Resolution from the Fort Bragg City Council, a completed matrix showing changes to the original LCP, and corrected maps.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
join with the County of Mendocino and with the consortium of coastal cities to demand that the California Coastal Commission: • establish clear guidelines and streamline the process for review and amendment of LCPs • provide timelines that specify required CCC response times both for the LCP amendment process and for applicants whose projects are subjected to the CCC appeals process. (Findings 3-8, 12-13, 28-29, 33-34) Comments The City of Fort Bragg was not well served by Coastal Commission staff. Prevailing CCC regulations and processes are complex and poorly articulated. This, however, does not excuse the deliberate and persistent application of the uncertified LCP to local development permit applications by the Community Development Department. Jurors found substantial evidence that the Community Development Director failed to keep the City Council accurately informed about the status of the LCP amendment application and that most, if not all, Council Members were unaware that the uncertified LCP was being applied until this was brought to their attention by members of the public in April 2006. After a long and onerous process, the amended LCP now appears to be on its way to effective certification in July 2008, five years after the initial application was submitted. Even now, at least one substantive issue remains unresolved that will require further amendment. The loss of the Hazelwood Townhouses appears irrevocable. The Coastal Commission was established ostensibly to protect the coastal environment, not to preclude human habitation and necessary development. Although periodic review of Local Coastal Programs is required by law, it is effectively precluded by Byzantine rules and a process of implementation that is nothing short of Kafkaesque. Addressing malfunctioning State government entities is beyond the purview of County Grand Juries. We cede this task to our elected officials and to county and local governing bodies throughout the State.
F13
On July 30, 2004, the FB City Council adopted the new Land Use and Development Code to implement the 2002 General Plan; sections 5 In mapped areas, Categorical Exclusion Orders exempt single-family homes, water wells, septic systems and/or other specified types of development from CCC appeal. Fort Bragg has no mapped Exclusion areas. Although local agencies may opt to exercise coastal development permit authority, subject to appeal to the CCC following certification of only an LUP, only the City of Los Angeles has exercised this option. In a de novo hearing, prior testimony and the findings of local authorities are not considered. The entire process begins anew. During the period covered by this report, Fort Bragg employed three Community Development Directors. The first Community Development Director served as CDD from 1999 through 2005 and became City Manager in January
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
join with the County of Mendocino and with the consortium of coastal cities to demand that the California Coastal Commission: • establish clear guidelines and streamline the process for review and amendment of LCPs • provide timelines that specify required CCC response times both for the LCP amendment process and for applicants whose projects are subjected to the CCC appeals process. (Findings 3-8, 12-13, 28-29, 33-34) Comments The City of Fort Bragg was not well served by Coastal Commission staff. Prevailing CCC regulations and processes are complex and poorly articulated. This, however, does not excuse the deliberate and persistent application of the uncertified LCP to local development permit applications by the Community Development Department. Jurors found substantial evidence that the Community Development Director failed to keep the City Council accurately informed about the status of the LCP amendment application and that most, if not all, Council Members were unaware that the uncertified LCP was being applied until this was brought to their attention by members of the public in April 2006. After a long and onerous process, the amended LCP now appears to be on its way to effective certification in July 2008, five years after the initial application was submitted. Even now, at least one substantive issue remains unresolved that will require further amendment. The loss of the Hazelwood Townhouses appears irrevocable. The Coastal Commission was established ostensibly to protect the coastal environment, not to preclude human habitation and necessary development. Although periodic review of Local Coastal Programs is required by law, it is effectively precluded by Byzantine rules and a process of implementation that is nothing short of Kafkaesque. Addressing malfunctioning State government entities is beyond the purview of County Grand Juries. We cede this task to our elected officials and to county and local governing bodies throughout the State.
F14
On April 11, 2005, the FB City Council approved Resolution number 2857-2005, as requested by the CCC in January 2004, to transmit the LCP to the CCC for certification. This resolution states that the LCP amendments take effect “automatically upon Coastal Commission approval.” The Grand Jury found no evidence that the Resolution was sent.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
On April 13, 2006, during Public Expression, it was called to the City Council’s attention that any amended LCP may not take effect in the City until it has been certified by the CCC and that “…any attempt by the City to impose the new Local Coastal Plan on a project prior to its certification would be contrary to law.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
publicly apologize to and refund all fees collected from any and all applicants who were affected by having a mix of certified and uncertified code applied to their projects. (Findings 15, 17-18, 20-26)
F16
On May 15, 2006, the City submitted a revised LCP amendment application to CCC including the December 2002 Coastal Element, amendments from November 2004, and the July 2004 LUDC.
No recommendations for this finding
F17
On May 22, the City Manager informed the City Council that: • the City used uncertified code to review applications in the coastal zone; • in the future, Staff will apply only the certified LCP; • she had reviewed 31 recent applications and “…did not find any instances where an applicant appears to have been harmed by the advice given.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
publicly apologize to and refund all fees collected from any and all applicants who were affected by having a mix of certified and uncertified code applied to their projects. (Findings 15, 17-18, 20-26)
F18
The Grand Jury reviewed the 31 applications and related documents. Jurors found that at least one applicant was harmed by having a mix of certified and uncertified code applied to his application to develop 40 units of affordable housing in the coastal zone. The numerous demands placed on this application constituted an effective denial of the project. The Hazelwood Townhouse Project
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
publicly apologize to and refund all fees collected from any and all applicants who were affected by having a mix of certified and uncertified code applied to their projects. (Findings 15, 17-18, 20-26)
F19
In a letter dated May 5, 2004, the Community Development Director acknowledged the March 25th receipt of applications for a Use Permit, Coastal Development Permit and Site and Architectural Review to authorize construction of 40 units of affordable housing. The letter also acknowledged receipt of a $1,500 deposit to the project’s development account.
No recommendations for this finding
F20
The May 5, 2004 letter informed the applicant that the project plans had been reviewed on April 9, 2004 and additional information was required to complete the application and schedule it for a Planning Commission hearing. This information included: • a traffic and parking study and a turn-around on Hazelwood Street • location and size of playgrounds and specifications for play equipment • a drainage analysis • an archaeological records search • refinement of the landscaping plan to ensure security and minimize vandalism • refinement of lighting plan • screening of garbage enclosures, fire check valves, PG&E junction boxes, etc.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
publicly apologize to and refund all fees collected from any and all applicants who were affected by having a mix of certified and uncertified code applied to their projects. (Findings 15, 17-18, 20-26)
F21
In a subsequent letter dated November 4, 2004, the Community Development Director invited a status report on the project and advised the applicant that “…the City Council adopted a new set of zoning regulations for Fort Bragg that took effect on July 30, 2004. The newly adopted Land Use and Development Code (LUDC) includes standards that will affect your project plans. Since your application was not complete at the time the new LUDC took effect, it is subject to the new development standards.” Areas specified as potentially requiring re-design included: • parking and loading • building frontages, setbacks, “common” and “private” open space • outdoor lighting • bicycle and motorcycle parking • landscaping standards
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
publicly apologize to and refund all fees collected from any and all applicants who were affected by having a mix of certified and uncertified code applied to their projects. (Findings 15, 17-18, 20-26)
F22
At the time of the November letter, the Community Development Director had not yet submitted the July 30, 2004 LUDC to the Coastal Commission for certification. It was not legally applicable to any development permit application in the coastal zone. Nonetheless, a mix of certified and uncertified code was applied to this project and to other applications. This practice continued at least through May of 2006.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
publicly apologize to and refund all fees collected from any and all applicants who were affected by having a mix of certified and uncertified code applied to their projects. (Findings 15, 17-18, 20-26)
F23
In a letter to the Fort Bragg City Council dated May 22, 2006, the Applicant’s Attorney observes: “…At this point, (my client) has spent more than $50,000 on reports and consultants, only to have his project effectively denied without a hearing. In my opinion, the Community Development Department should be trying to find ways to recommend approval of (affordable housing) projects such as this, not subject them to a slow ‘death by a thousand cuts’ until the applicant can no longer afford to build.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
publicly apologize to and refund all fees collected from any and all applicants who were affected by having a mix of certified and uncertified code applied to their projects. (Findings 15, 17-18, 20-26)
F24
Minutes of the June 19, 2006 Community Development Committee reflect a recommendation from the Development Director that because the Hazelwood Townhouse project was subjected to a mix of codes, all or part of the $1,500 development deposit should be restored to the project account. The committee agreed to refund the full amount to the account.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
publicly apologize to and refund all fees collected from any and all applicants who were affected by having a mix of certified and uncertified code applied to their projects. (Findings 15, 17-18, 20-26)
F25
Minutes of the August 28, 2006 City Council refer to another scheduled meeting with the applicant and state that “…it is the consensus of the City Council that staff is to continue to use the Certified LCP.” Nonetheless, several provisions of the uncertified LCP are cited as also being applicable to the project.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
publicly apologize to and refund all fees collected from any and all applicants who were affected by having a mix of certified and uncertified code applied to their projects. (Findings 15, 17-18, 20-26)
F26
From November 2007 through February 2008, the Grand Jury researched the course of the LCP amendment application and that of the failed Hazelwood Townhouse development application. Despite termination of this application, fees collected from the applicant remain in an inactive development account. The LCP Saga Continues
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
publicly apologize to and refund all fees collected from any and all applicants who were affected by having a mix of certified and uncertified code applied to their projects. (Findings 15, 17-18, 20-26)
F27
In September 2006, the current Community Development Director assumed her position and began regular dialogue with the CCC.
No recommendations for this finding
F28
In a letter dated November 15, 2006, the CCC confirms that the LCP amendment application is complete and can be processed. For the ensuing year, CCC staff and the Community Development Director communicate regularly regarding a multitude of corrections and “friendly amendments” to the application.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
join with the County of Mendocino and with the consortium of coastal cities to demand that the California Coastal Commission: • establish clear guidelines and streamline the process for review and amendment of LCPs • provide timelines that specify required CCC response times both for the LCP amendment process and for applicants whose projects are subjected to the CCC appeals process. (Findings 3-8, 12-13, 28-29, 33-34) Comments The City of Fort Bragg was not well served by Coastal Commission staff. Prevailing CCC regulations and processes are complex and poorly articulated. This, however, does not excuse the deliberate and persistent application of the uncertified LCP to local development permit applications by the Community Development Department. Jurors found substantial evidence that the Community Development Director failed to keep the City Council accurately informed about the status of the LCP amendment application and that most, if not all, Council Members were unaware that the uncertified LCP was being applied until this was brought to their attention by members of the public in April 2006. After a long and onerous process, the amended LCP now appears to be on its way to effective certification in July 2008, five years after the initial application was submitted. Even now, at least one substantive issue remains unresolved that will require further amendment. The loss of the Hazelwood Townhouses appears irrevocable. The Coastal Commission was established ostensibly to protect the coastal environment, not to preclude human habitation and necessary development. Although periodic review of Local Coastal Programs is required by law, it is effectively precluded by Byzantine rules and a process of implementation that is nothing short of Kafkaesque. Addressing malfunctioning State government entities is beyond the purview of County Grand Juries. We cede this task to our elected officials and to county and local governing bodies throughout the State.
F29
Shortly before the December 14, 2007 meeting of the CCC, at which Fort Bragg's LCP Amendment No. FTB-MAJ-1-06 was scheduled for discussion, Fort Bragg received a lengthy CCC staff report in which staff noted that despite considerable improvements to the application, further recommended changes were "numerous." The CCC staff report with addenda totaled approximately 1,000 pages. Some of the changes suggested in the report were "friendly modifications" requested by the City; a majority were proposed by the CCC. The CCC postponed all discussion from its December meeting to January 11, 2008. This was just prior to the January 29, 2008 deadline for the CCC to act on Fort Bragg's application.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
join with the County of Mendocino and with the consortium of coastal cities to demand that the California Coastal Commission: • establish clear guidelines and streamline the process for review and amendment of LCPs • provide timelines that specify required CCC response times both for the LCP amendment process and for applicants whose projects are subjected to the CCC appeals process. (Findings 3-8, 12-13, 28-29, 33-34) Comments The City of Fort Bragg was not well served by Coastal Commission staff. Prevailing CCC regulations and processes are complex and poorly articulated. This, however, does not excuse the deliberate and persistent application of the uncertified LCP to local development permit applications by the Community Development Department. Jurors found substantial evidence that the Community Development Director failed to keep the City Council accurately informed about the status of the LCP amendment application and that most, if not all, Council Members were unaware that the uncertified LCP was being applied until this was brought to their attention by members of the public in April 2006. After a long and onerous process, the amended LCP now appears to be on its way to effective certification in July 2008, five years after the initial application was submitted. Even now, at least one substantive issue remains unresolved that will require further amendment. The loss of the Hazelwood Townhouses appears irrevocable. The Coastal Commission was established ostensibly to protect the coastal environment, not to preclude human habitation and necessary development. Although periodic review of Local Coastal Programs is required by law, it is effectively precluded by Byzantine rules and a process of implementation that is nothing short of Kafkaesque. Addressing malfunctioning State government entities is beyond the purview of County Grand Juries. We cede this task to our elected officials and to county and local governing bodies throughout the State.
F30
On January 9, 2008, the City of Fort Bragg presented to the CCC a list of eleven substantive issues that remained unresolved.
No recommendations for this finding
F31
On January 11, 2008, the CCC voted to certify the City of Fort Bragg’s LCP Amendment with modifications. The CCC Executive Director was authorized to continue to work with the City to resolve outstanding issues and to modify the LCP without the need for further CCC review so long as the modifications were consistent with the Coastal Act.
No recommendations for this finding
F32
As of February 27, 2008, only four issues remained unresolved and the Council gave the Community Development Director authority to negotiate on these four points. Public workshops were then held in March and April.
No recommendations for this finding
F33
On May 12, 2008, the Fort Bragg City Council unanimously approved a resolution to adopt the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (Coastal General Plan) and the Coastal Land Use and Development Ordinance. Together these documents constitute the Amended Local Coastal Program. The City anticipates that this document will be certified as part of the CCC Consent Calendar on July 11, 2008. Sometime after final certification of the LCP, the City may submit a “clean up” amendment covering issues from the amendment process that were not resolved to the City’s satisfaction as well as any issues that may arise as the City implements the newly certified LCP.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
pursue certification of the pending amended Local Coastal Program with all due diligence to ensure that it is: • certified at the July 11, 2008 CCC meeting, and • the CCC files a Notice of Certification with the State Resources Agency. (Findings 3-4, 15, 31, 33-34)
R3
join with the County of Mendocino and with the consortium of coastal cities to demand that the California Coastal Commission: • establish clear guidelines and streamline the process for review and amendment of LCPs • provide timelines that specify required CCC response times both for the LCP amendment process and for applicants whose projects are subjected to the CCC appeals process. (Findings 3-8, 12-13, 28-29, 33-34) Comments The City of Fort Bragg was not well served by Coastal Commission staff. Prevailing CCC regulations and processes are complex and poorly articulated. This, however, does not excuse the deliberate and persistent application of the uncertified LCP to local development permit applications by the Community Development Department. Jurors found substantial evidence that the Community Development Director failed to keep the City Council accurately informed about the status of the LCP amendment application and that most, if not all, Council Members were unaware that the uncertified LCP was being applied until this was brought to their attention by members of the public in April 2006. After a long and onerous process, the amended LCP now appears to be on its way to effective certification in July 2008, five years after the initial application was submitted. Even now, at least one substantive issue remains unresolved that will require further amendment. The loss of the Hazelwood Townhouses appears irrevocable. The Coastal Commission was established ostensibly to protect the coastal environment, not to preclude human habitation and necessary development. Although periodic review of Local Coastal Programs is required by law, it is effectively precluded by Byzantine rules and a process of implementation that is nothing short of Kafkaesque. Addressing malfunctioning State government entities is beyond the purview of County Grand Juries. We cede this task to our elected officials and to county and local governing bodies throughout the State.
F34
After the Coastal Commission has certified the LCP as being in compliance with Coastal Act policies, and before the amended LCP may be applied to review of development permits in the City, the CCC must file a Notice of Certification with the State Resources Agency.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
pursue certification of the pending amended Local Coastal Program with all due diligence to ensure that it is: • certified at the July 11, 2008 CCC meeting, and • the CCC files a Notice of Certification with the State Resources Agency. (Findings 3-4, 15, 31, 33-34)
R3
join with the County of Mendocino and with the consortium of coastal cities to demand that the California Coastal Commission: • establish clear guidelines and streamline the process for review and amendment of LCPs • provide timelines that specify required CCC response times both for the LCP amendment process and for applicants whose projects are subjected to the CCC appeals process. (Findings 3-8, 12-13, 28-29, 33-34) Comments The City of Fort Bragg was not well served by Coastal Commission staff. Prevailing CCC regulations and processes are complex and poorly articulated. This, however, does not excuse the deliberate and persistent application of the uncertified LCP to local development permit applications by the Community Development Department. Jurors found substantial evidence that the Community Development Director failed to keep the City Council accurately informed about the status of the LCP amendment application and that most, if not all, Council Members were unaware that the uncertified LCP was being applied until this was brought to their attention by members of the public in April 2006. After a long and onerous process, the amended LCP now appears to be on its way to effective certification in July 2008, five years after the initial application was submitted. Even now, at least one substantive issue remains unresolved that will require further amendment. The loss of the Hazelwood Townhouses appears irrevocable. The Coastal Commission was established ostensibly to protect the coastal environment, not to preclude human habitation and necessary development. Although periodic review of Local Coastal Programs is required by law, it is effectively precluded by Byzantine rules and a process of implementation that is nothing short of Kafkaesque. Addressing malfunctioning State government entities is beyond the purview of County Grand Juries. We cede this task to our elected officials and to county and local governing bodies throughout the State.
Comments 1
-
CO1The City of Fort Bragg was not well served by Coastal Commission staff. Prevailing CCC regulations and processes are complex and poorly articulated. This, however, does not excuse the deliberate and persistent application of the uncertified LCP to local development permit applications by the Community Development Department. Jurors found substantial evidence that the Community Development Director failed to keep the City Council accurately informed about the status of the LCP amendment application and that most, if not all, Council Members were unaware that the uncertified LCP was being applied until this was brought to their attention by members of the public in April 2006. After a long and onerous process, the amended LCP now appears to be on its way to effective certification in July 2008, five years after the initial application was submitted. Even now, at least one substantive issue remains unresolved that will require further amendment. The loss of the Hazelwood Townhouses appears irrevocable. The Coastal Commission was established ostensibly to protect the coastal environment, not to preclude human habitation and necessary development. Although periodic review of Local Coastal Programs is required by law, it is effectively precluded by Byzantine rules and a process of implementation that is nothing short of Kafkaesque. Addressing malfunctioning State government entities is beyond the purview of County Grand Juries. We cede this task to our elected officials and to county and local governing bodies throughout the State.