San Clemente declares opposition to toll road through city
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on January 6, 2010 at 8:23 amFrom the O. C. Register:
“San Clemente to Commerce Department: No ramming a toll road into our town, OK?
The City Council, on a 5-0 vote Tuesday night, declared its opposition to any plan that might make San Clemente the end point for an extension of the Foothill (241) Toll Road.
Why the fuss: A year ago, when the U.S. Commerce Department rejected the Transportation Corridor Agencies’ appeal to allow the 241 to extend to San Onofre near Trestles Beach, the federal government cited what it called a viable alternative – run the road into San Clemente. … “
Read more from the O. C. Register by clicking here.
Note to readers: The San Onofre toll road controversy was covered by Aquafornia because the proposed alignment would have run close to the beach, so it was covered on Aquafornia under oceans & beaches news. The OCTCA has said recently that it was still evaluating options and was not ruling out another attempt to place the toll road through San Onofre State Beach. And so the story continues. Aquafornia will continue to cover the toll road in the regional news section.
Toll-road war isn’t over: As San Onofre highway project regroups, foes prepare for next battle
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on December 18, 2009 at 6:45 amFrom the San Diego Union Tribune:
“Thousands of people have signed petitions against extending a toll road through San Onofre State Beach. The California Coastal Commission has rejected the developer’s $1.3 billion proposal. And the U.S. Commerce Department shot it down a year ago today.
That hasn’t deterred the project’s leaders, who are quietly but actively angling for a breakthrough after spending about $200 million and more than 20 years on their mission to relieve traffic congestion for a growing southern Orange County. In the past 12 months, they’ve met with dozens of interest groups; visited military officials and lawmakers in Washington, D.C.; and set aside nearly $12 million to keep the issue alive.
“Throwing in the towel is not an option.” said Peter Herzog, mayor pro tem of Lake Forest and chairman of the developer, the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency. … “
Read more from the San Diego Union Tribune by clicking here.
O.C.’s road test: Rejection of the Foothill South toll road is a chance for a new path
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on March 10, 2009 at 4:24 amFrom the Los Angeles Times, this commentary by Bobby Shriver, member of the Santa Monica City Council and former chairman of the California State Park and Recreation Commission (and Schwarzenegger’s brother-in-law), and Joel Reynolds, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council:
It was a bad idea that deserved to die: the six-lane Foothill South toll road through a popular Orange County/San Diego County state park. It violated the principle that parkland is permanently protected. The California State Park and Recreation Commission and the California Coastal Commission rejected the toll road through San Onofre State Beach — no surprise there. But when the Bush administration also said no, the project’s fate was all but sealed.
There are real traffic problems in Orange County that the Foothill South toll road was meant to solve. But there are other ways to cure the congestion, alternatives that won’t destroy our quality of life or our natural resources.
There is also a roadblock to those alternatives: the Orange County Transportation Corridor Agencies, which dreamed up Foothill South and hasn’t yet publicly abandoned it.
Chartered by the state in 1986, the TCA exists to build roads and link freeways without, in theory, costing taxpayer dollars. It issues bonds, and its revenues come from toll roads. It is also virtually independent of oversight: It can propose, design, permit and operate the road projects it dreams up.
Not surprisingly, for decades the TCA has had only one response to Orange County’s traffic congestion: Build big toll roads. In getting its three projects up and running — the San Joaquin Hills, Eastern and Foothill North toll roads — the TCA ignored the environmental consequences. Ecological reserves, the last remaining open space in the region and even lands set aside for protection as mitigation for other development — all were targeted for toll-funded asphalt.
Read more of this commentary by clicking here.
O.C. traffic planners left wondering where to turn; Now that the federal government has rejected a proposed toll road extension through south Orange County, it’s back to square one
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on December 22, 2008 at 6:39 am
From the Los Angeles Times:
Once the dust settled from the U.S. Commerce Department’s refusal last week to back a proposed toll road extension through south Orange County, one thing became clear: Traffic planners have a problem.
Environmentalists who had railed against the proposed Foothill South route because of its potential effect on wetlands and San Onofre State Beach are clamoring for Interstate 5 to be widened instead. But no funding exists for that, and it would require bulldozing homes and businesses.
The Transportation Corridor Agencies, the group that wants to build the 16-mile turnpike to connect the existing 241 toll road to Interstate 5 in north San Diego County, said a group of federal and state agencies studied dozens of alternate routes, but the best one was shot down. “It would really be nice if someone would actually come up with something that worked for everyone,” said Tom E. Margro, chief executive of the Transportation Corridor Agencies, adding that he’s willing to meet with anti-road advocates.
The group is keeping its options wide open, Margro said, including not discarding its preferred route despite federal officials having upheld its veto by the Coastal Commission. The agency could sue the Commerce Department, reconvene federal and state agencies to choose a new route or do nothing. Deciding whether to pursue litigation, however, is the top priority, Margro said. “Nothing’s off the table at this point,” he said.
Read more from the Los Angeles Times by clicking here.
O.C. toll road hits dead end in D.C.; U.S. Commerce Department says toll road not in national interest and alternatives exist
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on December 19, 2008 at 6:35 amFrom the Los Angeles Times:
The federal government declined Thursday to breathe new life into a plan to carve a toll road through southern Orange County, apparently ending a contentious, years-long campaign by transportation officials who predict that without it, the current freeway system is destined for breakdown.
Unless they turn to the courts for relief, transportation officials in Orange County will be forced to reconceive plans to unlock the congested Interstate 5 through south Orange County, a stretch they predict will eventually become one of the worst freeway bottlenecks in Southern California. Planners must also determine how to complete the toll road system in Orange County, the only such network in the state.
Over the past several years, the fight over the toll road has grown from a parochial transportation feud into a battle that entangled the state’s top leaders. The route chosen by transportation officials would have cut a six-lane turnpike through a state park and skirted the sands of the famed Trestles surf break. That prospect galvanized environmental conservation and surfing groups who were joined by several prominent state officials in opposing the road.
On the other side, advocates hailed the proposed Foothill South toll road as the key to absorbing the traffic triggered by mushrooming development in southern Orange County and the steady truck traffic in and out of San Diego County. The road was decades in the planning, and dozens of routes were studied before planners picked the proposed 16-mile path.
In February, the California Coastal Commission rejected that route, but advocates hoped — and conservation groups feared — that the Bush Administration would step in to save it. But in its 28-page decision, the U.S. Commerce Department upheld the commission’s position.
Elizabeth Goldstein, president of the California State Parks Foundation and member of the Save San Onofre Coalition, issued the following statement in a press release on Market Watch:
“We agree with the sweeping decision by the U.S. Department of Commerce to uphold the California Coastal Commission’s February 2008 vote against the Foothill-South toll road. Today’s decision by the Bush Administration, which has not distinguished itself on environmental matters affecting California, means this project was so fundamentally flawed even a million-dollar lobbying blitz couldn’t save it.
“Today’s decision means that key federal and state agencies have both reached the same conclusion – this proposed toll road violates federal and state laws that protect our coast. The road would destroy the fifth most popular state park and would bring little short-term or long-term traffic relief to southern Orange County and northern San Diego County. Any assertion by the toll road advocates that this road is in the national interest is flatly false.
“Alternatives exist and it’s time they get explored fully and objectively. That’s another message from the U.S. Commerce Department to the politicians behind this toll road, and it should be heard.
An LA Times editorial calls the decision “surprising and refreshing” given the Bush administration’s environmental record:
One of the agency’s emptier contentions was that the proposed road linking south Orange County to northern San Diego County was vital to national security. It would have run along the northernmost rim of Camp Pendleton, on land leased to the state for the park. The federal report includes a smack-down of that claim, with Marine Corps officials saying that Pendleton is secure without such a road. The report also affirms the Coastal Commission’s power to decide issues that affect the coastal zone, even if the land involved is not strictly within that zone.
Most important, the Commerce Department reminds the toll road agency that there are reasonable alternatives to the route it chose, an option that the road’s planners have rejected. Their proposed route would have made the highway an unavoidable presence among the park’s backcountry trails, run close to a popular campground that was built as mitigation for the San Onofre nuclear plant, and bisected an ancient Native American village considered a sacred site by the Acjachemen people.
Breaking News: San Onofre toll road rejected; Federal agency sides with Coastal Commission
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on December 18, 2008 at 2:19 pmOne story we’ve been following on Aquafornia appears to be drawing to a close. From the San Diego Union-Tribune:
The Department of Commerce on Thursday upheld the California Coastal Commission’s rejection of a proposed 16-mile toll road extension that would cut through San Onofre State Beach, one of the state’s most popular parks.
Federal officials determined that lengthening state Route 241 is not essential to national security and mentioned at least one viable alternative path.
“The attorneys who did the staff work on it felt that the decision is a fairly clear-cut case,” said Anson Franklin, a spokesman for the Commerce Department in Washington, D.C. He said the ruling was the “last stop” for his agency, though proponents of the toll road could press the issue in court.
It was not immediately clear whether they would do so. A spokesman for the agency overseeing the project said its engineers are reviewing the decision and alternatives.
However, that may not matter as the credit crunch is affecting the firm’s ability to build the road, reports Bloomberg News:
…. the credit crunch may increase the cost of raising $1.1 billion to build the final link of the Foothill/Eastern toll roads. Plans to sell more bonds in 2010 might be scuttled altogether, said Ken Naehu, who manages $2 billion in fixed income at Bel Air Investment Advisors LLC in Los Angeles.
“It just might not be doable at these levels,” he said. “I’ve seen $150 million bonds that have had a difficult time selling to investors. You can imagine what it would be with another zero added to it.”
The Transportation Corridor Agencies, manager of Orange County’s toll roads for the state, used toll-backed bonds rather than tax money to finance construction in the 1990s. As more vehicles travel free roads, revenue is missing projections and the bonds’ value is declining, threatening their credit ratings.
The agency is seeking a $1.1 billion loan from the U.S. Transportation Department to refinance $4.24 billion of bond debt. Revenue in the year ended June 30 fell 0.9 percent to $193.8 million, 17 percent less than forecast.
The Los Angeles Times Outpost blog has comments from Joel Reynolds of the NRDC:
“The [Commerce] secretary’s decision confirms just how bad this project really is: Even the Bush administration, under pressure from all the lobbyists money can buy, has refused to endorse the toll road through San Onofre,” Joel Reynolds, an attorney representing the National Resources Defense Council, said in a statement.
“In my 30 years experience, I have never seen a project more deserving of rejection. The transportation agency lobbied 20 years for this toll road, spent billions of dollars on lobbyists, and were trying to shove the $1.1 billion for this road onto the shoulders of taxpayers already burdened by the economy.
“You simply couldn’t design a transportation project that does more harm to taxpayers and the environment and less good for congestion relief.”
Much more on this story to come, I’m sure.
Fate of Trestles, toll road project may soon be known
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on November 18, 2008 at 1:19 pm
From the Outposts Blog at the LA Times:
A U.S. Department of Commerce decision is expected soon regarding a controversial toll road extension that would slice through a portion of San Onofre State Beach, jeopardizing a pristine watershed that is home to endangered species, and also jeopardizing the famous Trestles surf breaks.
In case you missed it, the L.A. Times devoted nearly a page in Monday’s California edition outlining issues that have made the proposed project so contentious. Personally, I despise the idea as much as I despise heavy traffic.
What the story glossed over were the pros and cons of developing state parks.
Outdoors enthusiasts ought to oppose any project that sacrifices even a portion of any state park. Parks ought to be considered sacred ground and protected against all infringements of civilization.
Isn’t that the purpose behind them?
More from the Outposts Blog by clicking here.
The issues behind the San Onofre toll road plan
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on November 17, 2008 at 6:28 amFrom the Los Angeles Times:
The contentious proposal to extend a toll road 16 miles, part of that through San Onofre State Beach in northern San Diego County, has been moving slowly through the bureaucratic process for decades. The $1.3-billion road is intended to connect Rancho Santa Margarita in southern Orange County with Interstate 5 at Basilone Road just south of San Clemente.
The U.S. Department of Commerce is now considering whether to override the state Coastal Commission’s rejection of the project this year. Summarized below are key aspects of the dispute.
– Susannah Rosenblatt Environment
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a biological opinion in April, which concluded that although alternative routes would have a lesser effect, the road would be “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence” of at-risk species in the 2,107-acre state park. A coalition of environmental groups filed a federal lawsuit in August alleging that the agency’s opinion was flawed.
* Pro-road: Supporters say mitigation measures such as preserved and re-created habitat, wildlife crossings and scientific monitoring would help protect nine federally endangered or threatened species in the area. They point out that trestles and Interstate 5 already cross the San Mateo Creek watershed.
* Anti-road: Many conservationists consider San Onofre State Beach part of one of the last pristine watersheds in Southern California and say an extension of California 241 would encroach on critical habitat and put other state parks at risk.
Read more from the Los Angeles Times by clicking here.
Federal Highway Administration: Opponents report on toll road was flawed
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on October 29, 2008 at 6:12 amFrom the Los Angeles Times Bottleneck Blog:
A small development in the battle over the 241 toll road in southern Orange County: The Federal Highway Administration has found that a report submitted in opposition to the proposed Foothill South tollway was flawed.
The report said that it was possible to mitigate for traffic in the southern part of the county in the future by widening the 5 Freeway and making other street improvements. In essence, the FHA says the report by Smart Mobility on behalf of toll road opponents, used faulty reasoning to reach that conclusion.
The Transportation Corridor Agencies hailed the ruling was a victory. Why? That agency wants to build the toll road and they’re trying to persuade anyone who listens there is no practical alternative to the Foothill South toll road. In addition, TCA says that the Coastal Commission used the report as a reason to reject the Foothill South toll road’s route through San Onofre State Beach earlier this year.
Of course, the 5 Freeway was hardly the only factor in Coastal Commission’s 8 to 2 vote against the toll road. The commission’s staff found the toll road would have a range of detrimental environmental impacts. The commission’s decision is currently on appeal to the U.S. Department of Commerce and whether the new FHA finding makes a difference in Commerce’s decision remains to be seen.
Read more from the Bottleneck Blog by clicking here.
Southern California’s toll road to nowhere; The Foothill South project serves neither the state nor the nation and should be rejected by Washington, says editorial
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on October 8, 2008 at 6:42 amFrom the Los Angeles Times, this editorial:
The U.S. Commerce Department came, it saw (or at least heard), and now it gets to decide whether to allow the Foothill South toll road to be built even though the project was rejected by the state.
The Bush administration has displayed a generally hostile attitude toward public parks and environmental protection. So let this serve as a reminder that federal officials are not supposed to act as a second Coastal Commission in deciding the merits or demerits of the Foothill South. Their role is to determine solely whether the road is in the national interest.
This one’s easy. The Foothill South is a toll road to nowhere through San Onofre State Beach in northern San Diego County, a particularly popular state park that despite its name also includes a large portion of undeveloped inland canyon. The road would traverse the length of this rustic canyon and cut through a private nature preserve in south Orange County and an ancient Native American village that is still used for ceremonies. Because the toll would be costly and the road would divert commuters away from the employment centers to which they most commonly drive, its ability to substantially reduce traffic on a chronically congested section of Interstate 5 is questionable; on the toll road most similar to this project, the San Joaquin Hills, ridership remains low. What about this is in the national interest?
More of this editorial from the Los Angeles Times by clicking here.
Fate of O.C. toll road to be decided by Bush appointee; With public comment period closed, federal officials have begun compiling tens of thousands of written opinions
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on October 3, 2008 at 1:00 pmFrom the L.A. Times:
Thousands showed up to voice their opinions on a proposed toll road through a state park in north San Diego County; tens of thousands more have written to federal officials about the hotly debated project.
Now that the time for public comment has ended, the turnpike’s future rests not with Southern California residents or lawmakers, but with a member of President Bush’s cabinet.
U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez — who oversees international trade operations, economic development work, patents and the census — will have sole discretion over the 16 miles of California 241 intended to link Orange and San Diego counties and ease traffic on Interstate 5.
A jumble of state and federal coastal regulations has bounced the decades-long toll road battle from state to federal hands as the clock runs out on the current administration. The decision seems to have little precedent.
“There’s certainly nothing the least bit comparable to this case that one could took to for how the secretary might rule,” said Mark Delaplaine, a California Coastal Commission manager who specializes in energy, ocean resources and federal matters. “There’s really no case like it.”
Read more from the Los Angeles Times by clicking here.
The Foothill South toll road–in whose interest, exactly?
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on October 3, 2008 at 5:32 amFrom the LA Times ‘Opinion LA’ Blog:
The California Coastal Commission has already said no way. Now the fate of the proposed toll road lies with the Bush administration–and given the administration’s distaste for environmental protection and near-hostility toward parks, that can’t be a good thing for the “Save Trestles” crowd.
But the feds aren’t supposed to just decide based on how much they like the road. The criteria are supposed to be narrow–the road’s supporters are supposed to show that it’s in the national interest, overriding local and state interests.
The Transportation Corridor Agencies have come up with some creative arguments for why the road, which would travel the length of the inland canyon that’s also part of the state park, as well as running through a nature preserve in south Orange County, is in the national interest. Like it would make coastal access easier. Actually, I always thought coastal access was supposed to mean people’s ability to use the beach up to the high tide line, not to provide high-speed transit from, say, the desert. Another argument involved quick evacuation in case of an accident at the San Onofre nuclear plant. Not only has the plant been operating for decades without one, but it’s odd to think that residents of San Clemente, by far the closest community to the nuclear plant, would escape it by driving south to the entrance of the freeway.
Read how the Transportation Corridor Agencies framed the San Onofre toll road as in the national interest by clicking here.
Toll-road project debated as federal officials struggle to maintain order
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on September 23, 2008 at 6:31 amFrom the San Diego Union Tribune:
Two goals that Southern Californians hold dear – curtailing freeway gridlock and preserving the environment – collided yesterday during a 10-hour hearing in Del Mar about the proposed extension of state Route 241.
The 16-mile stretch of toll road probably would reduce traffic on Interstate 5 by creating an alternate connection between southern Orange County and San Diego County, but it would slice through a nature reserve and San Onofre State Beach.
The project has aroused fervent opposition from environmentalists, surfing groups and dozens of members of the state Legislature. It also has generated intense support from labor and business leaders, along with state officials such as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
More than 1,000 people showed up yesterday at the fairgrounds to give or hear testimony before the U.S. Department of Commerce. The agency is reviewing an appeal of the state Coastal Commission’s decision in February to reject the tollway proposal.
Many times during the federal hearing, the crowd’s reaction to a parade of more than 150 speakers was so raucous that Commerce Department officials had to repeatedly ask for order and quiet. “The large turnout speaks to the passion of park advocates, who see through the flimsy arguments for those who would build a highway through one of the state’s most popular parks,” said state Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego.
In his rebuttal, Jerry Amante, chairman of the Foothill-Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency, said the project is needed because traffic congestion in the region will worsen. “We cannot bury our heads in the sand and wish the problem away,” said Amante, whose agency wants to lengthen Route 241.
Read more from the San Diego Union Tribune by clicking here.
From the Los Angeles Times:
Advocates say the proposed $1.3-billion extension of California 241, which would slice through San Onofre State Beach and connect Rancho Santa Margarita with Interstate 5 in San Diego County, is needed to ease traffic congestion in growing south Orange County. They also argue that it would create jobs and provide an alternative transportation link in the event of wildfire or other disaster. “This project is essential to Southern California. It’s key to the economic well-being of Southern California,” said Art Leahy, chief executive of the Orange County Transportation Authority.
Opponents say the six-lane road would spoil one of California’s most popular parks, endanger animal species and ruin the world-famous Trestles surf break. “The immense harm from this road would far outweigh any alleged benefit,” said Jim Moriarty, chief executive of the Surfrider Foundation.
Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez has until Jan. 7 to render a decision. Read more from the Los Angeles Times by clicking here.
Debate over proposed San Onofre toll road to continue with appeal hearing
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on September 22, 2008 at 5:54 amFrom the Los Angeles Times:
Seven months after thousands poured into the Del Mar Fairgrounds for a raucous state Coastal Commission hearing on whether to build a 16-mile toll road through a state park in north San Diego County, both sides are set to be back at it today. Repeat or not, the stakes remain high. Advocates say the toll road is critical to untangling freeway congestion across the region, while opponents contend it will be ruinous to one of the state’s most popular coastal parks and famed surf spots.
The latest round in the byzantine battle is a much-anticipated 10-hour appeal hearing before an attorney with the U.S. Department of Commerce. The Commerce secretary can override the February decision by the Coastal Commission to reject plans for the tollway.
Although the setting is familiar and the players much the same, today’s reunion won’t end with a dramatic decision — Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez has until January to announce his determination. And unlike February’s lively gathering that some disparaged as a circus, federal officials have instituted strict rules on who is allowed to speak, and for how long; banned booing and cheering; and limited the size of signs — which can’t be waved — to 2 feet wide. Those restrictions notwithstanding, 657 people are registered to speak on the proposed turnpike, which has enraged environmentalists and rallied transportation planners from south Orange County to Washington, D.C.
What originated as a routine transportation scheme more than 20 years ago has mushroomed into an emotional debate about the demands of growth versus the importance of protecting parks.
“The impacts of this toll road project are monumental — it’s hard to fathom how big they really are,” said Elizabeth Goldstein, president of the nonprofit California State Parks Foundation. “This project has come to symbolize the threats that exist to our state parks,” she said. “Californians believe that when a park becomes a state park, that it’s protected forever. Despite that belief, this project has really brought into clear focus . . . that is not true.”
Read the rest of this article from the Los Angeles Times by clicking here. Coverage from the North County Times can be found by clicking here.
As hearing nears, toll road battle intensifies
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on September 21, 2008 at 7:52 amFrom the O.C. Register:
Both sides in the dispute over the proposed Foothill South toll road kept up the fight Friday as they prepared for a federal hearing at the Del Mar Fairgrounds on Monday.
The Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency released an opinion poll showing strong support in southern Orange County for the toll road project, a 16-mile extension of the 241 toll road that the agency says is needed to relieve future traffic congestion. The agency’s poll of 757 registered voters in South County showed 58 percent support for completion of the road. A second poll of 1,020 voters in northern San Diego County found 39 percent support and 46 percent undecided, with 15 percent opposed.
“When you talk to people who live in the area impacted by traffic on I-5, who would benefit from the 241, the support is very strong,” said tollway agency spokeswoman Jennifer Seaton.
Anti-tollway activists condemned the polls as “pure propaganda.” Earlier this month, toll road opponents released their own survey that showed strong opposition to the toll road and that was dismissed by the toll road agency as biased.
Read more from the O.C. Register by clicking here. More background information from the San Diego Union-Tribune by clicking here.
Toll Road Debate Rages On: The toll road issue again goes to a public hearing on Monday, as the federal government now hears the pros and cons on its construction
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on September 19, 2008 at 5:57 amFrom the San Clemente Times:
Its opponents are coming from as far as Washington state and some are carpooling from Monterey. Its proponents are select elected officials making the trek from Sacramento and other city government offices. The subject at hand: the proposed extension of the Foothill-South (241) Toll Road. For the second time this year, it’s the center of attention at a public hearing at the Del Mar Fairgrounds.
The battleground is a 16-mile stretch that would connect the 241 in Rancho Santa Margarita to Interstate 5 at Basilone Road. Opponents, including the Surfrider Foundation and the Sierra Club, say the road would be detrimental to the San Mateo Watershed, bisect San Onofre State Beach and threaten the surf break Trestles, which hosts premier international surf contests. Proponents, including the Transportation Corridor Agencies and elected officials, among them Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Congressman Ken Calvert and Supervisor Pat Bates, contend the road would give South County a much-needed reprieve from traffic and that its design and alignment is environmentally conscious to endangered species and the watershed.
Regardless of either side of the debate, which has been brewing publicly for about eight years with the Save Trestles campaign started by local activist Jerry Collamer and later adopted by Surfrider, it comes down to whether TCA can get key permits to build the four-lane highway in San Clemente’s backcountry. And in February, in front of more than 3,500 supporters and opponents, the California Coastal Commission voted 8-2 opposing it, concluding that the extension wasn’t in line with the Coastal Zone Management Act. The TCA swiftly appealed that decision, and now seven months later, the issue will be in front of the federal government.
No decision will be made at Monday’s hearing; instead, the arguments will heard by Jane Luxton, counsel for the NOAA, who will put the arguments in a file for U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez to review. A decision will be made by January 19, 2009. Read more from the San Clemente Times by clicking here.
The TCA doesn’t record its board meetings … but we do!
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on September 18, 2008 at 4:06 pmFrom Market Watch, this press release from the Save San Onofre Coalition:
The Save San Onofre Coalition today released nine short YouTube videos taken at Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) board meetings from February 2008 to the present. The videos were filmed because the TCA does not Webcast its meetings or provide transcripts or detailed minutes for its board meetings, despite the controversial issues and large financial matters at stake.
The videos shine a light on a number of issues, including the expenditure of nearly $1 million on lobbyist and public relations activities for the proposed Foothill-South Toll Road. The six-lane highway would bisect San Onofre State Beach, the 5th most popular state park, forcing the closure of the San Mateo campgrounds and threatening world-famous Trestles Surf Beach. The videos also showcase comments made by TCA directors and senior staff about a number of troubling events that raise questions about who’s running the toll road operations.
“It’s frustrating for the public that important information about how this agency functions and its decision-making process is so difficult to come by,” stated Mark Rauscher, assistant environmental director at the Surfrider Foundation. “The TCA should begin Webcasting its meetings immediately, and archiving these Webcasts on their Web site, just like the practice in a number of cities represented by the same politicians who sit on this toll road authority. The public has a right to know what the TCA is doing … what are they afraid of?”
Click here to read more from Market Watch, which includes links to the YouTube videos.
Dueling press releases: Transportation Corridor Agencies — Even toll road opponent push poll says Orange County supports completion of the 241 toll road
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on September 9, 2008 at 5:06 pmHere’s a press release that says just the opposite from one released earlier today (click here). From Market Watch:
A poll released by the California State Parks Foundation today found that 70% of Orange County residents have heard about plans to build a toll road to connect to the 241 south of San Clemente. Of those that have heard of the proposal, 51% support the project, 36% oppose the project and 11% don’t know.
According to the Transportation Corridor Agencies, the poll then goes on to ask inflammatory, misleading, false, and irrelevant questions to develop a conclusion that the more people learn about the project, the more likely they are to oppose it.
Q15 states: “The toll road would force the closure of most of the state’s fifth most visited park as well as its most popular campground.”
FACT: The route for the completion of the 241 does not require the closure of any campsites within the San Onofre State Park.– San Onofre State Beach park is on property owned by Camp Pendleton. The lease allows rights of way to be granted through portions of the park.
– The toll road will pass through the inland portion of the park. There will be no impact to the beach portions of the park that are used by most visitors.“Given the strong measures adopted by the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) to minimize noise impacts we believe the campground will remain enjoyable, accessible and open. There is no reason to believe San Mateo Campground will be negatively impacted by the SR241 project.” — Mike Chrisman, California Resources Secretary
Read more from this press release by clicking here.
So do the people of the O.C. want the toll road or not? Theoretically, both these press releases are referencing the same survey. I guess it depends on who you ask and how they interpret the data.
Survey shows Orange County voters remain strongly opposed to toll road through state park
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on September 9, 2008 at 1:27 pmFrom Market Watch:
A bipartisan team of pollsters, Dr. Jan van Lohuizen (Voter/Consumer Research) and David Binder (David Binder Research), today released new findings from an Orange County public opinion survey regarding the proposed Foothill South toll road through San Onofre State Beach. The survey research’s central finding reaffirms that a large majority of Orange County Voters surveyed (63 percent) opposes a toll road through the state park.
The updated survey illustrates that while Orange County voters may support toll roads, once they learn the implications of the proposed Foothill South Toll Road and the negative impact it would have on San Onofre State Beach, the more strongly they oppose it.
The findings show that, compared to a poll conducted by the same team of pollsters last year, there has been no erosion whatsoever in public opposition to the toll road, and indeed there is some additional movement of public opinion in Orange County against the road, though within the poll’s margin of error.
Equally important, when queried about the California Coastal Commission’s 8 to 2 vote against the toll road because of the environmental damage it would do the state park and the California coast, strong majorities oppose either the Commerce Department or the Bush Administration overturning the Coastal Commission’s decision.“We continue to see strong public opposition to the toll road,” stated Jan van Lohuizen. “This survey reconfirms that as the public learns more about the Transportation Corridor Agency’s plan to build the toll road through the state park, opposition (63 percent) to the proposed route continues to be overwhelming. Just as they did in 2007, Orange County voters still want an alternative.”
Read more from Market Watch by clicking here.
Report contradicts Orange County water quality study
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on September 4, 2008 at 6:29 amFrom the Los Angeles Times:
With a hearing to determine the fate of a proposed toll road through south Orange County a few weeks away, the agency backing the project issued a report Wednesday arguing that the new road would adequately protect water quality at San Onofre State Beach.
Plans proposed by the agency to protect the San Mateo Creek watershed and famous Trestles surf break from erosion and contaminated storm water “should do as good a job as needed,” said Derrick Coleman, a senior project manager with environmental consulting firm Tetra Tech. Coleman conducted the toll road agency-funded review.
“Is it going to stop runoffs? No,” he said. “Is it going to stop erosion? No, it can’t completely control that either. It’s going to be effective.”
Coleman described a damning water quality analysis funded by the Surfrider Foundation, an environmental group that opposes the 241 toll road extension, as deliberately confusing and “less than objective.”
The review by Tetra Tech is the latest salvo in the long-simmering controversy between toll road advocates arguing for traffic relief and conservationists concerned about the environmental effects of the $1.3-billion project.
Read more from the Los Angeles Times by clicking here.
LA/OC Construction Trades Council calls on the surf manufacturing industry to stop the lies: misinformation on SR 241 is killing jobs/harming regional economic growth
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 28, 2008 at 5:59 amFrom Market Watch, this press release:
The Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council (LA/OC CBCTC) this week sent a letter to the Surf Industry Manufacturers Association (SIMA) demanding that the organization stop funding a dishonest campaign aimed at stopping the construction of the State Route 241 toll road in Orange County. According to the LA/OC CBCTC, the lies being perpetrated by the opponents to this project are costing the region hundreds of jobs at a time when the economy is already in peril.
“SR 241 opponents, specifically the Surfrider Foundation and the Sierra Club’s Friends of the Foothills, are using SIMA resources to repeatedly assert false claims that the toll road will cause the closure of the San Mateo campground and damage the surf break at Trestles,” said Trades Council Executive Secretary Richard Slawson. “Their assertions are nonsense. Even a noted researcher at Scripps Institution of Oceanography has studied the project and determined that it will have no impact on surfing or wave formation.”
The foremost authority on State Parks in California, Secretary of Resources Mike Chrisman, wrote a letter to the California Coastal Commission last February making it clear that the San Mateo Campground will not close as a result of the completion of SR 241: “Recreational opportunities in the park (San Onofre State Beach) include the ocean, the beach, the trails and camping. There is no reason to believe San Mateo campground will be negatively impacted by the SR 241 project any more than passing trains or the movements of tens of thousands of cars and trucks on Interstate-5 have impacted the popularity of the Bluff Campgrounds.”
The recipients of the 2008 SIMA Environmental Fund Grants were honored Friday evening at the annual Waterman’s Ball at the St. Regis Hotel in Monarch Bay. Among the SIMA featured grant recipients were the Friends of the Foothills and the Surfrider Foundation for battling the expansion of the 241 toll road and the fight to save Trestles.
The goal of the Trades Council is to bring to the attention of SIMA the disingenuous activities of the very organizations they fund. According to the LA/OC CBCTC, rather than helping the environment and protecting surfing locations, they are engaged in a smear campaign that manipulates and distorts the facts in an effort to stop a project that has been studied for more than 20 years, will bring much needed traffic relief to the region and provide hundreds of jobs for the local workforce.
The Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building & Construction Trades Council is a representative association of Craft Local Unions and Councils representing 140,000 craftsmen and their families living and working throughout Los Angeles and Orange counties.
Read the text of the letter sent to the Surf Industry Manufacturers Association by clicking here.
New toll road hearing rules called ‘unprecedented’; opponents say it’s red-tape
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 27, 2008 at 7:50 amFrom the San Diego Union-Tribune:
The U.S. Department of Commerce yesterday said it will hold a public hearing on a divisive proposal for extending a toll road to connect San Diego and Orange counties. For months, environmentalists had urged the agency to hold the meeting. But now they’re infuriated because of rules that they said will discourage public participation.
The hearing is scheduled for 10:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. Sept. 22 at the Del Mar Fairgrounds. But not everyone is happy:
Environmentalists originally hailed yesterday’s announcement about the hearing, which is optional for the federal government. But their cheers quickly turned to jeers after they read four pages of requirements for the meeting, such as:
People who want to testify must send a request on paper. The letter must arrive no later than Sept. 12 at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Office of the General Counsel in Silver Spring, Md. No requests submitted by fax, voice mail or e-mail will be accepted.
Elected officials will have first priority for testifying, followed by representatives of organizations and American Indian tribes. Members of the general public will then be allowed to give testimony, but time constraints may limit the number of those speakers.
Such guidelines for a public hearing are “highly unusual if not unprecedented,” said Dan Silver of the Endangered Habitats League in Los Angeles. “They represent a red-tape barrier against the very public input they claim they desire.”
However, the Orange County Transportation Authority, who initially tried to maneuver to not have another public hearing, is now happy. “We look forward to telling our story,” a spokeswoman said.
Check out the full story at the San Diego Union Tribune by clicking here, Since this story was posted last evening, it already has 47 comments.
Toll road hearing rescheduled: Speakers must apply ahead
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 25, 2008 at 2:31 pmFrom the O.C. Register:
Federal officials will hold a public hearing on the proposed Foothill South toll road Sept. 22 in Del Mar, although people wishing to speak during the hearing must submit a written request 10 days earlier to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. …
Toll road builders say it is the last link the county’s network of toll roads, and is needed to relieve future traffic congestion.
Opponents, including environmental groups, say the road would take too great a toll on wildlife and natural habitat and shatter the atmosphere of a popular campground. They also worry that sediment from construction of the road could harm the famed Trestles surfing beach, although the tollway agency says there will be no effects on surf.
Toll road officials released a statement Monday saying they had been “anxiously” anticipating the hearing so that they can correct “distortion and misinformation.”
“The truth is that the completion of the 241 Toll Road is a critically needed route for the state’s economy, the public’s mobility and safety, and the quality of life that we all enjoy in Southern California,” the statement said.
More on this story from the O.C. Register by clicking here.
Environmental groups sue federal agencies over San Onofre toll road
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 15, 2008 at 6:28 amFrom the Los Angeles Times:
A coalition of environmental groups filed a federal lawsuit this week alleging that U.S. wildlife agencies violated endangered species protections in their support of the proposed toll road through San Onofre State Beach.
The suit, filed Wednesday in San Diego County District Court, calls the conclusions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service biased, potentially leading to an “ecological disaster.” The lawsuit alleges the federal agencies capitulated to toll road planners’ requests, “downplaying” the effect the 16-mile, six-lane stretch of road would have on roughly half a dozen species such as the Pacific pocket mouse, the arroyo toad and the Southern steelhead trout.
“It’s an incredible concentration of threatened and endangered species that are going to be affected by this road,” said Brian Segee, a staff attorney with Defenders of Wildlife, one of 11 organizations named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
A spokeswoman for the Transportation Corridor Agencies, which funds and builds Orange County toll roads, said that “a lot of work went into designing the alignment to avoid the most sensitive areas of habitat.” She said the agency had planned more than 200 mitigation measures, such as under-freeway animal crossings and protective fencing.
Read more from the Los Angeles Times by clicking here.
Suit filed on toll road report; Environmentalists fault federal wildlife agency
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 14, 2008 at 6:05 amFrom the San Diego Union-Tribune:
Environmentalists are challenging a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report that says extending a toll road to link Orange and San Diego counties would not irreparably harm endangered species.
They sued the federal agency yesterday, seeking to have a judge require a new biological opinion to replace the one issued in March. They allege that the Transportation Corridor Agencies, which want to build the 16-mile tollway, persuaded federal wildlife officials to ignore or downplay the road’s significant environmental effects.
Lengthening state Route 241 would reduce traffic on Interstate 5 in southern Orange County, but it also would cut through San Onofre State Beach and a habitat reserve near San Clemente.
Fish and Wildlife Service officials stand by the accuracy of their report, said Jane Hendron, a spokeswoman for the agency’s office in Carlsbad. They concluded that the tollway will have some environmental impacts and recommended that the project’s supporters “explore the feasibility of other alignment alternatives,” Hendron said.
Legislators’ letter opposes Foothill South toll road: It’s the latest shot in a fight between supporters, opponents
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 6, 2008 at 5:59 amFrom the O.C. Register:
Thirty eight state legislators have signed a letter opposing construction of the Foothill South toll road, saying the U.S. Secretary of Commerce should not void a decision by the state Coastal Commission denying the project.
The July 22 letter escalates a war of words between the opponents and the supporters of the toll road, a 16-mile extension of the 241 toll road that would cut through San Onofre State Beach park, as well as through habitat for a variety of species.
Opponents say they also are concerned about the road’s potential effects on surfing at the famous Trestles Beach, although the toll road agency, backed by a Scripps Instutition of Oceanography research engineer, says it can avoid any effects on the beach.
“It affects the best surfing in the world in that area,” said state Sen. Lou Correa, D-Santa Ana.
All the signers of the letter were Democratic members of the legislature.
“It’s pretty partisan,” said Jennifer Seaton, a spokeswoman for the toll road agency. “I think it’s still notable that most of the signatories represent areas that are far away from the proposed 241. The majority of local officials support the 241 and recognize the growing problem of gridlock on I-5.”
Read more from the O.C. Register by clicking here.
Toll road consultant: no effect on Trestles
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 31, 2008 at 5:49 amFrom the O.C. Register:
Building the Foothill South toll road will have no effect whatever on surfing conditions at the famous Trestles beach, according a noted oceanographer, whose scathing criticism of assertions by environmental activists was released this week.
Richard Seymour, a research engineer at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and an oceanographic consultant, was hired by the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency to examine a series of studies of the road’s potential effects on surfing. The studies were conducted by the toll road agency and by the environmental group Surfrider Foundation.
Seymour, who was paid $6,000 for the review conducted in May, said he largely agreed with the toll road agency consultants who studied the matter – and found the Surfrider studies to be filled with scientific mistakes. “The reports commissioned by the Surfrider Foundation just contained a number of very, very serious erroneous assumptions – and incorrect theories, and incorrect interpretations of other documents,” Seymour said.
Surfrider assistant environmental director Mark Rauscher said Wednesday said he believes it is Seymour’s analysis that is flawed, not Surfrider’s, which was conducted by Philip Williams and Associates. “We disagree with the review and stand by the research conducted by PWA,” Rauscher said.
More on this story from the O.C. Register by clicking here.
Transportation Corridor Agencies announces independent peer review affirms: 241 toll road will not alter surf
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 29, 2008 at 9:25 pmFrom Market Watch & Business Wire:
An independent peer review of reports concerning the 241 Toll Road and surfing conditions in the vicinity of San Mateo Creek has concluded that the project will have no impact on surfing or wave formation. Richard J. Seymour, Ph.D., research engineer at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and noted consultant in coastal oceanography, conducted the review. “No substantial change, either positive or negative, to surfing quality would result from the project,” Seymour stated in his report.
Seymour’s fields of research include wave mechanics, wave generation, near shore processes, sediment transport mechanisms and cross-shore transport. With summer 2008 surf events in the spotlight, it is important to note that contrary to claims from groups opposed to the project, the completion of the 241 will have no impact on the surf at Trestles. After review of 11 reports, Seymour’s key findings include:
– Sediment transport is a non-issue; changes to the beach will be dominated by the local wave climate and sediment supplies driven by alongshore currents.
– The creek inputs of sand will be negligible when compared to the volatility of the beach.
– Delivery of cobbles to the shoreline will not be altered to a degree that could be detected, especially given the highly episodic randomness of this phenomenon.
– The surfing reefs in the Trestles area are fossil deposits of predominantly boulder-size rocks and they are stable over time.
– Fine sediment transport does not impact cobble transport. Claims to the contrary by Philip Williams and Associates (PWA) are based on “erroneous assumptions,” were irrelevant and came to a conclusion that contradicts their theory.
– “Based upon a careful review of all the pertinent documents presented, I found that the Corridor would result in no detrimental effects to the surfing in the Trestles area,” Dr. Seymour concluded.The 241 Toll Road will be constructed to ensure that the world-class surf conditions at Trestles Beach will be fully protected. The road, which has long been included in regional transportation plans, will join existing Interstate 5 more than a half mile from the shoreline. Among false and misleading statements made by project opponents are claims that the surf at Trestles will be “ruined.”
Even Surfer Magazine noted that the change in sediment discharge from the toll road would only be enough to fill up a public restroom at San Onofre. “Spread along the entire beach that is considered immeasurable,” according to the magazine. For details:http://surfermag.com/photos/flash/trestles-toll-road-08/
Expert analysis has found that the classic breaks at Trestles and other nearby surf spots are formed by the large cobble deposits in the delta of the San Mateo Creek. “These cobbles episodically delivered to the shoreline, every 20 years or so, are what form the surf break,” said Dave Skelly a coastal engineer who has made careful studies of that stretch of beach.
Skelly, a surfer himself, has analyzed the shoreline at Trestles and concluded that the project will not measurably impact the natural delivery of sand and cobbles to the shoreline from the creek and will have no impact on the surf break. Seymour’s peer review confirmed Skelly’s findings.
Extending the 241 will relieve traffic on Interstate 5 in South Orange County by providing an alternative route. With construction of the toll road, two miles of Interstate 5 will be retrofitted to collect and treat runoff, improving water quality in the Trestles area. Without the toll road, travel from the San Diego/Orange County border to Mission Viejo will take one hour in 2025. With the toll road constructed, the same drive on Interstate 5 will take 25 minutes and it will take 16 minutes on the toll road. The new road will provide an alternative to Interstate 5 for the hundreds of thousands of motorists a day who travel between San Diego, Orange and Los Angeles Counties.
SOURCE: Transportation Corridor Agencies
Jim Trageser: Public deserves its hearing on saving state beach
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 20, 2008 at 6:45 amFrom the North County Times, this column by Jim Trageser:
So if too many people want to speak out on an issue, we have to deny them that right because of logistics?
That may not be the intended message, but should the public hearing on whether to allow a private toll-road to gut a state park not be rescheduled, that message will become reality.
After the California Coastal Commission denied an Orange County agency the necessary permits to run the toll road through San Onofre State Beach, the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (a name only a bureaucrat could love) filed an appeal with the U.S. Commerce Department. As the proposed route, and the state park, both sit on Camp Pendleton, the feds get the final say.
But before considering overruling the state, Commerce folks wanted to hold another public hearing so that those of us who actually live here can let the hired help know what we think about the proposed ruination of the last stretch of undeveloped coastal land the public has access to between Ventura and the Mexican border.
More of Jim Trageser’s column in the North County Times by clicking here.
Rep. Miller says he may sell his investment in toll roads
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 17, 2008 at 6:53 amIn response to this article from the OC Register yesterday, Representative Gary Miller now says he will sell his bonds if the toll road gets built:
Rep. Gary Miller says he will sell his investment in the Foothill/Eastern tollway if the Transportation Corridor Agency is ever successful in building the southern extension to the road. Miller was responding to a story published Tuesday on ocregister.com that revealed the congressman had steered taxpayer money to and lobbied for the controversial southern extension of the 241 tollway while holding $20,000 in bonds which are repaid by tolls on the Foothill/Eastern, a connected tollway.
Miller’s congressional spokesman, Scott Toussaint, said in an emailed statement that Miller wants to “make clear that he is committed to upholding the ethical responsibilities of his office.”
“If TCA ever completes Foothill-South, I will sell my bonds before completion of the project to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest,” Miller said in the statement.
But Miller’s response did not mollify critics. “The bad behaviour has already occurred,” said Mark Rauscher, assistant environmental director of Surfrider, an environmental group that opposes the southern extension because it would cut through San Onofre Beach park. “Miller knew that he owned the bonds and he already took the action to push for the Foothill South. Selling the bonds if the road gets built means absolutely nothing…he’s already made his money.”
Read the full text of this story from the O.C. Register by clicking here.
San Onofre Toll Road: Attorney general asks for North County hearing; LA Times says let the public be heard, and Rep. Gary Miller has financial ties to the toll road
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 16, 2008 at 6:53 amFrom the North County Times:
California’s attorney general is urging federal officials to reschedule a public hearing in September in North County on the proposed San Onofre toll road. Federal officials said they are considering the request.
The hearing to review an appeal of the state’s rejection of the four-lane toll road was scheduled for July 25 at UC Irvine. It was cancelled after university officials withdrew their offer to host the event because of concerns attendance could exceed 10,000, potentially overwhelming the 4,758-seat facility as well as nearby streets and parking lots.
Jamee Jordan Patterson, supervising deputy attorney general, sent a two-page letter Monday to the U.S. Commerce Department on behalf of the California Coastal Commission. It was addressed to Jane C. Luxton, general counsel for the Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The Coastal Commission voted in February to withhold a key approval for the $875 million highway project. A short time later, the road builder, Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency, appealed the decision to Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez. A decision on the project is expected by the end of the year.
Commerce officials said they may not reschedule the hearing because of concerns about the expense of renting a larger venue, and they said there is no requirement to hold a hearing.
Patterson said the estimated meeting attendance of 10,000 is a strong indication that the federal government ought to find a way to have one.
Read the full text of this story from the North County Times by clicking here.
The Los Angeles Times editorial agrees that the Commerce Department needs to find a venue for the public hearing:
The Commerce Department has a great obligation here — all the greater because of the intensity of public concern — and it should be taking whatever steps are necessary to ensure a full, open hearing. If that requires a bigger venue, such as the county fairgrounds in Del Mar that the Coastal Commission used (and was somehow able to afford), so be it. If it means holding several hearings so that all have a chance to attend, that’s fine too. We hope the department’s apparent reluctance doesn’t stem from the Transportation Corridor Agencies’ complaints about the Coastal Commission hearing, which also drew thousands of boisterous opponents. Toll road supporters stand to benefit if the size and vehemence of the opposition is kept out of sight.
Full text of the LA Times editorial by clicking here.
Meanwhile, from the O.C. Register, Rep. Gary Miller has an investment in Foothill/Eastern bonds, but says that’s not why he supports the tollway extension:
One of Congress’ strongest supporters of the Foothill tollway’s controversial southern extension steered taxpayer money to and lobbied for the project while holding a financial interest in a connected tollway. Financial disclosures for Rep. Gary Miller, a land developer who represents Orange, San Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties, show he purchased $20,000 in Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency bonds in 2000. The bonds pay investors a fixed rate and are repaid by drivers’ tolls.
The Eastern and Foothill (SR-241) toll roads run from the 91 Freeway to Irvine and Rancho Santa Margarita. The Southern extension is the final 16-mile segment of SR-241 and would run from Rancho Santa Margarita to the I-5 near San Clemente, if it overcomes public and official objections.
In an interview, Miller acknowledged getting an $8 million appropriation for Foothill-South’s construction in 2005. He has subsequently signed letters to the state Coastal Commission and the Commerce Secretary as part of a lobbying effort in support of the tollway agency’s plan to build the road through a coastal park. Though Miller has repeatedly signed financial disclosure forms listing the bonds. he expressed surprise when asked about that investment. Miller said his wife must have purchased the bonds and added that she is largely responsible for the family’s investment decisions.
Miller said he’s not backing the tollway because of any personal interest. “It’s a privately funded project with tremendous public benefits and that’s the only way I’m looking at it,” he said.
More from the O.C. Register by clicking here.
Both sides disappointed at canceled tollway hearing; U.S. Commerce Department must decide whether to reschedule
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 14, 2008 at 10:04 pmFrom the North County Times:
A much-anticipated public hearing this month on the appeal of California’s rejection of a San Onofre toll road may be canceled because an Orange County venue has backed out of an arrangement to host it amid indications the crowd size could top 10,000. And federal officials said Monday they may not reschedule the event, because moving to a larger facility could break their $26,000 hearing budget.
In February, the California Coastal Commission judged the toll road inconsistent with federal and state laws protecting the fragile coastal environment, sending a clear signal that if the road proponent were to apply for a permit to build, it would be denied. The proponent, Irvine-based Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency, appealed the ruling to the U.S. Commerce Department.
Officials at the Commerce Department struck a deal with UC Irvine to host the hearing at its 4,758-person-capacity Bren Events Center. But a university representative said Monday the center pulled back because of indications more than twice that many people were planning to attend.
“We started getting calls like, ‘Where can we get lunch for 500 people?’ and ‘Where can our buses park?’” said Cathy Lawhon, a spokeswoman for UC Irvine. “It began to look like this was something that was going to cause a lot more traffic and policing and parking headaches than we thought. And we decided that we couldn’t handle it.”
Read more from the North County Times by clicking here.
The OC Register reports that both sides are disappointed at the news that the hearing might now not be held at all:
“To us that would be unacceptable,” said Mark Rauscher, an assistant environmental director at the Surfrider Foundation.
The environmental group has been leading the charge against the road and had been organizing opponents to attend the hearing; the group sent a letter to Commerce Monday requesting that a new hearing be scheduled.
Toll road agency representatives said they, too, were looking forward to the hearing.
“It’s unfortunate,” said Rob Thornton, an attorney who often represents the tollway agency. “I thought we had a good location.”
Raucher also had this to say:
Rauscher said the high crowd estimate underscores the need for a public airing of the issue. “When you think you are going to have 10,000 people show up at a hearing that’s meant to gauge the public viewpoint on a project, that is a strong signal that they should figure out how to have a hearing – not a good reason to cancel a hearing,” he said.
A spokesman for NOAA said Monday no decision had been made.
Read more from the O.C. Register by clicking here.
New venue sought for toll road hearing, and a slideshow of the proposed toll road project
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 12, 2008 at 8:10 amFrom the Los Angeles Times:
Bren Center seats up to 4,758 people. Its withdrawal has jeopardized the hearing, Luxton wrote, adding that her agency is looking for a venue where such a crowd could be accommodated. “If these issues cannot be resolved in the near future, the July 25 hearing may need to be canceled,” Luxton wrote.
“The scope of the event was growing to the point that it was beyond our capacity to handle in a safe way,” said Cathy Lawhon, a UC Irvine spokeswoman. “The level of inquires we were getting just led us to believe that it was going to be a much bigger event.”
Toll road officials were disappointed with the change in plans. For weeks, they had anticipated the Irvine hearing, said Lisa Telles, a spokeswoman for the toll road agency. “Now the question is where will it be held? We’ll just wait and see,” she said.
Read more from the Los Angeles Times by clicking here.
Check out this informative slideshow presentation about the history of development in and around the San Onofre State Beach, as well as computer renderings of what the proposed toll road would look like. From Surfer Magazine – click here.
Q & A: 241 tollway hearing: Event will hear public testimony on the rejected O.C. turnpike route
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 9, 2008 at 7:06 amFrom the Los Angeles Times:
A July 25 public hearing has been set by the Department of Commerce for an appeal of the rejection of the proposed Foothill South toll road through San Onofre State Beach. The route has been the focus of a battle between those opposed to any encroachment on the state park and those backing an alternative to Interstate 5.
Here are some guidelines on the hearing set by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
What is the hearing about?
It is to gather public opinion about the proposed 16-mile extension of California 241. In February, the state Coastal Commission rejected the route. This hearing is part of an appeal by the Irvine-based Transportation Corridor Agencies.
Where and when will it be held?
The UC Irvine Bren Events Center, July 25, from 10:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. Directions: www.bren.uci.edu.
Why is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric agency holding the hearing?
Because its Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, which is part of the Commerce Department, administers the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The act was passed by Congress to manage growth in the coastal zone.
Read more on this story from the Los Angeles Times by clicking here.
Commerce Department to hold hearing in Irvine on toll road project
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on June 26, 2008 at 8:11 amFrom the Los Angeles Times:
In the latest setback to the backers of a proposed toll road extension through south Orange County, the Department of Commerce on Wednesday announced that it would hold a public hearing on the controversial project at UC Irvine. The decision to allow the public to be heard either July 24 or 25 at Donald Bren Center was hailed by toll road opponents, who want to stop construction of the proposed 16-mile turnpike that would cut through San Onofre State Beach near a famed surfing break.
The Transportation Corridor Agencies, which appealed to the Commerce Department after the California Coastal Commission rejected the project, wanted to avoid another raucous meeting like the one held in San Diego County at the Del Mar Fairgrounds in February. The turnout of more than 3,500 people, the largest in commission history, created what the toll road agency later described as a “circus atmosphere.”
“We’re excited that it’s in Orange County,” said Mark Rauscher, a spokesman for the Surfrider Foundation, which opposes the toll road. “We’re looking forward to getting in front of the Department of Commerce and having the public express their views on the project.”
He cited a poll commissioned by opponents indicating that the majority of Orange County voters are against the road. The issue has drawn widespread attention, with more than 25,000 comments received by the Commerce Department.
TCA spokesperson Lance MacLean was resigned to the new hearing:
Lance MacLean, chairman of the toll road board overseeing the project, said that, in view of the numerous environmental studies and public hearings already held, there wasn’t a need for any new information to be presented at another hearing. But he is happy that UC Irvine was selected as the site because, he said, it will offer Orange County residents, whom he described as “the most affected,” an opportunity to express their opinions. “I’m just hopeful that it will be conducted in a more businesslike format rather than the circus it became in Del Mar,” MacLean said.
Read the full text of this article from the Los Angeles Times by clicking here.
Aquafornia's Information Desk
Aquafornia's Photos on Flickr
Recent Posts
- Governor Schwarzenegger appoints four members to Delta Stewardship Council
- Science justifies California water limits
- Legal Planet blog: Delta NRC committee issues initial report
- Statement of the Coalition for Sustainable Delta on the NRC Bay-Delta report
- Center for Biological Diversity: Report finds Delta water pumping restrictions to protect fish “scientifically justified”
- Westlands Water District statement on the NAS Report
- Academy of Sciences report validates biological opinions to save salmon, other fish
- National Academies deliver mixed message on California Delta dilemma
- Statement of California Secretary for Natural Resources Lester Snow on the NAS report
- Senator Cogdill: California is rain rich, water poor
- Friday’s top of the scroll: NAS report backs biological opinions but still needs further study; also finds other ’stressors’ have hurt delta fish
- Links for National Academies of Science report
- Secretary Salazar’s statement on National Academy of Sciences review of California Bay Delta water issues
- National Academies of Science Report: Most federal actions to protect endangered fishes in California’s Bay-Delta ’scientifically justified,’ but additional clarification needed
- Costa and Cardoza deny health bill for water vote swap
Aquafornia's Mission
Aquafornia's mission is to educate readers about the complex and often controversial issues surrounding water in California.
Aquafornia is affiliated with the Water Education Foundation, an impartial non-profit organization, whose mission is to create a better understanding of water issues and help resolve water resource problems through educational programs.
E-mail Newsletter
To receive email announcements from the Water Education Foundation, sign up here.
Web Resources
Agriculture
Climate Change & Water
Conservation
Delta Resources
Employment & Water
Environmental Organizations
Fishing Blogs
Investing & Water
Landscaping
Legal Blogs
Los Angeles River
News
Salton Sea
Twitter Feeds
Water Agencies
Water Blogs
- Aguanomics
- American Water Resources Assn. Blog
- Barry Nelson at the NRDC Switchboard
- Chance of Rain
- Chronicles of the Hydraulic Brotherhood
- EDF’s On The Waterfront
- Food and Water Watch Blog
- Great Lakes Law Blog
- H2ONCoast Blog
- Inkstain – jfleck
- On the Public Record
- Peter Gleick’s City Brights blog
- Spouting Off – Mark Gold of Heal the Bay
- Thirsty in Suburbia
- Water Cooler Blog
- Water SISWEB
- Water Words That Work
- Waterblogged
- WaterCrunch
- WaterWired
- Western Water Blog
Water Information
News Article Archives
- Agriculture
- Aquafornia Exclusives
- Biofuels
- Bottled water
- Climate change & water supply
- Commentary
- Conservation
- Delta Issues
- Desalination
- Drinking Water
- Drought Tolerant Landscaping
- Drought, Weather & Snowpack
- Events
- Flood Control
- General Water Issues
- Geothermal Energy
- Grandiose water plans
- Great Green Ideas
- Groundwater
- Hydropower
- Indian Water Rights
- Infrastructure
- International Water Issues
- Invasive Species
- Levees
- Monterey Agreements
- National water news
- Oceans and Beaches (all)
- Odds and Ends
- People in the News
- Rainwater Harvesting
- Recycled Water
- Regional Water Issues
- All-American Canal
- Antelope Valley
- Bakersfield
- Bay Area
- Central Coast
- Coachella Valley
- Colorado River Basin
- Imperial Irrigation District & Imperial Valley
- Lake Tahoe & the Sierra's
- Las Vegas & Nevada
- Los Angeles River
- Northern California
- Orange County
- Owens Valley & Mono Lake
- Riverside – San Bernardino
- Sacramento
- Salton Sea
- San Diego
- San Joaquin Valley
- Southern California
- Southwest Water Issues
- Westlands Water District
- Stormwater & Urban Runoff
- Uncategorized
- Water & Development
- Water & Energy
- Water & Investing
- Water & Population
- Water & the Environment
- Water & Wildlife
- Water Agency News (all)
- Water Banking
- Water History
- Water Legislation
- Water Quality
- Water Rights
- Water Storage
- Water Supply
- Water Technologies
- Water Transfers
- Weather Modification
- Weird & Wacky Water News