Water Education Foundation

Toll road consultant: no effect on Trestles

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 31, 2008 at 5:49 am

From 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.

July 31, 2008 · Filed Under San Onofre Toll Road

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment 

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 pm

From 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

July 29, 2008 · Filed Under San Onofre Toll Road

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment 

Jim Trageser: Public deserves its hearing on saving state beach

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 20, 2008 at 6:45 am

From 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.

July 20, 2008 · Filed Under San Onofre Toll Road

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment 

Rep. Miller says he may sell his investment in toll roads

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 17, 2008 at 6:53 am

In 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.

July 17, 2008 · Filed Under San Onofre Toll Road

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment 

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 am

From 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.

July 16, 2008 · Filed Under San Onofre Toll Road

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment 

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 pm

From 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.

July 14, 2008 · Filed Under San Onofre Toll Road

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment 

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 am

From 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.

July 12, 2008 · Filed Under San Onofre Toll Road

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment 

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 am

From 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.

July 9, 2008 · Filed Under San Onofre Toll Road

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment 

Commerce Department to hold hearing in Irvine on toll road project

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on June 26, 2008 at 8:11 am

From 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.

June 26, 2008 · Filed Under San Onofre Toll Road

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment 

Commerce Dept. sets hearing date for San Onofre Toll Road appeal

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on June 25, 2008 at 8:06 pm

From the O. C. Register:

The U.S. Commerce Department has set July 24 or 25 for a hearing on a proposed toll road in southern Orange County. The hearing would be held at the Bren Events Center at the University of California, Irvine, according to an email sent Wednesday to key people involved in the controversy.

The proposal to build the 16-mile Foothill South toll road, an extension of the 241 toll road, was struck down by the state Coastal Commission in February after a marathon hearing that drew thousands. But the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency appealed the decision to the Commerce Department. Such appeals are allowed under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act. If the Commerce Secretary finds that the toll road is consistent with the federal act, or matches some larger federal policy objective, such as national security, he can override the state agency’s decision.

Representatives of both the toll road opponents and the toll agency said Wednesday they approved of the hearing date and time.

“E-mail, phone calls, postcards, our supporters will make sure to get the word out about this,” said Mark Rauscher of the Surfrider Foundation, which coordinated much of the opponents’ presence at the February hearing in Del Mar.

A spokeswoman for the toll agency, Jennifer Seaton, said she expects the road’s supporters to turn out in force as well. “This is another good opportunity to get the facts out on the project,” she said. “Hopefully, since it is located more closely to the communities impacted by the project, we’ll have a great turnout of supporters.”

Read the full text of this story from the O.C. Register by clicking here.

June 25, 2008 · Filed Under San Onofre Toll Road

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment 

Tribal bloc about-faces on proposed San Onofre toll road; One faction of Juaneño band OKs deal with transportation agency for $350,000

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on June 14, 2008 at 8:15 am

From the Los Angeles Times:

A faction of a Native American tribe against a proposed toll road through south Orange County has agreed to drop its opposition — and stands to make $350,000 because of it.

David Belardes, who heads one of four Juaneño groups, said he signed a letter of intent with the Transportation Corridor Agencies by which the toll road operator would help pay for a tribal museum and genealogy studies to further the tribe’s efforts to gain federal recognition. In return, the Belardes’ group requested that the state’s Native American Heritage Commission dismiss the commission’s lawsuit against the TCA seeking to halt the toll road through San Onofre State Beach.

The state attorney general filed the suit on behalf of the commission to prevent the tollway from destroying Panhe, the Juaneños’ ancestral home near San Mateo Creek.

The TCA is in similar negotiations with the other three Juaneño factions. If successful, the deals could strike a serious blow to efforts to stop the toll road. “It was a tough decision,” Belardes said. “But we felt the handwriting was on the wall.”

Belardes, a prominent leader known statewide among Native Americans, was criticized by fellow Juaneños for his decision. But he justified his actions, saying that no matter where “you build that road, you’re going to impact Native American sites.”

“This doesn’t mean I support development. But the agreement helps get us in the process and helps us gain access to land to continue our ceremonies and reburials,” he said.

What effect the proposed agreement will have on the toll road operator’s overall chances to build the turnpike is uncertain. But toll road opponents acknowledged the threat of losing such a powerful ally as the Juaneños would be a serious blow.

Joe Ocampo, who heads one of the factions, said his group was still against the toll road. “Does it weaken the opposition? The TCA would like to convey the thought that it is weakening,” Ocampo said. “But I still think we have the strongest support against the toll road.”

Read the full text of this story from the Los Angeles Times by clicking here.

June 14, 2008 · Filed Under San Onofre Toll Road

1 Comment 

Lt. Gov. Garamendi questions Toll Road Agency participation in secret meetings with federal govt. agencies

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on June 12, 2008 at 6:19 am

From Earth Times:

Citing serious concerns about the “extreme secrecy” surrounding the Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) participation in a key federal interagency committee (formally known as the South Orange County Transportation Infrastructure Improvement Project — SOCTIIP — Collaborative), Lt. Governor John Garamendi sent a strongly worded letter to Jane Luxton, general counsel at the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration requesting a more open, public
process.

One of the main functions of the federal committee is to coordinate federal agency evaluation of alternatives to the Toll Road proposed to go through the Donna O’Neill Conservancy and San Onofre State Beach Park. As such, this important committee is in a position to determine whether or not
new information regarding alternative is objectively considered.

In this June 10, 2008, letter, Lt. Gov. Garamendi stated, “My concern is that these deliberations, so critical to your [NOAA and the Dept. of Commerce's] final analysis, are being finalized in an environment where ONLY the project applicant examines, presents, evaluates and comments upon evidence. There is no opportunity for the public to participate in or even witness discussions and deliberations.”

“TCA is not a collaborative member, but an observer. The structure of the SOCTIIP Collaborative has created an untenable situation: a project proponent with interests that are potentially adverse to the public or in contravention of law, is provided exclusive permission to communicate freely with federal
regulators sheltered from public scrutiny. This set up frustrates the purpose of open government and public records law,” added Lt. Gov. Garamendi.

To resolve this situation, Lt. Gov. Garamendi requests four things: that observers representing the public must be invited to attend and participate in each SOCTIIP collaborative meeting; that all previous and future meetings from Collaborative meetings must be released to the public; that a list of
attendees to all Collaborative meetings be released to the public; and that all testimony, documentation and analyses of any kind be made publicly available within a reasonable time after each meeting.

“Given the Coastal Commission’s strong position in opposition to the toll road and the fact that more than 25,000 people have filed comments with the Department of Commerce expressing their views about this controversial project through a state park, it is extremely troubling that the TCA is meeting behind closed doors with federal regulators and that these meetings are completely shielded from the public,” stated Elizabeth Goldstein, president of the California State Parks Foundation and leading member of the Save San Onofre Coalition.

“The TCA has, time and again, sought to stifle public review and participation, and attempted to exert undue ‘behind the scenes’ influence on their deeply flawed toll road project,” added Goldstein. “After TCA made a decision to appeal the Coastal Commission’s rejection of the toll road, TCA, a public agency, actually requested that the Department of Commerce not hold a public hearing — a request that was rejected. TCA should not be allowed to continue to meet secretly with federal agencies about the Foothill South Toll Road. The Collaborative’s deliberations should not be shrouded in secrecy but open to the public and transparent.”

BACKGROUND:
The Save San Onofre Coalition is a diverse coalition of individuals and groups that includes four former state parks commissioners, local, regional, state and national environmental organizations, cities, counties and elected officials statewide. For more information about the Save San Onofre
Coalition, visit http://www.savesanonofre.com. You can obtain a copy of Lt. Governor Garamendi’s letter at http://www.ltg.ca.gov/images//toll%20road%20letter%20luxton%206-11-08.pdf

June 12, 2008 · Filed Under San Onofre Toll Road

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment 

Federal agency to hold hearing on San Onofre toll road appeal

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on May 22, 2008 at 6:46 am

From the Los Angeles Times:

The U.S. Department of Commerce said Wednesday it would hold a public hearing on a state panel’s rejection of a controversial toll road through southern Orange County. The decision was hailed as a victory by toll road opponents and downplayed by officials with the Transportation Corridor Agencies, who wanted to avoid another raucous meeting like the one before the state Coastal Commission.

The February meeting drew more than 3,500 people to the Del Mar Fairgrounds and was the largest in commission history. It ended near midnight with a 8-2 vote rejecting a proposal by the Irvine-based TCA for a 16-mile toll road that would cut through San Onofre State Beach.

The TCA appealed the Coastal Commission’s ruling to the Commerce Department but tried to block a public hearing, saying it didn’t want another “circus atmosphere.” Supporters and opponents of the toll road jeered one another when the Coastal Commission met. But on Wednesday, a TCA spokeswoman said the agency welcomed the hearing. “We’re happy to have the opportunity to present the facts to the Department of Commerce,” Jennifer Seaton said.

The North County Times adds this:

“We believe a hearing is appropriate in this case,” wrote Jane C. Luxton, general counsel for the Commerce Department, in a two-page letter Wednesday. “Accordingly, the secretary will hold a public hearing for this appeal at a date and location to be determined.” Luxton said a hearing would be held between July 14 and Aug. 1, or between Aug. 25 and Sept. 12.

Joel Reynolds, attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the decision “a victory for the public.” “It’s a response to the extraordinary public demand (for a hearing),” Reynolds said.

He called the decision a defeat for the transportation agency. “The more the light of public scrutiny shines on this project, the less support the project has,” he said. Reynolds characterized the proposed four-lane, 16-mile highway across four miles of San Onofre State Beach as “one of the most destructive projects ever proposed for the coast of California.”

Jennifer Seaton, spokeswoman for Irvine-based Foothill/Eastern, said the decision was not in fact a defeat for her agency. “Absolutely not,” Seaton said. “Every indication had been that there would be a hearing. We’re happy to talk about the facts of the project. We’re very proud of it.”

Read the full text of this story from the Los Angeles Times by clicking here. Read the full text of this story from the North County Times by clicking here.

May 22, 2008 · Filed Under San Onofre Toll Road

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment 

Orange County toll road agency hails wildlife deal; opponents call it ‘procedural and routine’

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on May 10, 2008 at 6:35 am

From the LA Times:

An agreement to protect wildlife was announced Friday between the toll road agency and a state agency on the proposed extension of an Orange County toll road, a controversial link that would cut through a popular state park and famed surf spot. Proponents said the agreement helps breathe new life into the proposed toll road extension, which has divided politicians, environmentalists and transportation planners for years. Opponents dismissed it as insignificant.

Although the Foothill South project was rejected by the state Coastal Commission after a clamorous public hearing in February, the toll road agency views the agreement as a substantial victory. The agency has appealed the commission’s decision.

Lance MacLean, chairman of the board that oversees the county’s toll roads, called it a major step toward satisfying environmental requirements for the 16-mile proposed road that will cut through San Onofre State Beach.

The agreement calls for creating, enhancing or restoring 57 acres near creeks as a mitigation measure because 23 acres along the proposed route would be permanently affected, said Marilyn Fluharty, a senior environmental scientist for the California Department of Fish and Game.

However, toll road opponents don’t agree:

Dan Silver, executive director of the Endangered Habitats League, called the state agreement a technical approval that lacked regulatory teeth because it’s “procedural and routine.”

“Basically, it is a notification requirement where the applicant tells the department what they are doing, what the impacts are and these are the mitigations,” Silver said. “It doesn’t evaluate the need for the project nor does it look at alternatives of the project to protect resources.” In contrast, the Coastal Commission has absolute protections for wildlife under the state’s Coastal Act, an “entirely different standard,” Silver said.

MacLean sees it otherwise. “We feel no species will be jeopardized by this work,” MacLean said. “We’re going to be good stewards with the environment.”

Read the full text of this story from the Los Angeles Times by clicking here.

May 10, 2008 · Filed Under San Onofre Toll Road

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment 

Wildlife agency gives the nod to toll road; Foothill South would not harm Pacific pocket mouse and other species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife says

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on May 6, 2008 at 5:27 am

From the O.C. Register:

A federal wildlife agency has given a green light to the proposed Foothill South toll road, saying it would not jeopardize a variety of threatened and endangered species – including the Pacific pocket mouse.  The conclusion, part of an April 30 biological opinion by the agency, contradicts those of the state Coastal Commission staff and its biologist, who said the mouse could be driven to extinction. It also bolsters arguments by the toll road builder that it would provide sufficient protections for the endangered mouse, as well as other species.

After a dramatic public hearing in February that drew thousands, the Coastal Commission rejected the toll road proposal based in part on the staff’s contention that it would cause serious biological damage.  The toll road builder has appealed the commission’s decision to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce.

“This is really significant, because a lot of the criticism of the project centered around whether it is environmentally sensitive,” said Jennifer Seaton, spokeswoman for the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency. “This is the word from the federal agency responsible for that. They say that it is.”

Mark Delaplaine, the author of a Coastal Commission staff report that condemned the toll road, said the staff must analyze Fish and Wildlife’s conclusions before making a comment.

It was unclear Monday what effect the Fish and Wildlife ruling will have on the commerce secretary’s deliberations.

Read the rest of this story from the O.C. Register by clicking here.

May 6, 2008 · Filed Under Oceans and Beaches (all), San Onofre Toll Road

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment 

San Onofre Toll Road appeal: U.S. Commerce Department opens up public comment period

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on April 23, 2008 at 5:34 pm

san-onofre-by-city-project.jpgFrom the O.C. Register:

Beginning Monday the public will have 30 days to tell the federal government whether it should overrule the state Coastal Commission and allow the long proposed Foothill South toll road to be built. The appeal to the Commerce Department is the last chance toll road supporters have to resurrect the project that the Commission rejected in February.

And even though the public comment period hasn’t officially begun, interests on both sides have already submitted dueling letters on whether Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez should hold a hearing in Southern California before he rules on the Transportation Corridor Agencies’ appeal.

The road “is one of the most controversial projects in California,” wrote a group of eight environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club and Surfrider Foundation. Their letter asking for a hearing reads more like an argument to uphold the Coastal Commission’s ruling. The Commission also wrote asking for a California hearing.

The project, a 16-mile extension of the existing 241 toll road, would cut through San Onofre State Beach Park as well as other wild habitat farther inland.

Supporters say the road is desperately needed to ease traffic congestion, improve coastal access and aid economic development. They also say improvements that would be made to a road and a gate leading into Camp Pendleton would benefit the national security. It’s the possibility of a national impact that proponents hope will convince Gutierrez to bring the proposal back to life.

But the Coastal Commission decided by an 8-2 vote that the potential environmental effects were so damaging that there’s no way even a redesigned project could meet the requirements of the state’s Coastal Act.

TCA’s lawyer wrote to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is the Commerce agency with jurisdiction over coastal issues, urging against a hearing. The letter said this road proposal has “been the subject of hundreds of public meetings and hearings during the three decade environmental review” and that another one isn’t necessary.

The Agency lawyer also expressed concern that road opponents would pack a federal hearing. “Clearly the objective of the opponents is to drown out any objective and dispassionate consideration of the serious national interest issues with intimidation and political rhetoric,” the letter said.

Ben Sherman, chief spokesman for NOAA, said a decision on whether to hold a hearing in the Golden State will be made by this summer.

You can take a poll as to whether you are for or against the toll road at the O.C. Register website, as well as find out how you can have your say in the appeals process. Read the rest of this story from the O.C. Register by clicking here.

April 23, 2008 · Filed Under Oceans and Beaches (all), San Onofre Toll Road

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment 

San Onofre toll road: It’s not about traffic vs. a park; it’s about being willing to do the right thing for both commuters & the wilderness, says editorial

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on April 19, 2008 at 5:59 am

From the Los Angeles Times, this editorial regarding the TCA’s request for no public hearing during the appeal of the Coastal Commission’s rejection:

Democracy can be indecorous. But before federal authorities weigh in, they should hear, fully and publicly from the people affected, the many reasons to oppose the proposal. It’s a freeway to nowhere that would encourage sprawl, all but ruin San Onofre State Beach and cut through an Orange County nature reserve. However justifiably toll-road supporters may have complained about the tone of the Coastal Commission’s hearing, the commission had no real choice when it rejected the project, finding that it clearly violates the state’s Coastal Act.

The toll-road agency has a better option — widening Interstate 5 with toll lanes through San Clemente. It would take more time and money, because the agency would have to condemn developed property along the route. But it’s a more direct and less environmentally destructive way to go. And its workability has been demonstrated in similar projects on the I-5 through central and northern Orange County.

A six-lane highway will be around for ages. So will the environmental fallout if it’s allowed to cut through one of the few remaining pristine coastal canyons in Southern California. Despite Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s framing of the debate, this is not about traffic versus a park. It’s about a willingness to do the right thing for commuters and the wilderness both.

Read the full text of the editorial by clicking here.

April 19, 2008 · Filed Under Oceans and Beaches (all), San Onofre Toll Road

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment 

Congressional delegation urges Commerce Secretary to uphold the Coastal Commission veto of the San Onofre Toll Road

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on April 18, 2008 at 5:59 am

From the Los Angeles Times:

More than two dozen members of California’s congressional delegation have sent a letter urging the secretary of Commerce to uphold the state Coastal Commission’s veto of a controversial toll road proposal in southern Orange County.

The letter, sent this week from Rep. Susan Davis (D-San Diego) and signed by other members of Congress, also urged Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez to hold a hearing in California to assess public opinion on the appeal by the Irvine-based Transportation Corridor Agencies.

The signers cited the Coastal Commission’s staff report that stated, “It would be difficult to imagine a more environmentally damaging alternative location for the proposed toll road.”

The signers include Sen. Barbara Boxer and congressional leaders Maxine Waters, Xavier Becerra, Henry Waxman, Howard Berman and Jane Harman. No representative from Orange County signed the letter. Also, no Republicans signed the letter; “We did not ask California Republicans [to sign the letter] because we assumed they would not be interested, especially if they tried to help the TCA,” a spokesperson said.

Meanwhile, the war of words between the Corps and the TCA continue:

… the TCA asked the Army Corps of Engineers to correct a letter the corps sent to Gutierrez accusing the TCA of making false and misleading statements in its appeal. The letter contained “serious misstatements” concerning the TCA’s environmental process, said Thomas Margro, TCA’s chief executive. Margro sent the letter to the corps Tuesday.

Col. Thomas H. Magness IV, the corps’ district director in Los Angeles, had not yet received the letter.

Read the full text of this story from the Los Angeles Times by clicking here.

April 18, 2008 · Filed Under Oceans and Beaches (all), San Onofre Toll Road

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment 

Those who want to build a toll road through a California State Park want feds to overturn Coastal Commission without a public hearing

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on April 16, 2008 at 10:30 pm

From the California Progress Report:

Remember the great story from February 7, “California Coastal Commission Rejects Toll Road: Shows a People-Powered Coalition Can be Effective on Transportation and Land Use Issues” that extolled the workings of our democracy in the Golden State and the effects of a record 3,500 people attending the hearing can have on public policy?

The Coastal Commission, embedded in our California Constitution by a vote of the people, voted 8-2 to reject the idea of building this toll road through a state park. This included the votes of state elected officeholders. The Commission’s actions were taken after its staff issued a scathing report saying “It’s difficult to imagine a more environmentally damaging alternative location. No measures exist that would enable the proposed alignment to be found consistent with the California Coastal Act.”

Apparently that was a little bit too much of democracy for those who want to pave over paradise, the Transportation Corridor Agency. Not only do they want the Feds to overturn our state’s decision and to order the building of this toll road and destruction of a state park—but they don’t want the public to be allowed to participate in an open and public hearing. Check out the letter their attorney has written to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Silver Springs, Maryland they have written that tries to turn history on its head with Orwellian logic:

Click here to visit the California Progress Report and read the text of the letter sent to the Department of Commerce.

April 16, 2008 · Filed Under Oceans and Beaches (all), San Onofre Toll Road

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment 

Army engineers criticize toll agency; letter to Dept. of Commerce from Corps says some statements inaccurate & misleading

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on April 15, 2008 at 6:47 am

From the Los Angeles Times:

In a strong rebuke by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the agency proposing a toll road through San Onofre State Beach has been accused of making false and misleading statements in an appeal to federal officials.

Col. Thomas H. Magness, the corps’ district director in Los Angeles, charged in a letter last week that the appeal by Irvine-based Transportation Corridor Agencies challenging the project’s denial by the state Coastal Commission contains false statements and mischaracterizes the Army’s role in the planning process.

“I am compelled to highlight a few areas of the public record where I have found inaccurate statements as well as inferences that misrepresent the Corps’ preliminary determinations,” Magness wrote to the U.S. Department of Commerce, which will rule on the appeal.

TCA officials angrily denied the allegations and may demand a retraction.

The six-page letter, experts suggest, could weaken the transit agency’s position by, among other things, calling into question the selection of the so-called Green Alignment that would cut through the state beach.

Contrary to the TCA’s appeal, Magness wrote, the corps has “at no time” ruled out other, less controversial routes. “It’s significant for the corps to weigh in that way,” said Deborah A. Sivas, director of the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law School. Not usually known to be proactive, she said, the corps — judging from the tone of its letter — is sensitive to the TCA’s use of its name.

Read more on this story from the Los Angeles Times by clicking here.

April 15, 2008 · Filed Under Oceans and Beaches (all), San Onofre Toll Road

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment 

← Previous Page — Next Page →