Huell Howser wants YOU to SAVE San Onofre

Speeding Our Way to San Pedro to See What Happens to Trestles

In case you haven't heard, there's some new news regarding the Toll Road to Trestles. First off, we have a report from staff at the Coastal Commision that isn't all that delighted to see a toll road built through San Onofre State Park...

The proposed Foothill South toll road would likely drive an endangered mouse to extinction, wipe out vital habitat, shatter the peace of a popular campground and even worsen global warming, according to a report by the staff of the California Coastal Commission released today.

And now, we have the San Diego City Council going on record opposing the Toll Road to Trestles. Oh yes, and both of these events occurred just before the Coastal Commission meets next week to determine the fate of Trestles. So apparently, things aren't looking good for TCA's plan to build a toll road to Trestles.

So what can we expect at next week's Coastal Commission hearing? Will this be the final death blow to the toll road?



OK, so now the Coastal Commission Staff Report is recommending that the commission reject TCA's plan for a toll road to Trestles. Why? Why exactly is the Coastal Commission Staff taking such a strong stand against extending the 241 to San Onofre? Perhaps they're actually paying attention to state enivornmental law, as opposed to TCA's complete dismissal of the law.

After all, Section 30231 of Article 5 of the Coastal Act couldn't be any clearer...

The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface water flow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams.

So could that possibly be any clearer? If it hurts animal habitats and water quality, then it isn't happening. So how exactly does this apply to the proposed 241 extension through San Onofre? Well, how about those ELEVEN THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES THAT WOULD LOSE THEIR HABITAT FOREVER IF THE TOLL ROAD IS BUILT THROUGH SAN ONOFRE STATE BEACH? How about San Mateo Creek being named as one of the nation’s most imperiled waterways thanks to the threat of a noisy, dirty toll road running alongside it? This is beautiful coastal wilderness that would be destroyed forever if the toll road were to be placed in San Onofre. And judging by what the Coastal Act says, doing something like this violates California state law.



Oh, and the madness of this toll road to Trestles doesn't stop there! Not only is it illegal, but it's also impractical. After all, extending the 241 to Trestles would absolutely nothing to ease traffic congestion in South County. And if this proposed toll road to Trestles doesn't ease traffic in South County, then why build it?



And if the alignment for this toll road to nowhere is blatantly illegal, and it destroys one of the last great untouched beaches in Southern California, then why build it?



OK, so are yopu feeling outraged now? Angry? Frustrated? And would you like to do something about it?

Great, then we need YOU to attend the next Coastal Commission hearing in San Pedro! This will be our chance to speak out, and to demand that the Coastal Commision follow state law and deny TCA a chance to destroy one of the last great beaches in Southern California. See if you can make it next week, but if not PLEASE check out Save Trestles' page with a link to email the commission about Trestles. Also, go to Save San Onofre for all the latest updates on this effort to save this precious corner of the California coast for future generations to enjoy.

Coastal Commission Preparation

Yes, I know, this is a mass-mailed letter containing none of my trademark ascerbic wit or pitiless self-critical analysis. But I'm busy and this is important.

Attend the Sierra Club & Surfrider Foundation Coastal Commission Toll Road Briefing in San Clemente. Learn how you can keep a toll road out of one of our state parks! Join us Monday October 1st at 7 pm at the San Clemente Community Center at 100 North Calle Seville, San Clemente to prepare for our best opportunity to stop the Foothill-South Toll Road.

Hi Alex,

I have been working to protect California's coastline for over

Mark Massara, Director, Sierra Club Coastal Programs

20 years and I have never, in my entire career, seen a proposal as devastating to a coastal state park as the plan to extend the Foothill-South Toll Road through San Onofre State Beach. It is just inconceivable to me that a park, set aside by President Nixon and Governor Reagan, would be in the crosshairs of a transportation boondoggle like this ill-conceived and financially risky toll road.

The most important hurdle before the TCA is the powerful, non-partisan Coastal Commission who will be meeting to decide whether to approve construction of the toll road in the coastal zone. So please mark your calendars and plan to take a personal day off from work or school on October 11th and tell the Coastal Commission "No Toll Roads through our State Parks!"

I am coming to San Clemente on October 1st to brief Sierra Club & Surfrider Foundation members and the public about the role the Coastal Commission will play in the fight to protect our beach, park, clean waves and clean water.

Join me at 7:00 p.m. at the San Clemente Community Center and find out about simple, effective things you can do to make a difference. Be sure to tell all your friends and neighbors. This is one vote we cannot afford to lose.

Mark Massara

Director, Sierra Club Coastal Program

For more information contact Robin Everett at robin.everett@sierraclub.org or 949-361-7534

P.S. As a life long surfer I've spent a lot of time at Trestles and have experienced first hand the great waves and clean water of this unique surf spot. Join me at the Sierra Club/Surfrider Community Briefing on October 1st and learn how the Coastal Commission is our best opportunity to defeat the Foothill South Toll Road and how you can help.

Coastal Commission Staff Kick Ass

This needs no introduction. Hate to say I told you so, but I...

Contact: Matt Klink (310) 283-6267 (cell)
Liz Saldivar (323) 633-1519

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 28, 2007

COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DEALS SEVERE BLOW TO PROPOSED ORANGE COUNTY TOLL ROAD

***

Proposed Six-Lane “Super Highway” through San Onofre State Beach called “Most Environmentally Damaging” Alternative

Elizabeth Goldstein, president of the California State Parks foundation, released the following statement in response to the California Coastal Commission staff’s report on construction of a 16-mile long toll road slicing through San Onofre State Beach.

“The Coastal Commission staff report is welcome news to every Californian who is concerned about protecting our state parks and beaches. Based on a comprehensive analysis, California Coastal Commission staff issued a 236-page indictment of a proposal to build a toll road through the state park at San Onofre State Beach. The report establishes that this project will not only destroy one of our most important coastal park lands but it will also threaten the integrity of the Coastal Act itself. If approved, the toll road would eliminate irreplaceable recreation areas, reduce coastal access, fill wetlands and destroy sensitive habitat areas.

“The report's recommendation of disapproval is a critical step toward the demise of a uniquely destructive project that, more than any other in recent memory, threatens the environmental, recreational, and economic resources that belong to all Californians.

“The staff report is among the strongest I have ever seen in many years of working on state resources issues. It is balanced, objective and comprehensive. We’re hopeful that the Coastal Commissioners, who are the ultimate decision makers on this issue, will concur with their staff’s recommendation at their October 11, 2007 meeting.

“Specifically, this report concludes that the Transportation Corridor Agencies of Orange County (TCA) proposed a toll road that goes through the wrong place, is based on wrong thinking, and ultimately, is wrong for California.

The staff report states this proposed route for the toll road would:

* Fragment and transform one of the last remaining intact watersheds and coastal canyon ecosystems in all of southern California

* Have impacts that would be ‘permanent, irreversible and for the most part, unmitigatable.’

“Equally important, and in recognition of what the California Department of Parks and Recreation stated years earlier, the Coastal Commission staff report clearly states that this toll road, contrary to assertions from its sponsors (the TCA), would result in the de-facto closure of a trail to the coast and the ‘abandonment or severely limited use of the park’s most popular campground.’

“This objective review by Coastal Commission staff should provide ample evidence that San Onofre State Beach should be saved and other toll roads or other routes explored in more detail.

“The Coastal Commission staff report specifically finds that this route was not the least environmentally damaging alternative. In fact, the staff report says that when all impacts are taken into account, putting the toll road through this state park ‘is the most environmentally damaging rather than the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative…’”

Excerpts from the California Coastal Commission Staff Report and Recommendation on Consistency Certification for the Foothill Transportation South (FTC-S) toll road:

“In addition to the disturbance and destruction of untold numbers of these six species and potentially irreparable harm to their local, regional and global populations, populations which have been consistently recognized as both vitally important and gravely threatened, the project would fragment and transform one of the last remaining intact watersheds and coastal canyon ecosystems in all of southern California.” (pg. 3)

“…it would be difficult to imagine a more environmentally damaging alternative location for the proposed toll road and one which would be more clearly inconsistent with the environmentally sensitive habitat resource protection requirements contained within Coastal Act Section 30240.” (pg. 3

“No measures exist that would enable the proposed alignment to be found consistent with the Coastal Act. However, numerous alternative alignments are feasible and could be found consistent with the Coastal Act….” (pg. 10)

“When the value of these resources is taken into account, the project is the most environmentally damaging rather than the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative…Moreover, the toll road’s impacts would be permanent, irreversible, and, for the most part, unmitigable.” (pg. 5)

“…it is more likely that the proposed toll road would encourage continued growth, low density housing and inefficient transit patterns, and that the traffic system within the region would be equally or more congested than it is currently. Thus the toll road’s impact on emissions is likely to add to, rather than reduce, vehicle emissions on I-5.” (pg. 8)

“The project would result in significant adverse effects on public access and recreation, particularly at the campground and related recreational resources in San Onofre State Beach (SOSB). Significant adverse effects would occur both during construction and after completion. Such effects may include the de-facto closure of the coastal access Panhe Trail, the abandonment or severely limited use of the San Mateo Campground, the temporary occupation and permanent alteration of the California Coastal Trail, and the overall interference and degradation of the recreational use of SOSB.” (pg. 6)

“The Commission could not more strongly disagree with TCA’s arguments that on balance it is most protective of significant coastal resources to authorize the project.” (pg. 230)

# # #

Editor’s Note: To arrange an interview with Elizabeth Goldstein, contact Matt Klink at (310) 283-6267 or Liz Saldivar at (323) 466-3445.

The Faux Life in Dana Point Today

Have you read "Dana Point Today" lately? This newsletter bills itself as a publication that's "keeping the residents of Dana Point informed on issues affecting our beautiful coastal community". How nice. So where's the news on the issues affecting this beautiful coastal community? This seems like an innocent public interest newsletter, but something just doesn't seem right about it. I wonder why I have this uneasy feeling about "Dana Point Today".

So please do follow me down below for more... We need to talk...

(Cross-posted at The Liberal OC)



Where's the news on whatever is being done on affordable housing? Where's some real news on the Headlands? Where's some real news on improving the nasty water quality at Doheny? I guess there's a little blurb about Doheny in there, but there doesn't seem to be much discussion on the real issues affecting Dana Point. All this newsletter seems to be is happy talk on city projects. There's even a letter on the city budget from Mayor Diane Harkey. Oh wait, that must be because this is from the City of Dana Point! After all, this does have the official city seal.

Oh wait, but this can't be a city publication. This is not from the city. So where is this thing coming from? Maybe this can help us find the answer. Dana Point Today's headquarters happens to be conveniently located right next to Harkey for Assembly headquarters on Del Prado. And while Harkey penned a nice, long letter about the city budget for this publication, there's nothing official from the city in this publication... Not even the seal.

And speaking of the city seal, whatever happened to Dana Point Policy #102?

The use of the City Seal/Logo or facsimile or reproduction of, or make or use of any seal/logo or any design which is an imitation of said seal/logo or which may be mistaken for said seal/logo, for any purpose other than official business of the City, its City Council, City Advisory Boards, Commissions, Task Forces and Staff, shall be prohibited unless otherwise approved by the City Manager and/or City Council. In addition, the use of the City Seal/Logo for any political campaign materials or literature shall be prohibited. (Refer to Ordinance No. 92-14 for specific regulations.)

Oops. I guess whoever did this newsletter for the Harkey for Assembly Campaign forgot about that. So did the Harkey Campaign (or whoever did this for them) receive approval from the city to use the deal in this publication? This may not seem like a major issue, except that this may coax unsuspecting Dana Point residents into believing this is some type of community interest newsletter or some city related publication, when this appears to be something connected to Harkey's partisan campaign for State Assembly. If this is actually the case, then this is not something that the campaign should be engaging in.

Even if we forget the whole specific issue of a possible violation over the use of a city seal, this is still wrong. People are being duped into thinking that this is nonpartisan information when this may actually be tied to a partisan campaign. At best, this is playing fast and loose with basic ethics. I don't even want to talk about the possible worst-case scenario here.

So if people connected to the Harkey for Assembly Campaign are publishing this "newsletter", then they need to cut it out. This just isn't right. And yes, the people of this truly beautiful coastal community deserve better than this.