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.

Where's The Damn Citation?

I'm pleased as spiked punch with the Coastal Commission Staff Report condemning the 241 (Foothill-South) toll road. It's the shiz-nizzle hiz-izzle. For rizzle.

But would it have killed them to cite one of my articles?

Most of the report isn't exactly news. It was news at one point in the time, back in the day, when I raked muck for OC Weekly, cheerfully slaving away under Will Swaim and R. Scott Moxley for an absolute pittance that was worth every penny (all three of them, in other words). So here's a little self-gratification to cheer me up and make me forget the amount of studying I have to do for my sixth week of law school.

What follows are the juicy excerpts from the report, as mentioned in a previous post, with links to the relevant Toll Road Rage stories published last year in the OC Weekly.

“…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

This one was great - DOCUMENTED INCOMPETENCE. It discusses how the online Environmental Impact Report's Table of Contents was garbage, omitting a section with a comically evil name ( Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources) that discusses, among other things, "environmental conditions degraded or destroyed by the project." Sounds like the kind of section people might not mind having omitted from the T.O.C., if you K.W.I.M.

“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)

Another beauty - KEN RYAN AND FRIENDS. Ryan, a former Mayor of Yorba Linda and a brunette, calls himself an environmental planner, not an urban planner. But his only plans involved destroying San Onofre under cover of a "green" banner. The TCA called it the least environmentally damaging alternative, but they considered damage to the URBAN environment. Language is a tricky thing.

“…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)

Aha! Traffic. Here's the skinny: TOLL ROADS MAKE TRAFFIC WORSE. They are what's called traffic inducers or traffic incentives or, in layman's terms, utter clusterfucks. NOT SO FAST used the expert opinion of UCI's Dr. Michael McNally to explain just how building a road could possibly generate more traffic. I've got two words for you. "Off-ramp." Okay, maybe that's one word; i don't know about the hyphen. Point is, interchanges jack up land value due to increased accessibility, enticing large commercial zones, office towers, and low-occupancy housing tracts. I believe 14,000 new McMansions are slotted to go up, not counting an unseemly amount of imaging centers, skin care centers, plastic surgeons, marketing companies, restaurants and shopping centers. I could go on but I feel sick.

“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)

I used WHAT YOUR MIMI DOESN'T KNOW to piss on a politician from a great height, or at least a safe distance, and boy was it fun. Assemblywoman Mimi Walters (R-73) had no idea what she was talking about, which was dangerous as the State Parks Commissioners she addressed had been told in no uncertain terms by park staff that very morning that the Foothill-South toll road extension would force the closure of the San Mateo Campground. I'm not calling Mimi an ignorant cheerleader for the Orange County Republican politburo. I'm really not. I don't know if she was ever really a cheerleader anyway.

“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)

Just wanted to emphasize that one last time. Theoretically, if you flip things around and make all sorts of logical substitutions, those dudes are basically saying, "We could not more strongly agree with Alex Brant-Zawadzki," which is like a big old stamp of approval on my work. It's a bit twisted how I derive much of my self-worth from occasional massive injections of outside approval, but it's something to build on. And when this road goes down, well hell, I'll be the happiest man in San Francisco. One less thing to worry about besides law school.

Got 99 problems; bein' wrong ain't one.

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.

Call To Arms!

Call To Arms

This is our chance to hammer a silver spike into the heart of the 241 Toll Road extension: California Assembly Bill 1457 proposes to ban the building of roads through State Parks. If this bill passes, The Transportation Corridor authorities degradation of San Mateo campground (itself a mitigation for the San Onofre nuclear plant), San Mateo watershed, and the Trestles wave complex will be stopped. Under normal circumstances in the Sacramento dynamic, a bill of this nature would fail due to business-as-usual, political process that grinds on behind the scenes. Unless the unusual happens and the surfing community collectively rises up and mobilizes to pass this bill, it to will fail and likely Trestles along with it. As a member of our surfing community no matter what party you support or where you sit on or in the state of California (Or the nation) please work hard to support this bill the survival of Trestles (San Onofre and San Mateo) as we know it is at stake. Your break (or campsite) will be next. Contact your local state government representatives and request that they support assembly Bill 1457 banning new roads through state parks! -- S. P.

What happens to the backcountry, happens to the beach, contact your California State Representative to keep the link between trestles and the wilderness corridor of San Mateo Creek untrammeled...
.