Background: The Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency of Orange County wants to extend state Route 241, a toll road, to ease traffic on Interstate 5. The California Coastal Commission rejected the project in February.
What's new: The U.S. Department of Commerce yesterday denied an appeal by the transportation agency, which was seeking an override of the commission's ruling.
What's next: Several lawsuits challenging the toll road have been filed, and the transportation agency could
take the Commerce Department to court.
Online: To read the Commerce Department's decision, visit uniontrib.com/ more/tollruling
Bloomberg on the US Commerce Department Upholding the Costal Commission's Rejection of the Toll Road
Credit-Crisis Threat to California Road Suits Surfers
By Peter J. Brennan
Dec. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Wall Street’s credit crisis may be the death blow for a planned toll-road extension that California surfers have been fighting for 10 years.
Money would be used to restructure debt, and anti-tollroad activists say that's not appropriate.
By: PAT BRENNAN
The Orange County Register
Orange County's Transportation Corridor Agencies have applied for a $1.1 billion federal loan to help refinance $4.6 billion in debt, and an anti-toll road group says the loan should not be approved.
In June, the agency filed its application for the loan under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation. The application is pending.
The Save San Onofre Coalition, opponents of the proposed Foothill South toll road, said Thursday the loan program is not appropriate for debt restructuring, although the tollway agency received permission from federal highway officials to apply for a loan for that purpose. The loans are normally used for building new transportation projects, the activists said.
"We believe that given the constraints of the TIFIA program normally imposed on a loan like this, it's just another example of TCA manipulating the process and of breaking promises to the public," said Elizabeth Goldstein, president of the California State Parks Foundation.
The money would be used to help create a new organization that would acquire the county's two toll road agencies, the San Joaquin Hills and the Foothill/Eastern, said spokeswoman Lisa Telles, and to buy out $4.6 billion worth of bonds and issue new bonds.
Although ridership on the toll roads has been dropping in recent years, and is below initial projections, Telles said planning for the loan request and restructuring has been underway for years, and that the loan is not being sought because of the present performance of the toll roads.
The restructuring, she said, also would help ease the way for toll road improvements, such as road widenings, and eventually the financing of the proposed Foothill South toll road.
Foothill South, an extension of the 241 toll road and the final link in the county's toll road network, is the subject of a years-long battle between activists and the toll road builder. The 16-mile toll road would cut through San Onofre State Beach park as well as natural habitat for a variety of species; activists also worry about potential effects on Trestles beach downstream, though the agency says the beach won't be affected.
The agency says the road is needed to relieve future traffic congestion.
The state Coastal Commission denied the project in February, but the tollway builder appealed the ruling to the U.S. Commerce Department. A decision could come by early January.
Goldstein and other activists say the need for debt restructuring is a sign that the toll road model is not working, and that another such project should not be built. They say the requested amount also is far larger than normally allowed under the program.
U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., sent a letter to federal transportation officials saying she, too, does not believe the loan would be appropriate.
"Voters in California need to ask why this loan is being requested," said Susan Jordan, director of the California Coastal Protection Network. "How are they spending their money so they get themselves into this kind of hole? What makes them so special? Why should they get this bailout? We don't believe they should."
Contact the writer: 714-796-7865 or
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
The Foothill South project serves neither the state nor the nation and should be rejected by Washington.
October 8, 2008
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?
True, Interstate 5 is a key north-south
artery for commuter and international freight traffic. But drivers
would be better served by a direct route, widening the I-5 through San
Clemente with toll lanes. Residents of the city understandably deplore
the idea, but this freeway already has been successfully widened
through most of the rest of Orange County.
Despite arguments by
the Transportation Corridor Agencies, the toll road would serve no
significant purpose for Camp Pendleton, nor is it likely to provide a
life-saving escape in case of an accident at the San Onofre nuclear
plant. The plant has operated for decades and is scheduled to go out of
service in 2022, just nine years after the earliest anticipated opening
date for the toll road. Besides, why would San Clemente residents drive
south toward San Onofre in order to pick up a road to get away from it?
The proposed Foothill South toll road is a
throwback to outdated models of growth that have locked this region
into a pattern of killer commutes, reliance on foreign oil and the
production of pollutants that foul air quality and contribute to global
warming, at the expense of precious open spaces and endangered species.
It serves neither the state nor the nation well.
DEL MAR ---- Nearly 2,000 people filed into a cavernous and noisy
meeting hall at the Del Mar Fairgrounds on Monday to sound off at a
federal public hearing on a proposed toll road that would pass through
one of Southern California's most popular parks and near a world-class
surf break.
A total of 657 people signed up to speak, complying
with strict ground rules established for the hearing by the U.S.
Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Federal
officials expected only 150 to speak during the 10 hours allotted for
the public airing of opinions about one of the area's most
controversial road projects.
The California Coastal Commission
rejected the project in February after environmentalists and other
opponents argued that the 16-mile, six-lane road that would cut through
San Onofre State Beach Park would wipe out several endangered or
threatened coastal species, decimate an ancient American Indian burial
ground and dampen the world-class waves at Trestles.
But the
Orange County agency that hopes to build and finance the proposed $1.3
billion road, the Transportation Corridor Agencies, appealed that
decision to the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, a
branch of the U.S. Commerce Department.
San Onofre State Park is on leased federal land at Camp Pendleton.
During
the afternoon, the crowd thinned considerably. Some project opponents,
wary of the administration's threat to shut down the meeting if it
became unruly, displayed signs admonishing colleagues to be "quiet,
please."
As a result, the meeting was quieter than the boisterous February state hearing on the issue attended by 3,500.
Still,
many project opponents and supporters openly defied the
administration's call to refrain from clapping, cheering, booing and
waving signs.
And Jane Luxton, the administration general counsel who presided over the hearing, repeatedly reminded the crowd of the rules.
"I'm
going to have to ask you to please cut out the cheering," a visibly
frustrated Luxton said. "Please express your opinion by giving a thumbs
up or a thumbs down."
Many did use their thumbs. While doing that, some opponents waved dollar bills.
"It's all about greed," said Niko Theris of Laguna Beach, explaining why he pulled out a bill.
Some opponents wore dark green T-shirts that read, "Save the park, stop the toll road."
Others
were clad in black T-shirts that urged "Save Trestles," with former
President Reagan's mug on the front and a quote about San Onofre on the
back.
As governor four decades ago, Reagan signed into law a bill to create the park.
Construction
workers in favor of the project filled the building, their orange
T-shirts emblazoned with the words "Less traffic, more jobs."
The
agency and other proponents, who include Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger,
said the toll road extension shores up national security by providing
an alternative to Interstate 5 in the event of a wildfire or accident
at the nearby San Onofre nuclear power plant.
"When those fires
in San Diego happened and they had to evacuate all the people, they had
one exit route and that was backed up for hours. People were trying to
drive 60 miles and it took them five hours," said Lance MacLean, an
agency board member. "It's in the interest of national security that
you have an alternate route."
The hearing was being held to gather comment from the public, elected officials, tribal members and others.
Federal officials say they will not rule until later this year.
"Traffic
in Southern California is worse than anywhere else in the United
States," said Linda Lindholm, a Laguna Niguel councilwoman, who argued
in favor of the road.
Anaheim Councilwoman Lucille Kring said
it's not just during the rush hour when cars slow to a crawl, with so
many people traveling to regional attractions such as SeaWorld,
Legoland and Disneyland.
"Traffic congestion is actually worse on the weekend than during the week," Kring said.
Oceanside
Councilman Jack Feller, who supports the project, called the toll-road
extension a "practical solution" to the swelling traffic congestion
along Interstate 5, the coast's major artery.
Feller said the
San Diego County economy, which is infused with $7.7 billion that 32
million visitors spend annually in the area, would benefit from an
alternative to driving I-5.
He said half of the visitors get here by car.
Oceanside
Councilwoman Esther Sanchez, who is on the opposite side of the issue,
said the toll road would do more harm than good.
"It will not reduce congestion," Sanchez, said. "It will, in fact, create it."
State
Treasurer Bill Lockyer joined Sanchez and other elected officials in
calling for the federal government to uphold the earlier state decision.
"This is not a compelling national interest," Lockyer said. "And there are reasonable alternatives."
California
Department of Transportation Director Will Kempton disagreed, saying
the alternative that opponents cite ---- widening I-5 in south Orange
County ---- is too expensive.
It "would cost $2.8 billion ---- money we don't have," Kempton said.
The
$875 million construction cost for the Highway 241 toll road's
four-lane phase and its undetermined land cost would be paid by the
highway's motorists, rather than California taxpayers.
The road would later be expanded to six lanes.
Traffic
issues aside, Solana Beach Councilwoman Lesa Heebner called the road
"one of the most environmentally destructive" transportation projects
ever proposed in the region.
And Susan Jordan, executive
director of the California Coastal Protection Network in Santa Barbara,
called it a transportation project of strictly local concern ---- and
therefore off-limits for a federal ruling overturning a state decision.
Not
only that, Jordan said, the road is primarily an Orange County
transportation issue, as it is part of that county's planned and mostly
built 67-mile toll road system.
"Keep it in Orange County if you want, but don't destroy a state park in San Diego," she said.
DEL
MAR Opponents and supporters of the proposed Foothill South toll road
brought their case before the federal government Monday with passionate
speeches, armies of followers and plenty of statistics.
More
than 150 speakers addressed National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration general counsel Jane Luxton by 7 p.m., with two hours to
go before the hearing's scheduled end.
The crowd likely peaked
at the hearing's start that morning at between 1,000 and 1,500, with
supporters in orange T-shirts and opponents in green appearing roughly
equal in number.
Luxton was to make no decision or statements,
but was taking comments for the U.S. Commerce secretary. Commerce is
considering an appeal by the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor
Agency of the state Coastal Commission's rejection of the toll road
proposal in February.
Opponents held a press conference before
the hearing to announce a letter signed by 25 members of Congress
urging the Commerce secretary not to overrule the Coastal Commission.
“The
Save San Onofre Coalition defeated this proposal that would be
extraordinarily destructive of natural and sacred resources,” Elizabeth
Goldstein, president of the State Parks Foundation, said at the
opponents' rally. "We're here to express our enormous opposition to
this toll road.”
Supporters, meanwhile, many dressed in orange
shirts, chanted “Toll road yes!” outside and inside the meeting hall.
The chanting continued until the meeting began.
The
Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency says the road is needed
to relieve future traffic congestion, and is of national importance –
one of the findings the Commerce secretary must make to overturn the
Coastal Commission's decision.
As the hearing got under way, Luxton tried to tame the raucous crowd by asking for silent demonstrations.
She
said she would “allow you if you wish to raise your signs between
speakers. Also, you can put your thumb up or thumb down while the
speaker is speaking to indicate your feelings about it.”
The
thumbs and signs flew on both sides – but that didn't stop the
partisans from cheering or booing loudly when each of the first few
speakers finished.
The Commerce secretary must decide no later
than Jan. 7 whether the toll road, a 16-mile extension of the existing
241 toll road, is of national importance.
“The project opponents
have made many inaccurate claims,” said Tustin Mayor Jerry Amante, the
first speaker, causing the crowd to erupt. “But none is a more
inaccurate claim than that completion of the 241 does not satisfy the
national interest test of the Coastal Zone Management Act.”
State
Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, urged that the Commerce secretary
reject the road, which would cut through San Onofre State Beach park.
“This is not a road through a state park,” she said. “This is a road instead of a state park.”
The
crowd began to trickle away by midafternoon – unlike at the Coastal
Commission hearing in February, when thousands remained into the night.
Among the toll road supporters, most of them on the right side
of the meeting room, sat Brent Praegitzer of Newport Beach, a landscape
architect who is employed as part of the proposed Foothill South
project.
Praegitzer said he was not asked by the
Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency to be at the hearing,
and was in fact allowing himself to get behind on another project to
show up.
He knew many surfers were in the audience, worried
about the potential effect of the toll road on the famous Trestles
surfing beach – although the toll road agency says there will be no
effect. Others are worried about the toll road's proximity to a
campground at San Onofre State Beach park.
“They're not paving
over a beach, they're not taking out a campground,” Praegitzer said.
“It's a bunch of lies. So many people have heard so many lies over the
years.”
But George Brolaski, 76, of Encinitas, a doctor and a
surfer, said the surfing was exactly what he was worried about. Like
other opponents, he wore a green T-shirt and sat on the left side of
the room.
“My son is a surfer, my grandson is a surfer,” he
said. “I'm worried about what will happen. It seems like it all comes
down to money. It looks like it's all people hoping to get jobs.”
In fact, some of those who turned out in support did hope to get jobs, and were unapologetic about it.
“I'm
concerned about being able to get back and forth,” said David Cordero,
39, of Riverside, a member of a carpenter's union in an orange T-shirt.
“And not only that, I hope it will create some work.”
Green-shirted Kathy Feyerabend, who has lived in her San Clemente home for 37 years, wasn't buying any of it.
“I don't feel we need it,” she said. “It's going to be more development in the back country.”
While
those seated listened, speakers for and against the toll road took
turns at the microphone. Supporters talked about the future traffic
congestion the toll road agency says the road is meant to relieve.
Orange
County Supervisor Bill Campbell, along with other Orange County elected
officials, spoke of a 60 percent increase along I-5 in the area by 2025.
“My
constituents tell me how hard it is to drive to San Diego on Interstate
5 to visit friends and family,” he said. “They wonder the Foothill
South hasn't been built already.”
The proposed toll road was a more immediate matter for some.
Rebecca
Robles of the Acjachemen Nation, an American Indian group also known as
the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, said building the road would
intrude upon a sacred site centered on Panhe, an ancient village site
where she said many of her ancestors are buried and where rituals are
held.
“This road would be devastating for me and my community,”
Robles said. “The impacts of the toll road will have a permanent,
damaging effect on our ability to practice and maintain the lifeways of
our traditional community.”
Tony Moiso of the O'Neill-Moiso
family, owners of Rancho Mission Viejo, spoke of the road's potential
benefits – although he said development of as many as 14,000 homes on
the 23,000 acre ranch is not contingent on the road. The road would go
through part of the ranch land, in his family since 1882.
“The
completion of the toll road is a real answer to real problems today,”
Moiso said. “There is no reasonable alternative that will solve the
congestion problems of today.”
But a later statement revealed a
split in the family, which owns the 23,000-acre Rancho Mission Viejo.
The ranch expects to build as many as 14,000 homes over the next 20
years.
The statement was a letter read into the record from
Richard J. O'Neill, also of the ranching family – but an opponent of
the toll road.
“The toll road extension would plow through the
Donna O'Neill Land Conservancy, 1,200 acres of land that is a key part
of the San Mateo Creek watershed, and that is supposed to remain in its
natural state into perpetuity,” wrote O'Neill, 85, who identified
himself as the retired chairman of the Rancho Mission Viejo Board of
directors.
The opponents offered one crowd pleaser: 9-year-old Jake Marshall, of Encinitas, who explained why he opposed the road.
“My
family and I love to spend time walking the trails, going to the beach,
riding bikes, building surf shacks, and most of all, surfing,” Jake
said, reading his statement. “Why are we even considering destroying a
place that has been around since the beginning of time?”
He drew a loud burst of cheering and applause from the anti-toll road faction, most wearing green T-shirts.
Still,
a steady stream of supporters stepped up to the microphone. The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, conducting the hearing
for the U.S. Commerce secretary, had screened speakers in advance and
chosen the order in which they would speak.
Chip Prather, fire chief of the Orange County Fire Authority, said building the road would enhance public safety.
“The
OCFA believes the extension of this road way is an important part of
our community fire defense system and will aid in the movement of both
emergency response assets and citizens during disaster evacuations,”
Prather said.
Contact the writer: 714-796-7865 or
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
.
Crowds pack hearing on San Onofre toll road proposal
By Terry Rodgers and Mike Lee
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITERS
3:59 p.m. September 22, 2008
DEL MAR – Despite repeated warnings to maintain decorum, supporters and
opponents of the proposed state Route 241 toll-road extension both
cheered and jeered dozens of speakers at a public hearing Monday.
At times, some of those in the crowd of more than 1,000 drowned out
the speakers. “Stop the lies,” yelled a woman from the audience.
“We'd like to ask for respect for all of the speakers and keep
the hearing going,” said Jane Luxton, who was running the hearing for
the U.S. Department of Commerce.
The meeting began at 10:30 a.m. in O'Brien Hall at the Del Mar Fairgrounds and was expected to run until at least 8:30 p.m.
As the afternoon wore on, neither side in the bitter debate
gained a clear edge. Environmentalists who spoke repeated warnings
about how the tollway would damage San Onofre State Park and a prized
surfing spot known as Trestles. Orange County officials and labor
representatives said the project would provide jobs and reduce traffic.
Building the 16-mile extension would cost $1.3 billion and take three years.
“It is possible to build necessary infrastructure and protect
the environment,” said Lance MacLean, a Mission Viejo councilman and a
board member of the Foothill-Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency.
That organization is proposing to build the road.
In February, the California Coastal Commission denied
permission for the agency to build the extension. The agency appealed
to the Commerce Department, which is expected to issue a ruling by Jan.
7. Part of the lengthened toll road would be on federal land, so
federal officials can overrule the Coastal Commission.
“The Coastal Commission got it right. Stop the toll road to
nowhere,” urged Mark Massara, director of California coastal programs
for the Sierra Club.
Milford Wayne Donaldson, the state's historic preservation
officer, said he is preparing to ask the National Park Service to make
the Trestles surf break the first surf site in the country to be listed
on the National Register of Historic Places.
“I ... plea for the generations of
families in the future to enjoy the recreation and culture (at
Trestles) and for the incredible importance it holds for California's
identity,” he said. “Please don't build this freeway.”
Moments later, Dave Stefanides, representing the Orange County
Association of Realtors, told Luxton that the toll road should be
completed so that Interstate 5 or other routes aren't widened. If that
happens, he said, homeowners in south Orange County could lose their
homes.
“No one should be able to take away their retirement,” he said.
Officials for the corridor agency said extending the tollway,
which eventually could have six lanes, is critical to lessening traffic
gridlock along Interstate 5 in southern Orange County.
Before the meeting started, several dozen members of labor
unions in Orange County held a demonstration outside the building. They
carried signs saying “less traffic, more jobs” and repeatedly chanted
“toll road, yes!”
The pro-tollway rally was small compared to a protest held
outside by opponents of the toll road, many of whom held signs saying
“save our state park.”
The agency's chosen route for the extension would stretch from
Oso Parkway in Rancho Santa Margarita to I-5 at San Onofre. Backers of
the project said it is the least environmentally destructive alignment.
Opponents have said no route could be worse. They said much
wildlife would be harmed if the toll road passes through the Donna
O'Neill Land Conservancy and the part of San Onofre State Beach next to
the San Mateo campground.
The tollway would be the first in California to run across a state park.
DEL MAR, CALIF. -- Federal officials hoping for decorum laid down the rules at the outset of Monday's public hearing on whether to build a toll road through a state park: no booing, no cheering.
The public's response: Boos and cheers reminiscent of February's raucous marathon public meeting here in which the California Coastal Commission turned down the proposed road through San Onofre State Beach.
A crowd estimated at more than 6,000 over the course of the day packed a hot, stuffy hall at the Del Mar Fairgrounds for Monday's hearing before three representatives of the U.S. Department of Commerce, to which the Irvine-based Transportation Corridor Agencies appealed the California Coastal Commission's ruling.
Acoustics were bad in the cavernous, corrugated-roof hall. Speakers at times couldn't be heard clearly, and the noisy crowd exasperated the federal attorney presiding over the hearing.
"Please keep the yelling down so we can hear the speakers," said Jane Luxton, general counsel for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is part of the Commerce Department. The department has jurisdiction because the project falls under the Coastal Zone Management Act, a federal-state partnership that regulates development.
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.
In the muggy hall, opponents fanned themselves with "Save Trestles" signs and waved dollar bills when politicians spoke in favor of the project.
When a demonstrator in colorful board shorts toting a handmade sign that read "If you want more freeways, move to the East Coast" wandered to the front of the hall, security officers turned him back.
"They're building so they can get the developer money. They're not building it so they can improve traffic," said San Clemente resident Glen Frohlich, 50, who wore a T-shirt reading "Save the park / stop the toll road."
Outside the hall, where vendors sold kielbasa and falafel, members of local unions wore T-shirts with a different message: "Less traffic, more jobs."
"People that have families down here need to eat," said Rick Baptist, 49, a heavy-equipment operator. And "instead of being caught in congestion and traffic, you [will] have easy access to where you want to go."
Federal officials say they have received more than 35,000 written comments on the issue. More than 650 people registered to speak Monday; federal officials estimated that only 150 would have a chance.
Members of the public were allowed three minutes each to make their case, while elected officials were allowed four minutes.
The rules allowed for the "greatest voice for the greatest number," said Jeff Dillen, a federal lawyer.
"What we're facing here is a large amount of interested folks and a limited amount of time."
The hearing, which began shortly after 10:30 a.m., quickly ran behind schedule and stretched late into the evening. Luxton ejected a couple of people from the podium for breaking a rule that prohibited elected officials from sending representatives to speak on their behalf.
Among the other rules: Spectators' signs could not be larger than 2 feet wide and could not be waved during comments. This, too, was ignored at times.
There was a brief hiccup midafternoon when the sound system temporarily blew out during one speaker's comments.
Luxton struggled to get the milling, chatting crowd to quiet down and sit down before the hearing could continue.
The battle over the toll road extension has dragged on for decades.
Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez has until Jan. 7 to decide if its benefits to the nation -- including national security -- outweigh its adverse effects and whether there are viable alternatives to the proposed route.
His ruling will not decide the issue, however. The losing side is expected to appeal whatever decision Gutierrez makes in federal court.
susannah.rosenblatt
@latimes.com
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Debate over proposed San Onofre toll road to continue with appeal hearing
More
than 650 people are scheduled to speak before an attorney with the U.S.
Department of Commerce, whose secretary can override an earlier
rejection of the plan by a state commission.
By Susannah Rosenblatt, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 22, 2008
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."
The issue has unleashed reams of competing legal opinions, government
letters, scientific studies, opinion polls, advertisements and
propaganda from both sides.
The six-lane, $1.3-billion extension of California 241 would connect
Rancho Santa Margarita in south Orange County with Interstate 5 at
Basilone Road in north San Diego County, slicing lengthwise through San
Onofre State Beach. The Transportation Corridor Agencies -- the firm
that runs Orange County's tollways -- plus elected officials, including
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, contend that the proposed highway is vital
to relieve growing gridlock on I-5.
"Folks from one end of the state to the other end of the state will use
it," said Jim Dahl, a San Clemente city councilman who sits on the
transportation agency's board of directors. "It's not just an isolated
backcountry roadway."
Said Tustin Mayor Jerry Amante, who is the chairman of the board of
directors: "It's crucial to our southern region, it's crucial to air
quality, it's crucial to public safety."
Counters state Sen. Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego): "I don't think it's
reasonable to think that California can build its way out of traffic
congestion. We need to look at these problems in a new way. Once these
roads are built, there's really no going back."
In addition to denouncing the project as destroying a popular state
park, opponents say it would imperil endangered species and ruin land
considered sacred by local Native American tribes.
"A park is not a developable thing," said Bobby Shriver, a Santa
Monica city councilman and former state parks commissioner who opposes
the road.
One of the most publicized points of debate is whether sediment created
by the road extension would harm the waves at the world-famous Trestles
surf break, fed by San Mateo Creek. Scientific analyses commissioned by
both sides disagree, but "Save Trestles" has become a rallying cry,
galvanizing the surfing community against the tollway.
"It's turned into a religion," Dahl said of anti-toll road activism. "You're either dead set against it or dead set for it."
"You've got this small band of people who are zealots, who . . . wrap
themselves up in the flag of surfing and scream and yell from the
rooftops," Amante said. "They've made it their Waterloo."
At today's hearing, Jane Luxton, general counsel for the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, part of the Department of
Commerce, is set to hear testimony from elected officials,
organizations and members of the public. Gutierrez, the Commerce
secretary, is to then consider that oral testimony, written comments
and documents submitted by both sides in his decision. The public
comment period remains open until Oct. 2.
Gutierrez can decide to override the state Coastal Commission's decision if these three conditions are met:
If they aren't, the secretary could also
override the state's ruling if he finds that the toll road is necessary
for national security.
Of the 42 coastal development appeals filed with the Department of
Commerce since 1983, the federal government has overridden state
decisions 14 times, five of those in California.
The fight over the road has resulted in a few political shenanigans.
Schwarzenegger removed brother-in-law Shriver and film director Clint
Eastwood from the state parks commission this year, dismissals they
said were related to their vocal opposition to the toll road.
Schwarzenegger's office denies that claim.
Last month, the council that represents 130,000 unionized construction
industry workers in Los Angeles and Orange counties urged the Surf
Industry Manufacturers Assn. -- with such members as Quiksilver and
Billabong -- to quit sponsoring toll road opponents' "misinformation
campaign."
Although the debate over building the toll road has dragged on for decades, neither side shows signs of fatigue.
"The level of activism and engagement keeps rising," said Goldstein, of
the state parks foundation. "In a funny kind of way, I think the longer
this goes on, the more frustrated people become that they're unable to
influence this process."
And that frustration is pretty much guaranteed to continue: No matter
what Gutierrez decides, the losing side can always appeal in federal
court.
DEL
MAR, Calif.—More than 1,000 people turned out Monday at a public
hearing over a proposed toll road that would pass through one of
Southern California's most popular parks and near a world-class surf
break.
Until now, the fight over the road—which would cut through
San Onofre State Beach and end a half-mile from the surf break
Trestles—has focused on its environmental impact.
The
California Coastal Commission rejected the plan in February after
environmentalists and other opponents argued that the 16-mile, six lane
road would wipe out several endangered or threatened coastal species,
decimate an ancient Indian burial ground and block sediment that
creates world-class waves at Trestles.
But the company that
hopes to build and finance the proposed $1.3 billion road, the
Transportation Corridor Agencies, appealed that decision to the
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, a branch of the U.S.
Commerce Department. It hopes to get the state's decision overturned by
arguing that the road would play a key role in national security and
economic growth.
So many people signed up to speak at NOAA's
hearing Monday—more than 650—that it scheduled the meeting at a
fairgrounds to accommodate the crowd and hired security officers to
help maintain order. Officials expected to make it through less than a
quarter of those speakers before the end of the 10-hour hearing, and
most of those were to be elected officials.
Even so, more than 1,000 people
packed into the space by the start of the hearing, many wearing
T-shirts that read either "Save the Park, Stop the Toll Road" or "241:
Less Traffic, More Jobs." Audience members—who frequently interrupted
the speakers with cheers or boos—were urged to instead give a thumbs-up
or thumbs-down sign to indicate their feelings.
"We're against
taking away the shoreline for a road. I think the coast needs to be
maintained. It's beautiful, it's rustic, the way California used to
be," Carol Baker, 67, of La Jolla, said just before the hearing began.
"They can cut across somewhere else if they need to get their road
built."
The company and other proponents, who include Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, say the toll road extension shores up national
security by providing an alternative to Interstate 5 in the event of a
wildfire or accident at the nearby San Onofre nuclear power plant.
"When
those fires in San Diego happened and they had to evacuate all the
people, they had one exit route and that was backed up for hours.
People were trying to drive 60 miles and it took them five hours," said
Lance MacLean, a company board member. "It's in the interest of
national security that you have an alternate route."
Proponents
also argue that the road would boost an economy that's strangled by
heavy traffic. State Assemblywoman Mimi Walters, R-Lake Forest, said
studies show congestion will increase 60 percent by 2025 in that area
of the interstate.
"Traffic congestion in my district is bad, but by 2025 it will be unbearable," she said.
Environmentalists
counter that the proposed road would be little more than another local
commuter option for a planned 14,000-home development in south Orange
County—and not a national security linchpin.
Schwarzenegger's
brother-in-law, Bobby Shriver, said locals don't want the toll road.
The governor was accused earlier this year of dumping Shriver and
actor-director Clint Eastwood from the California State Parks and
Recreation Commission because they voted against the toll road. The
governor's office has denied those accusations.
"There's a very
serious traffic problem on the 5, there's no doubt about that," Shriver
said, referring to the freeway. "But they do not want to solve that
problem by building this road."
A local city councilwoman
disagreed, however, saying that supporters of the road couldn't be
there to speak because they had jobs and families.
"It is their
hope that we will listen to the people in the neighborhood and the
small business owners—the real people," said Linda Lindholm, a Laguna
Niguel councilwoman. "They ask me, 'Why is it taking so long?'"
Federal
officials could make a decision on whether to override the state's veto
as early as next month. The hearing was led by Jane Luxton, NOAA's
general counsel.
In its history, the California Coastal
Commission has rejected only 28 projects and 14 of those were appealed
to the Commerce Department. The commission was overruled in five cases
and upheld in two. The remaining cases were withdrawn, dismissed or
settled.
The toll road is the first California project to go to a public hearing with the Commerce Department since 1991.
NORTH COUNTY – A large crowd is expected tomorrow at the Del Mar
Fairgrounds to argue the pros and cons of a proposal to extend state
Route 241 from Orange County into northern San Diego County.
Supporters of the tollway said it would reduce congestion on
Interstate 5, but opponents said it would cause major environmental
damage by crossing through a nature reserve and San Onofre State Beach.
In February, the state Coastal Commission denied permission for
the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency to build the
extension.
The U.S. Department of Commerce is holding tomorrow's hearing
because the corridor agency filed an appeal. Part of the lengthened
toll road would be on federal land, so federal officials can overrule
the Coastal Commission.
Commerce Department officials said they have received more than 10,000 written comments for and against the tollway project.
Although 657 people have been registered to speak during the
public-comment period, only about 150 will get the chance because of
the hearing's nine-hour limit.
Here are answers to some questions about the tollway debate, based on interviews and other reporting.
Why is the toll road proposal important?
Officials for the corridor agency said extending the tollway,
which eventually could have six lanes, is critical to lessening traffic
gridlock along Interstate 5 in southern Orange County.
The agency's chosen route for the extension would stretch 16
miles – from Oso Parkway in Rancho Santa Margarita to I-5 at San
Onofre. Backers of the $1.3 billion project said it is the least environmentally destructive alignment.
Opponents said no route could be worse. They said much wildlife would
be harmed if the toll road passes through the Donna O'Neill Land
Conservancy and the part of San Onofre State Beach next to the San
Mateo campground.
The tollway would be the first in California to run across a state park.
What is the role of the Commerce Department?
Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez can overturn the Coastal
Commission's decision if he determines the road project benefits
“national interests,” including national security, and if he concludes
there is no reasonable alternative.
Gutierrez has until Jan. 7 to render his decision.
What national interests might be served by lengthening state Route 241?
In documents filed with the Commerce Department, the corridor agency said its project would:
Allow for increased mobility of goods and services.
Offer drivers from inland areas a more direct route to the coast.
Provide treatment basins that each year will clean up to 5 million gallons of urban runoff flowing from I-5 into San Mateo Creek and the ocean.
Create an emergency evacuation route between the coast and Southern California's Inland Empire.
Give the Marine Corps a quicker route to March Air Reserve Base in Riverside County.
Provide $100 million to improve public access, recreation and habitat for the state parks system.
In a rebuttal filed with federal officials, environmentalists
said congestion can be relieved by widening I-5 and installing more
efficient on-ramps and off-ramps.
They also said the tollway's harm to endangered species, native
habitat, American Indian cultural sites and San Onofre State Beach
outweigh any conceivable national benefit.
What impact will the highway have on San Onofre State Beach?
This issue is in dispute.
The Coastal Commission's staff members and state parks officials
contend the toll road extension would devastate the state park. They
said the tollway, which would run through the site as an elevated road,
would render the San Mateo campground and a mile-long trail linking it
to the beach unfit for visitors.
Leaders of the corridor agency
said a sound wall would block noise from the tollway and allow the
campground to continue operating.
Some critics allege the road will disrupt sand flow to the Trestles
surfing area and jeopardize the quality of its waves. Scientific
studies commissioned by the corridor agency show there will be no
effect to the waves or the beach's sand supply. That conclusion is
supported by Richard Seymour, a leading coastal engineer at the
University of California San Diego's Scripps Institution of
Oceanography in La Jolla.
What happens if the secretary of commerce overrules the state Coastal Commission?
The toll road project would clear a regulatory hurdle by
meeting the standards of the Coastal Zone Management Act. But the
corridor agency still would need to obtain a development permit from
the state Coastal Commission for the coastal portion of the road.
Litigation is likely because the commerce secretary's decision can be challenged in federal court.
Toll road battle intensifies; federal hearing today
Toll road battle intensifies; federal hearing today
Toll agency releases poll showing support for extension of 241; activists talk strategy.
By PAT BRENNAN
The Orange County 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 today.
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.
Meanwhile, activists spoke to reporters, outlining arguments they will use to try to persuade federal officials not to intervene in the toll road dispute.
Toll road builders filed an appeal with the U.S. Commerce secretary after the state Coastal Commission rejected the toll road project in February, saying it would violate the state Coastal Act.
The appeal is allowed under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act; the toll road agency argues that Foothill South is of national importance, especially to the western United States, because it will help relieve congestion and move goods along Interstate 5.
But the Save San Onofre Coalition, made up of several environmental groups, will argue that the proposed toll road, which would cut through San Onofre State Beach park as well as natural habitat in southern Orange County, does not rise to the level of national importance.
"The notion that this local 16-mile road is a nationally significant project is completely laughable in our opinion," said Damon Nagami, a staff attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The national interest is to protect state parks, not these road projects."
The hearing at the Del Mar Fairgrounds by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a branch of Commerce, will be tightly controlled; people wishing to comment were required to submit requests in advance, and were pre-screened by the agency.
That also raised the ire of Susan Jordan of the California Coastal Protection Network. While more than 600 people submitted requests, NOAA estimated that just over 150 would have time to speak during the hearing from 10:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Jordan said she felt the ordering of the list favored toll road supporters, with many placed higher on the list and thus more likely to speak before the hearing ends.
"This puts the public at the bottom rung," she said.
A NOAA spokesman said the agency had no further comment on the list or the hearing procedures.
REGION: Poll finds support for toll road By North County Times
On
the eve of a long-awaited hearing, a new poll has found that supporters
of a plan to connect the Highway 241 toll road to Interstate 5 by
crossing San Onofre state park outnumber opponents by more than 2-1 in
North County, according to a poll by project proponents.
In
North County, 39 percent favor building the four-lane highway while 15
percent are opposed. Almost half of area residents are neutral on the
controversial issue.
Fewer people are on the fence in south
Orange County. There, 58 percent support the project and 31 percent
oppose it, and only 10 percent haven't made up their minds.
Those
numbers were reported Friday by Strata Research, a firm that conducted
the poll for the toll road builder, Foothill/Eastern Transportation
Corridor Agency. The agency wants to extend Highway 241 south from
Rancho Santa Margarita in Orange County for 16 miles to the northwest
corner of San Diego County.
The last four miles of the
pay-to-drive highway would be built on the 2,000-acre park known as San
Onofre State Beach. The road would tie into I-5 a half mile from
Trestles Beach.
Agency officials said the poll found many people
are under the mistaken impression that the road would go all the way to
the beach. They said the poll surveyed 1,020 registered voters in North
San Diego County and 757 voters in southern Orange County.
The California Coastal Commission rejected the project in February and the agency is appealing to the federal government.
NCT Sunday Perspective: Foothill South would take environmental toll
ANOTHER VIEW: Foothill
South would take environmental toll
By Pam Slater-Price -
Supervisor Countyof
San Diego
At a jam-packed
meeting held in February at the Del Mar Fairgrounds, state authorities did the
right thing by rejecting plans for a 16-mile-long Foothill South toll
road.
But now the Foothill Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency,
determined to build this road through fragile and protected land, has decided
not to take no for an answer.
The agency is appealing the California
Coastal Commission's February decision to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration later this month.
NOAA ---- that's the group we often turn
to for weather forecasts ---- is an arm of the federal Department of Commerce.
Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez can override the Coastal Commission's
ruling if he finds the road serves the national interest or ensures national
security, even though in a May 22 letter to NOAA, Col. J.B. Seaton, commanding
officer at Camp Pendleton, said, "Neither the road itself nor its associated
infrastructure enhancements are essential to adequate security at Camp
Pendleton."
Game over, right? Wrong.
An appeal hearing has been
scheduled for 10:30 a.m. Sept. 22 at the Activity Centeron the Del Mar Fairgrounds. But don't plan
on seeing democracy in action as it was displayed in February.
Under the
guise of maintaining an orderly process, authorities have placed restrictions on
public comment, which stifles free speech.
Anyone wishing to address the
agency would have had to mail a request to speak to an NOAA office in Maryland , and the requests were due no
later than 10 days before the hearing.
And it gets worse.
The
agency will sort through the requests "to ensure some balance in the type of
comments," a spokesman told The Orange County Register.
I find this
statement outrageous. The agency's job isn't to balance the speakers to achieve
an equal number of "for or against" speaker slips, or to regulate comments.
Their job is to let the public speak so its members can make an educated
decision. This maneuver effectively muzzles the opposition.
Clearly, the
spokesman skipped Government 101 and proceeded directly to "smoke and
mirrors."
Such questionable ground rules create an air of deception for a
decision in which so much is at stake.
For more than a year, I have told
officials at all levels of government that plans for the six-lane highway belong
on the scrap heap. Coastal Commission staff has warned that the road would
imperil endangered wildlife, wetlands, coastal access and a Native American
burial ground.
Foothill South is a $1.3 billion ticket to urban sprawl.
Completion of the road would pave the way for construction of 20,000 homes in
southern Orange County .
That translates into
200,000 daily trips ---- enough to congest the toll road as soon as they cut the
ribbon.
Development-hungry
Orange Countyshould not try to solve its traffic problems
by carving a six-lane swath through San Onofre, land gifted to the state by
former President Nixon. At the time, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan declared "San
Onofre ... has its future guaranteed as an official state
park."
Apparently, some planners think that promise was made to be
broken.
Today, San Onofre is among the most visited of all of California 's 278 state parks. Surfers come
to enjoy world-class waves. Families arrive for a low-cost coastal
experience.
As enforcers of the 1972 Coastal Act, the Coastal Commission
regulates development and ensures public access to California 's 1,100 miles of
coastline.
In February, commissioners opposed Foothill South by a 6-2
vote. Commissioner Sara Wan of
Malibusaid, "Putting a massive project
in an environmentally sensitive area is inconceivable."
This road should
not be built. Regulating comment puts the appeal hearing under a cloud of
suspicion. It makes one think that something is amiss. I urge the secretary of
commerce to open the hearing to all speakers.
And I urge him to reject
Foothill South and stand up for the promises made to the public.
San
Diego County Supervisor Pam Slater-Price represents the Third
District.
Federal officials will hold a public hearing on the proposed Foothill South toll road Sept. 22 in Del Mar, although people wishing to speak must submit a written request 10 days earlier to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The hearing, to be held at the Del Mar Fairgrounds, had been scheduled for the UC Irvine’s Bren Events Center in July. But that hearing was canceled amid fears that the crowd could grow too large for the facility.
The 16-mile Foothill South, a proposed extension of the 241 toll road, would cut through San Onofre State Beach park and across wild land in southern Orange County.
Toll road builders say it is the last link in 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.
“We’re glad that this hearing is taking place,” said Elizabeth Goldstein, president of the California State Parks Foundation which belongs to a coalition of 11 groups opposed to the toll road. “We’ve been concerned there wasn’t going to be a public hearing.”
The Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency released a statement Monday saying officials there 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.
After a marathon public hearing in February that drew thousands – also at the Del Mar Fairgrounds – the state Coastal Commission rejected the project, saying it would violate the state Coastal Act.
But the toll road agency appealed the commission’s ruling under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act.
The decision now rests with the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, and the hearing will be held by NOAA, a branch of Commerce. If the secretary finds that the road is in the national interest or needed for national security, it can override the state commission’s decision.
The toll agency has argued that both findings would be justified. National security will be affected, they say, in part because the agency will redesign a road near Camp Pendleton Marine base along with one of its entrances.
Requiring people to file a request 10 days in advance to speak is an attempt to “try to establish an orderly process,” said NOAA spokesman Anson Franklin.
The agency won’t accept requests by email, fax or phone.
And not all requests will be granted. The agency will sort through them to choose a representative sampling of different viewpoints, he said.
“We’re trying to ensure some balance in the type of comments – not in the substance of the comments,” he said.
Signs and banners will be “discouraged,” the agency said, with no signs allowed larger than 13 inches by 24 inches.
Written comments can be dropped off at the hearing itself. Written comments also can be submitted to the agency between Aug. 27 and Oct. 2.
NOAA general counsel Jane Luxton will be the only federal official presiding over the hearing, and will not answer questions or make any decisions in the case.
The deadline for the Commerce Secretary’s decision is Dec. 22.
HEARING DETAILS
The hearing, in O’Brien Hall at the fairgrounds, will go from 10:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. Written requests to speak should be sent to Thomas Street, Attorney Advisor, NOAA Office of General Counsel for Ocean Services, 1305 East-West Highway, Room 6111, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
MORE ONLINE
For details on how to submit a request to speak at the hearing: http://www.ogc.doc.gov/czma.htm.
Want to speak out on the O.C. toll road? Better plan ahead
Anyone wanting to speak at the public hearing next month about the controversial Foothill South toll road, which would cut through San Onofre State Beach, must submit a written request 10 days ahead of the Sept. 22 hearing. That means you've got less than two weeks for your request to be received by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The O.C. Register has the details:
The hearing, to be held at the Del Mar Fairgrounds, had been scheduled for the UC Irvine's Bren Events Center in July. But that hearing was canceled amid fears that the crowd could grow too large for the facility.
The 16-mile Foothill South, a proposed extension of the 241 toll road, would cut through San Onofre State Beach park and across wild land in southern Orange County.
Toll road builders say it is the last link [in] the county's network of toll roads, and is needed to relieve future traffic congestion.
Want to speak out? Your request has to be in writing, via snail mail (USPS or other commercial carriers, such as FedEx, Airborne, UPS) and must be received by Sept 12. No e-mails, faxes, voice mails or, I'm guessing, texts or Twitters will be accepted.
Here's the address: Thomas Street, Attorney Advisor, NOAA Office of General Counsel for Ocean Services,1305 East-West Highway, Room 6111, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
More specifics about the how and when of the hearing at the NOAA site here.
Commerce Dept. rules for hearing trouble foes of San Onofre toll road
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.
Commerce officials said the hearing will take
place from 10:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. Sept. 22 in the O'Brien Hall at the
Del Mar Fairgrounds.
It's the same venue where 3,500 people turned
out for a February hearing by the state Coastal Commission, which
rejected the project as too harmful to the environment.
The commission is involved because the toll-road
extension would reach the coastline, and the Commerce Department has a
say because part of the tollway would be on federal land.
The Transportation Corridor Agencies want to
lengthen state Route 241 by 16 miles – from Oso Parkway in Rancho Santa
Margarita to Interstate 5 at Basilone Road. Their proposed route would
reduce congestion on I-5, but it would cut through a nature reserve in
Orange County and a state park at San Onofre.
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.
Initially, the Transportation Corridor Agencies
opposed holding a public hearing. In a letter sent to federal officials
in March, lawyers for the toll road agency said another meeting would
merely repeat the “circus atmosphere” of the Coastal Commission's
hearing “in which supporters of the project were booed and jeered by
opponents of the project.
Yesterday, the agency reversed its position.
“We look forward to telling our story,” said Jennifer Seaton, spokeswoman for the Transportation Corridor Agencies.
Lance MacLean, a Mission Viejo councilman and member of the toll road agency's board, said he's happy about the federal hearing.
“It will afford (us) an opportunity to correct
the misinformation that occurred at the politically charged hearing in
February before the Coastal Commission,” he said.
Environmental groups sue federal agencies over San Onofre toll road
The lawsuit alleges that the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service bowed to political influences in evaluating whether the project would harm endangered species.
By Susannah Rosenblatt, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
August 15, 2008
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. The legal action "highlights the fact that the proposed toll road route, in particular the San Mateo Creek watershed, is a vital environmental resource."
Both federal agencies declined to comment on the pending litigation.
But 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."
The spokeswoman, Lisa Telles, said the agency had planned more than 200 mitigation measures, such as under-freeway animal crossings and protective fencing.
The proposed extension of California 241 would connect south Orange County east of Mission Viejo with Interstate 5 near Basilone Road in north San Diego County. The controversial route, which slices through part of the 3,000-acre San Onofre State Beach -- home to the world-class Trestles surf break -- and the Donna O'Neill Land Conservancy, has sparked a roughly decade-long environmental battle. Proponents say the road would provide much-needed relief from growing traffic congestion.
The lawsuit alleges that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service revised its original biological opinion, removing passages about the destruction of mouse and toad habitat at the request of the toll road agency. The federal agency concluded in May that the $1.3-billion road "is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence" of six vulnerable species.
Fish and Wildlife spokeswoman Jane Hendron emphasized that projects are reviewed regarding the preservation of a species as a whole, rather than a proposed action's individual effects.
The 40-page lawsuit goes on to criticize the National Marine Fisheries Service for not adequately investigating the effect of the road, part of which runs through nearby San Mateo Creek watershed, on steelhead trout. The suit seeks to have the two agencies' conclusions voided and their analyses redone.
"It's been a highly politicized process that hasn't relied on the best available science, and that's one of the bedrock requirements of the Endangered Species Act," Segee said.
Hendron rejected Segee's contention, saying that the agency forms biological opinions based on "the best scientific and commercial information."
This week, the Bush administration proposed overhauling the Endangered Species Act to eliminate independent scientific oversight of potential harm to at-risk species.
This latest legal salvo, one of several lawsuits triggered by the proposed toll road, comes as both sides wait for a Department of Commerce hearing on the project to be rescheduled. The Transportation Corridor Agencies appealed to the department after the California Coastal Commission rejected the proposed route this year.
The toll road agency recently funded an independent scientific review by a researcher at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla that concluded the road would not alter the quality of Trestles' waves.
Orange County transfers 1,200 acres to developer-backed land trust
The firm wants a toll road built through the property but says it will keep open space undeveloped.
By Christian Berthelsen, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
August 20, 2008
Orange
County supervisors Tuesday approved a plan to give control of 1,200
acres of open space to a land trust backed by a developer that supports
building a six-lane toll road through the property.
The developer, Rancho Mission Viejo, says it plans to add the land to
its own 17,000-acre open space preserve and maintain it as undeveloped
land. The land was originally set aside as part of an earlier agreement
to offset the environmental and wildlife effects of housing
developments.
Rancho Mission Viejo said the transfer would provide more resources,
such as the reserve's $200-million endowment, to enhance and protect
the land. County officials portrayed the transfer as bureaucratic
streamlining that is part of a plan to consolidate management of up to
33,000 acres of open space in southern Orange County under a single
entity.
But a lawyer for a board member on the conservancy that now oversees
the land sent a letter opposing the transfer to supervisors Monday,
saying it appeared to be a way to eventually give a portion of it to
the public agency that is seeking to build the toll road through it.
"We believe that such a transfer is not in the interest of the public,"
wrote attorney Todd T. Cardiff on behalf of Michael Lindsey, a member
of the Donna O'Neill Land Conservancy board.
Supervisors approved the proposal unanimously, with little debate and
no public opposition. The proposal also must be approved by the San
Clemente City Council, which is scheduled to vote on it Sept. 2, before
it can take effect.
The plan to move the Donna O'Neill land into the Reserve at Rancho
Mission Viejo is the latest twist in a complex history. Over the last
two decades, the property has gone from being an ecological gem
preserved to offset a housing development to being a potential
through-way for a 16-mile, $1.3-billion private toll road that would
connect southern Orange County east of Mission Viejo to Interstate 5
near Basilone Road in northern San Diego County.
The land was set aside in 1990 as a countermeasure to the 3,800-home
Talega development in San Clemente. With thousands of coast live oaks,
coastal sage-scrub, sycamore groves and threatened, endangered and rare
species of lizards, toads and other wildlife, the land has thus far
remained untouched -- other than docent-led nature walks. But in 2006,
the directors of Orange County's toll road agency voted to approve
plans to build the turnpike through the property as a way to alleviate
congestion on Interstate 5.
In February, the California Coastal Commission dealt a seeming death
blow to the toll road when it found that it violated coastal protection
laws because of its path through San Onofre State Beach. But the road's
supporters have appealed that decision to the U.S. Commerce secretary
in the hope of overturning it. No decision on the appeal has been made.
On Tuesday, environmentalists and county officials alike were unclear
on what, if any, effect the transfer of oversight of the land would
have on its ultimate use.
The proposal to consolidate management of the region's open space
has been in the works for some time and was laid out in a conservation
plan approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2007.
Some said the Donna O'Neill conservancy board did relatively little to
oppose the highway in the first place, in part because many of the
board members supported the highway project.
But others said it could ultimately place responsibility for the land
management with a more private entity. That would make changing the
land's use easier while silencing debate from dissenters, such as
Lindsey, the Donna O'Neill board member.
"Rancho Mission Viejo supports the toll road," said Cardiff, the lawyer
for Lindsey. "You are giving [the land] to a private land trust that
isn't necessarily open to the public or public influence, and there is
no guarantee this land trust is going to keep the door open to the
public. You are giving it to a land trust set up by a developer that
stands to make bucket loads of money if the toll road goes through."
Diane Gaynor, a spokeswoman for Rancho Mission Viejo, acknowledged Tuesday that the developer supports the toll road.
But she said that the reserve plans to keep the Donna O'Neill land
as "perpetual open space" and that fears to the contrary are unfounded.
SAN ONOFRE, Calif. -- Environmentalists sued a federal conservation agency over its findings that extending a toll road in Orange and San Diego counties won't harm endangered wildlife.
The Natural Resources Defense Council asked a federal court in San Diego Wednesday to require U.S. Fish and Wildlife to issue a new opinion about the impact that would be caused by 16 miles of road. NRDC accused Fish and Wildlife of succumbing to pressures from the Transportation Corridor Agencies, which finances and builds Orange County's toll roads.
Fish and Wildlife stands by its review, agency spokeswoman Jane Hendron said. Hendron said her agency reviewed nine endangered and threatened species. Some were found to be outside the road's footprint in San Onofre State Beach. But in other cases -- such as the Pacific pocket mouse -- the toll road agency would be acting to help the species rather than hurt it.
The state's Coastal Commission blocked construction of the road in February. The U.S. Commerce Department is reviewing that decision.
If built, the 16-mile toll road would connect San Diego to Orange County through San Onofre State Beach. The road has raised the ire of surfers and environmentalists who argued it would wipe out about a dozen endangered or threatened coastal species, decimate an ancient Indian burial ground and block sediment that creates world-class waves at San Onofre State Beach.
Environmental groups say finding of 'no jeopardy' for six species was inadequate.
By PAT BRENNAN
The Orange County Register
A federal wildlife agency's opinion that the proposed Foothill South toll road would not jeopardize six threatened and endangered species is inadequate and should be voided, 11 environmental groups contended in a federal lawsuit this week.
The groups, led by the Save San Onofre Coalition, say the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should be forced to write a new opinion, in part because its April 30 version relies on outdated science as well as unproven plans to provide protection for the species. The suit was filed Wednesday.
"We just think it's incongruous that the report points to several adverse effects (on) the species, but in the end, it turns the report on its head and concludes that it won't result in the extinction of those species," said staff attorney Damon Nagami of the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the groups that sued.
Fish and Wildlife Service spokeswoman Jane Hendron said the question was not merely whether the species would be affected.
"The standard we must go by is whether those impacts will result in jeopardy to any of those species," she said.
With measures meant to ease the effects on species, Fish and Wildlife decided they would not be jeopardized, she said.
The agency's biological opinion was required before the toll road builders could move ahead with their plans.
"We're pretty confident this lawsuit is just a delaying tactic," said Lisa Telles, a spokeswoman for the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency. "Unfortunately, this is what's become of the environmental process. This is why it takes forever to build infrastructure projects."
Foothill South, the proposed 16-mile extension of the 241 tollway, would ease future traffic congestion and complete the county's network of toll roads, toll-road builders say.
But activists say the road, which would cut through San Onofre State Beach park as well as habitat for a variety of species, would cause too much damage to the environment.
The state Coastal Commission agreed in February, denying the builder's proposal. But the toll-road agency appealed the decision to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act.
One branch of Commerce, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, might hold a public hearing on the matter but has not yet decided. A hearing planned for July at UC Irvine's Bren Center was canceled after organizers grew concerned that the crowd would be too large to manage.
The six species Fish and Wildlife considered were the coastal California gnatcatcher, the thread-leaved brodiaea, the tidewater goby, the Pacific pocket mouse, the least Bell's vireo and the arroyo toad.
The environmental groups also included the National Marine Fisheries Service as defendants in the lawsuit, saying the agency was wrong in finding that that the toll road would not adversely affect steelhead trout.
Environmental groups sue federal agencies over San Onofre toll road
The lawsuit alleges that the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service bowed to political influences in evaluating whether the project would harm endangered species.
By Susannah Rosenblatt, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
August 15, 2008
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. The legal action "highlights the fact that the proposed toll road route, in particular the San Mateo Creek watershed, is a vital environmental resource."
Both federal agencies declined to comment on the pending litigation.
But 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."
The spokeswoman, Lisa Telles, said the agency had planned more than 200 mitigation measures, such as under-freeway animal crossings and protective fencing.
The proposed extension of California 241 would connect south Orange County east of Mission Viejo with Interstate 5 near Basilone Road in north San Diego County. The controversial route, which slices through part of the 3,000-acre San Onofre State Beach -- home to the world-class Trestles surf break -- and the Donna O'Neill Land Conservancy, has sparked a roughly decade-long environmental battle. Proponents say the road would provide much-needed relief from growing traffic congestion.
The lawsuit alleges that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service revised its original biological opinion, removing passages about the destruction of mouse and toad habitat at the request of the toll road agency. The federal agency concluded in May that the $1.3-billion road "is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence" of six vulnerable species.
Fish and Wildlife spokeswoman Jane Hendron emphasized that projects are reviewed regarding the preservation of a species as a whole, rather than a proposed action's individual effects.
The 40-page lawsuit goes on to criticize the National Marine Fisheries Service for not adequately investigating the effect of the road, part of which runs through nearby San Mateo Creek watershed, on steelhead trout. The suit seeks to have the two agencies' conclusions voided and their analyses redone.
"It's been a highly politicized process that hasn't relied on the best available science, and that's one of the bedrock requirements of the Endangered Species Act," Segee said.
Hendron rejected Segee's contention, saying that the agency forms biological opinions based on "the best scientific and commercial information."
This week, the Bush administration proposed overhauling the Endangered Species Act to eliminate independent scientific oversight of potential harm to at-risk species.
This latest legal salvo, one of several lawsuits triggered by the proposed toll road, comes as both sides wait for a Department of Commerce hearing on the project to be rescheduled. The Transportation Corridor Agencies appealed to the department after the California Coastal Commission rejected the proposed route this year.
The toll road agency recently funded an independent scientific review by a researcher at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla that concluded the road would not alter the quality of Trestles' waves.
Legislators' letter opposes Foothill South toll road
It's the latest shot in a fight between supporters, opponents.
By PAT BRENNAN
THE ORANGE COUNTY 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."
After a marathon public hearing in February that drew thousands, the state Coastal Commission ruled against the project, saying it would have severe effects that would violate the state Coastal Act.
But the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency filed an appeal under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. The appeal is now being considered by the Commerce secretary; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a branch of Commerce, has not yet decided whether to reschedule a public hearing that was canceled last month.
Since then, the two sides have been battling each other by releasing findings and statements in support of their positions.
Most recently, the toll road agency released a report by Scripps engineer Richard Seymour saying the construction of the road would have no effect at all on the character of surfing at Trestles, and said studies concluding the opposite by consultants for the Surfrider Foundation were filled with errors – an assertion Sufrider strongly disputed.
Before that, eight members of the U.S. Congress, all Republicans, had sent a letter to the Commerce secretary supporting the toll road; and, prior to that, three state senators, along with Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, sent a letter of opposition.
The most recent letter says the secretary should not overturn the Coastal Commission's decision.
"Overriding the Coastal Commission's decision would create a dangerous precedent and would
undermine California's ability to protect its fragile coastal resources," the letter says.
Toll road opponents also testified Tuesday at a joint legislative hearing in Sacramento.
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."
Financial disclosures show that Miller, a former
homebuilder and land developer who represents Orange, San Bernardino
and Los Angeles Counties, purchased the bonds in 2000. The bonds pay
investors a fixed rate and are repaid by drivers' tolls.
The
Eastern and Foothill (241) toll roads run from the 91 freeway to Irvine
and Rancho Santa Margarita. The proposed southern extension, known as
Foothill South, is the final 16-mile segment of 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 had
acknowledged getting an $8 million appropriation for Foothill South's
construction in 2005. He 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.
But 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.
Miller
said his wife now manages the family's investments and land development
business, and that it must have been her that purchased the bonds.
Experts said Miller's investment probably does not run afoul of House ethics rules since it is small and indirect.
Toussaint
also noted that the return on Miller's investment is fixed at 5.12
percent and he will not make any more, or less, whether the southern
extension is built or not.
Experts agreed that it is true,
unless the toll road agency falls behind, is unable to service the
bonds, and they go into default. The southern extension would send
additional traffic and tolls to the Foothill/Eastern, although it would
be years before that occurs.
Rep. Gary Miller has an investment in Foothill/Eastern bonds. He says that's not why he supports tollway extension.
By MORGAN COOK
The ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
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 (241) toll roads run from the 91 freeway to Irvine and Rancho Santa Margarita. The proposed southern extension, known as Foothill South, is the final 16-mile segment of 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.
House rules bar lawmakers from appropriating money or using their official position to benefit projects and organizations in which they have even a small financial investment. New rules approved in 2006 require that lawmakers certify in writing that they have no financial interest in their earmarks. But those rules had not been written when Miller steered money toward the project in 2005.
In a series of e-mails, Miller's press secretary, Scott Toussaint, drew a distinction between the Foothill South extension, which is yet to be funded or built, and Foothill/Eastern, the tollway in which the Millers are invested. Toussaint added that Miller is confident that he has not run afoul of House ethics rules.
Ethics experts at three non profit, non partisan government watchdog groups agreed that Miller probably did not violate the letter of the rules because his investment is small and indirect, and his financial gain is not assured.
Still, they said, his behavior does raise ethical questions.
"Any time you have a member of Congress who earmarks money for a project in which he has a financial interest, even if it's tangential, it does raise some questions," said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, which works for greater government transparency.
Jennifer Seaton, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Corridor Agencies, said the Foothill South project is a part of the Foothill/Eastern system and confirmed that tolls from the entire system will be used to repay the long-term construction debt of the Foothill/Eastern Agency. Extending the tollway to the south is expected to increase traffic on the Foothill/Eastern, Seaton said.
But Toussant said that doesn't amount to a conflict for Miller.
"If the Foothill South project, once constructed, encourages more commuters to ride on the 241 and therefore pay additional tolls as you have suggested, the Millers' investment will not be affected in any way, shape, or form. The fact remains that the Millers' investment of $20,000 will not yield any more or any less than the set 5.12 percent. The rate will stay static despite future projects that may be built within the toll road system," Toussaint said.
That's true, tollway officials and bond analysts agreed, as long as the agency can make its debt payments. But if costs continue to outpace the toll road's income – as they have done so far in 2008, according to agency records and Fitch Rating Service, a firm that tracks the bonds – the tollway could be forced to default on the bonds, curtailing interest payments and making the bonds difficult to sell.
When the tollway agency issued $1.6 billion in bonds in 1999, the Fitch bond rating agency noted that the "the Foothill/Eastern Corridor remains one of the most highly leveraged toll roads in the U.S. with $10.4 million of long-term debt per lane mile." At the time Fitch rated the bonds BBB, or "minimum investment grade," which is still the current rating, according to Fitch.
Michael McDermott, a Fitch analyst who helps rate the bonds, noted that a default is unlikely given the agency's current financial situation.
But critics weren't mollified by Miller's explanation.
"Ethics rules say members of Congress are supposed to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest because you want the public to think you're working for them and not for your own interests," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, another nonpartisan watchdog group.
The $875 million Foothill South extension is in trouble because the California Coastal Commission has denied the tollway's proposed alignment, which would have cut through San Onofre State Beach park, home of threatened and endangered species, and pass within a few hundred feet of a popular campground.
Miller and other lawmakers signed a letter to the Coastal Commission on February 2, asking the agency to look favorably on the project. But the commission rejected the project four days later on an 8-2 vote, after a contentious, 14-hour meeting.
Since then, Miller has joined a campaign to reverse the Coastal Commission's decision. In a letter signed by Miller and other lawmakers on May 28, they asked Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, to overturn the state commission's decision.
Mark Rauscher, assistant environmental director at Surfrider Foundation, an organization that has opposed Foothill South's construction on environmental grounds, called Miller's investment, and explanation, "questionable."
"The Foothill Eastern will be connected to the Foothill South physically, so saying his investment in (Foothill Eastern) has nothing to do with his support for Foothill South sounds a little disingenuous," Rauscher said.
REGION: Attorney general asks for North County hearing on toll road
REGION: Attorney general asks for North County
hearing on toll road By DAVE DOWNEY - Staff Writer
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.
Patterson suggested moving
the hearing to the Del Mar Fairgrounds, site of the February commission meeting
that drew an estimated 3,000 to 3,500. Foothill/Eastern paid $15,000 to cover
the cost of building rental and crowd control for that event. Commerce budgeted
$26,000 for the one planned for UC Irvine.
"The commission spoke with the
Del Mar Fairgrounds (Monday), and the fairgrounds' Exhibit Hall is available on
Sept. 8 and 9," Patterson said. "The Exhibit Hall is 56,000 square feet and can
accommodate approximately 4,000 people seated. The fairgrounds has ample parking
as well as plenty of overflow areas where video screens can be set up and the
public can watch the proceedings."
Noting the North County venue hosts
the annual San Diego County Fair and summer horse races, Patterson added, "The
commission was assured the fairgrounds can provide the level of security
required for the public hearing."
Anson Franklin, a spokesman for the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Washington, said in an e-mail
Tuesday, "We've received the letter sent on behalf of the California Coastal
Commission. We continue to assess options and have not yet made any
decisions."
Foothill/Eastern had the option of appealing to the Commerce
secretary because a portion of the road would be built across a state park that
is on leased federal land ---- Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base.
The
project is a 16-mile extension of a toll road, Highway 241, that
Foothill/Eastern wants to extend south from Rancho Santa Margarita to the San
Diego-Orange county line.
The park is San Onofre State Beach,
California's fifth most popular. It is home to the Trestles Beach surfing area,
which has world-class waves.
A hearing on the Foothill South toll road, expected to draw as many as 10,000, must go forward.
July 15, 2008
One of the worst possible reasons for not holding a public hearing is
that too many people are passionately interested in the outcome. Yet
that's precisely the illogic contained in a U.S. Department of Commerce
letter indicating that the agency might cancel its hearing on the
proposed Foothill South toll road after learning that perhaps 10,000
people want to attend.
The
department is considering an appeal on the toll road, which the
California Coastal Commission rejected as environmentally unacceptable.
But after committing to a public hearing, it now faces a quandary: Far
more people have expressed interest in attending -- probably to oppose
the project -- than the venue at UC Irvine can hold. The department is
weighing its options, the letter says, including canceling the July 25
hearing. And though it doesn't rule out a new date, it also complains
that "the cost of a larger facility and increased security would exceed
our current budget."
That has to be a joke. Since when is there a budget cap on providing public access?
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.
This page
has consistently opposed the Foothill South toll road. It would all but
ruin San Onofre State Beach, cut through a nature preserve, add to the
miles commuters drive to reach their destinations and encourage sprawl.
A hearing is the place for decision makers to hear these arguments and
those of supporters, who justifiably complain about the traffic
bottleneck along Interstate 5 in San Clemente.
At this point,
the Commerce Department has to come up with a new hearing date. Even if
it could find another venue before July 25, there would be too little
time for public notice. But it must stick with its own commitment to
hold a hearing on a matter that affects so many people.
Both sides disappointed at canceled tollway hearing
U.S. Commerce Department must decide whether to reschedule.
By PAT BRENNAN
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
A decision by the UC Irvine Bren Events center to cancel a planned hearing on the proposed Foothill South toll road was called a disappointment Monday by supporters and opponents of the controversial project.
The announcement late Friday left the public hearing in limbo. The U.S. Commerce Department, which was to take testimony for and against the road on July 25, said the hearing could be rescheduled for a new time and location.
But it's also possible that no hearing will 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."
Bren Center officials said they decided to pull out of their agreement to host the hearing after receiving so many inquiries that they thought the crowd could swell to 10,000.
The Bren Center capacity is 4,758; at a February hearing that ended with denial of the project by the state Coastal Commission, crowd estimates ranged as high as 3,500, according to a letter sent Friday to various parties in the case by Jane C. Luxton, general counsel for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The agency falls under the Commerce Department, and Luxton was the official designated to take the comments at the July 25 hearing.
Luxton said in the letter that accommodating a "much larger crowd" would "exceed our current budget."
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.
The 16-mile Foothill South would extend the 241 toll road and complete the county's toll road network. Builders say it is needed to relieve future traffic congestion; opponents say it could cause environmental harm by intruding on sensitive habitat and ruining the atmosphere of a campground at San Onofre State Beach park.
Opponents also say they fear possible harmful effects on the famed surfing beach at Trestles, although tollway agency officials say the beach will be unaffected.
UC Irvine backs out when attendance estimates reach 10,000
By DAVE DOWNEY - Staff Writer | Monday, July 14, 2008 1:13 PM PDT
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."
Lawhon said the center is next to a campus housing area where a new student-parent orientation is planned for the same day.
Based
on the crowd at a February hearing held by the Coastal Commission at
the Del Mar Fairgrounds, estimated at 3,000 to 3,500, the Commerce
Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration made plans
to accommodate up to 5,000. And they scheduled a hearing at the UC
Irvine center for July 25, from 10:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Now the meeting is in jeopardy.
Jane
C. Luxton, general counsel, wrote in a letter Friday that "we are
currently assessing options, but if these issues cannot be resolved in
the near future, the July 25 hearing may need to be canceled."
Luxton
said moving to another facility on the same day would present problems,
too, because a larger crowd could break the agency's budget for the
hearing and plenty of advance notice is required by law for such events.
And Commerce may not reschedule.
"The
law does not require a public hearing, but we decided to do so to
accommodate local requests," said Anson Franklin, a Commerce Department
spokesman, by e-mail Monday. "If the costs substantially exceed the
amount budgeted, we will not be able to conduct a public hearing."
The
need for a hearing was bitterly debated by proponents and opponents of
the toll road, in the wake of the Coastal Commission's 8-to-2 rejection
of the project after a boisterous, 14-hour meeting at the fairgrounds.
Foothill/Eastern
appealed. It invoked an option available because four miles of the
highway would cross San Onofre State Beach and that park is on federal
land leased from Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base.
The agency contends the road is in the national interest and the federal government should void the state ruling.
Agency
officials also contended that another hearing was unnecessary because
opponents had a chance to speak out during the lengthy commission
meeting.
But opponents, including surfers, environmentalists and
state park lovers, maintained they deserved the right to be heard
before federal officials as well as state officials.
The project
is a 16-mile extension of an existing toll road, Highway 241, which
would run from Rancho Santa Margarita to the San Diego-Orange county
line. The southernmost four miles would cross San Onofre, California's
fifth most popular state park and home to Trestles Beach with its
world-class surfing waves.
The road agency plans to build a
four-lane highway initially at a cost of $875 million and later expand
it to six lanes. The cost does not include the price for land that
would need to be purchased.
UC Irvine's Bren Center backs out after the estimated attendance grows to 10,000, double its capacity.
By David Reyes, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 12, 2008
UC Irvine's Bren Center, citing capacity issues, will not house a July
25 public hearing on an appeal of the rejection of the proposed
Foothill South tollway through San Onofre State Beach, a federal
official said in an e-mail Friday.
The
route has been the focus of an intense battle between those opposed to
encroachment on the state park and those backing an alternative to
Interstate 5.
The California Coastal Commission rejected the
proposed toll road at a raucous meeting in February attended by more
than 3,500 people.
The
Irvine-based Transportation Corridor Agencies appealed the decision to
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversees
coastal growth issues, and NOAA called for the hearing. About 5,000
people had been expected, but inquires about seating made to Bren
Center pushed estimates to more than 10,000, Jane C. Luxton, NOAA's
general counsel, wrote in the e-mail.
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.
UC Irvine won't host event, originally set for July 25, because the expected crowd is likely to strain security.
By PAT BRENNAN
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
Organizers at UC Irvine's Bren Events Center have pulled out of an agreement to host a July 25 hearing on the proposed Foothill South toll road, a decision that could postpone the hearing, or even result in no hearing being held at all.
The hearing, in which an attorney with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was to take testimony from members of the public, was part of an appeal by the toll road builder of the denial of the project by the state Coastal Commission in February.
NOAA general counsel Jane C. Luxton, who was to take testimony at the hearing, sent a note to the toll road agency and other parties in the case saying costs and expected crowd size could be too much for the facility.
The Bren Center "believes that a credible estimate for hearing attendance is well over 10,000 individuals," the letter, dated July 11, reads in part.
"As a result, the Bren Center notified us yesterday that … it can no longer accommodate the number of people likely to attend the hearing, as the anticipated crowd exceeds its capacity and security resources."
Cathy Lawhon, a UC Irvine spokeswoman, said a summer camp being held near the center also would mean an increase in traffic beyond what it could handle.
"As the scope of the meeting grew larger, the impact on the campus was going to require more police and just more costs on our end to manage the scope of it," Lawhon said.
NOAA is reviewing its options, Luxton's letter said, which could include postponing the hearing while a new location is found.
By PAT BRENNAN
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
Comments 11 | Recommend 0
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."
The road would connect to I-5 at San Mateo Creek, and many opponents are concerned about potential effects on nearby Trestles Beach, famous for its surf breaks.
But the toll agency says it will carefully manage all aspects of construction and runoff to avoid any effects on Trestles.
Activists and some biologists are also concerned that the road would cut through San Onofre State Beach park, harming the atmosphere of a campground, as well as slicing through habitat for a variety of rare and endangered species.
The toll road agency says it will minimize any effects on habitat or species, and conserve or create habitat elsewhere to compensate for any that is removed.
The agency also said building the toll road could be more beneficial to the species biologists are most concerned about, the endangered Pacific pocket mouse, than not building it.
Toll road builders would provide funding to conserve the mouse's habitat, and to provide an active restoration program for mouse populations, they said.
The Commerce Department has received more than 11,000 comments on the proposal from a variety of parties.
Three state senators along with Lt. Gov. John Garamendi urged the Commerce secretary not to overturn the Coastal Commission's rejection of the road.
But eight members of Congress later sent a letter expressing support for the toll road. They were Rep. Gary Miller, R-Diamond Bar; Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Corona; Rep. John Campbell, R-Irvine; Rep Ed Royce, R-Fullerton; Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach; Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista; Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine; Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Simi Valley.
Register staff writer Dena Bunis contributed to this report.
Contact the writer: 714-796-7865 or
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Source
Commerce Department to hold hearing in Irvine on toll road project
Commerce Department to hold hearing in Irvine on toll road project
The decision is a setback for backers of the 16-mile turnpike, which would cut through San Onofre State Beach.
By David Reyes, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
June 26, 2008
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.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a project supporter, did not renew the state Parks Commission terms of actor-director Clint Eastwood and Bobby Shriver, the governor's brother-in-law. Both attributed the move to their toll road opposition, though the governor's office has denied it.
Opponents say the $1.3-billion Foothill South tollway would sully San Onofre State Beach and Trestles, a famous surfing break, while proponents maintain that the road is needed to help alleviate congestion on the 5 Freeway and other Orange County thoroughfares.
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.
"People were trying to provide scientific research and they were heckled while banners waved in the background. It needs a formal business setting, where both sides can lay out their information," MacLean said.
Despite the Coastal Commission's rejection of the project, its proponents have achieved some recent environmental victories. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration determined last year that steelhead trout would not be affected by the road, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently said the project complies with the Endangered Species Act. But opponents say that allowing a toll road through a state park sets a dangerous precedent.
"Because it impacts more than just Orange County, we expect a big turnout," Rauscher said of the upcoming hearing. "This is the fifth most popular state park in the state, and that's a resource for all people."
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
LOS
ANGELES –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 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
Ridership is down as some drivers cut back because of the slow economy.
By David Reyes, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 25, 2008
Traveling with the family has taken on new meaning for Richard Bangert.
Bangert, who usually makes the trek from his home in Corona to work in Orange County solo, has added his wife and 2-year-old son to the commute.
This allows Bangert, a computer systems technician, to use the 91 Express Lanes for free, taking advantage of toll-free travel with three or more people in the car.
"We're a one-income family, and I guess you would call this a wallet-based decision," Bangert said. "My wife usually drops me off at work and she visits her family with my son. At the end of the day, she picks me up and we drive home."
Bangert has also restricted his use of other county toll roads -- and he's not alone. Ridership is down by 6% for the express lanes and nearly 4% for the 241 toll road.
The downturn caught toll road officials by surprise, but they expressed confidence that the trend would reverse as soon as the economy improved.
The Transportation Corridor Agencies downplayed any effect that the revenue declines could have on a proposed toll road extension through San Onofre State Beach, or refinancing plans to merge the Foothill/Eastern with its cousin, the San Joaquin Hills tollway, into one agency.
Opponents of the toll road extension question whether it's prudent for the TCA to take on additional capital debt, especially because the California Coastal Commission has voted against the extension.
According to a new estimate, it would cost $1.3 billion -- up from $875 million -- to build the proposed Foothill South tollway. It would run 16 miles from Oso Parkway in Rancho Santa Margarita to Interstate 5 at Basilone Road south of San Clemente.
Also, the TCA has applied for a $1.1-billion government loan to strengthen the merger plan. A decision on the loan is pending with the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Lake Forest Councilman Peter Herzog, who is on the Foothill/Eastern board, was unhappy over the revenue drop but said it had to be weighed against the overall performance of the toll roads.
"I'm not that concerned because I believe this is part of a cycle and it will change," he said. "When you look at the toll road revenue over the long term, it's really solid."
Herzog and other board members are confident that the coastal commission's decision, which has been appealed to the federal Department of Commerce, will be overturned.
The Bond Buyer newspaper recently noted that TCA budgeted $111.3 million in toll revenue for fiscal 2008 and stated that if the downward trend continues, the agency would receive only $103 million, missing its projected budget by nearly 8%.
That would mean that for the first time in 10 years, revenue would fall below projections used to structure the Foothill/Eastern's initial financing.
Maria Matesanz, a credit analyst with the public finance group of Moody's Investor's Service in New York, said tollways across the nation have seen a decline in traffic and revenue as gas prices have climbed and the economy slowed.
Nonetheless, she said that the TCA's finances overall are healthy and that its outlook should be fine as long as the economic downturn is not prolonged.
If the economic woes are "protracted and people are talking about a sustained $4-and-up per gallon of gas, it could have a longer-term impact on traffic and revenue . . . and it would be something we would watch in relation to their debt service and operating obligations," Matesanz said.
Although the TCA may borrow from its reserves to meet its budget, the agency has plenty of financial cushion, with $297 million in debt service reserves, said Brenda Shott, the chief financial officer. The Foothill/Eastern has $2.2 billion in outstanding revenue bonds.
Moody's maintains a Baa3 rating on the debt of the Foothill tollway and a Ba2 rating with a negative outlook on the San Joaquin turnpike.
Loyal toll road customers such as Bangert have had to contend with years of toll increases as part of the congestion pricing strategy to keep tollway lanes flowing faster than freeway lanes.
But with fewer customers, Bangert asked: "With revenue falling and ridership down, shouldn't the toll roads consider lowering rates?"
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Orange County toll road agency hails wildlife deal
Backers say it gives new life to the proposed Foothill South extension.
But fish and game officials say further permits are needed, and
environmentalists call the accord insignificant.
By David Reyes, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
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.
She said the toll road agency would need additional permits because the agreement is limited to stream beds and bird habitat along several creeks in the area, but not for the entire route. About 14 acres would be temporarily disturbed during construction, Fluharty said.
The Transportation Corridor Agencies -- which operates most of the tollways in Orange County -- has restored, created and preserved more than 100 acres under previous agreements with the state Department of Fish and Game for prior road projects, transportation agency officials said.
Despite the Coastal Commission's decision, tollway proponents have earned several victories in recent months concerning the road's potential effect on wildlife.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration determined last year that steelhead trout would not be affected by the road, and last week the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said the project complies with the Endangered Species Act.
Opponents say that the thoroughfare would ruin the environment and compromise the state park and the famed Trestles surf spot, which has been celebrated in songs and movies.
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."
Foothill-Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency board member and Lake Forest Councilman Peter Herzog said last week's opinion by the federal wildlife service was significant, especially in view of the project's criticism by coastal commissioners and opponents.
"The new opinion was obviously an extensive review and some of the opponents tried to dismiss our own biological staff as if we were going to take out habitat," Herzog said.
The issue has been sensitive for the Transportation Corridor Agencies which has continued planning for the project hoping the federal government will overturn the Coastal Commission's decision.
The U.S. Department of Commerce has the final say on the appeal.
At the commission's February meeting, Commissioner Sara Wan of Malibu took exception to the Foothill-Eastern transportation agency's environmental reports, saying that habitat mitigations were not consistent with safeguards for endangered species.
She said that toll road officials had used "faulty science."
This week Herzog pushed back.
"We have the wildlife service saying our project doesn't jeopardize wildlife. That's not the TCA talking, that's from the federal wildlife service."
Orange County's three local toll roads are in need of a marketing boost after suffering a rare drop in traffic.
The freeway-friendly trend is prime evidence of just how deep the local economic woes are. What's as troubling is that sales slumps aren't the kind of business pickle that tollway bureaucrats are deft at handling. Could you imagine an off-beat, one-day toll promotion akin to "Taco Tuesday?"
Like other local folks who sell consumer goods and services these days, tollway operators cite common culprits: Pricey gas and a weak job market.
To the north, on the 91 Express Lanes, traffic's off 6 percent in the first 10 months of the current fiscal year through April vs. the previous year. Assuming the trends hold, this will mark the first drop in use since the Orange County Transportation Authority took control in 2003
Head south, and on the Foothill/Eastern tollway, and you find traffic down 3 percent in the same time frame. Previously, the road enjoyed traffic growth ever since it opened in 1993.
And near the sea, traffic on the San Joaquin tollway is down 2%, heading toward its second yearly drop in usage since the debut in 1996. The last drop came in 2001 as drivers shunned the road during the dot-com technology bust and ensuing economic turmoil.
Today, with gasoline pushing four bucks a gallon, local folks are clearly looking for ways to cut their transportation budgets. Why else would Metrolink train ridership be up 5 percent in the first quarter vs. a year ago in supposedly mass-transit-averse Orange County?
And avoiding a drive on a tollway seems en vogue. (Four-buck gas does make for an interesting debate about boosting miles-per-gallon on the often-open toll lanes vs. gas-guzzling, rush-hour bumper-to-bumper traffic elsewhere).
Look at this: On the 91 Express Lanes, for example, some folks may be pinching pennies by car-pooling. If you have three or more in a car, the lanes are free – except from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. rush hours when it's half off. That price break may be why the 91's general manager, Kirk Avila, told me that Express Lanes' car pool traffic is off only 3 percent this fiscal year vs. a 7 percent drop in the rest of the rides.
JOB MARKET CRASH
Tollway avoidance isn't just about gasoline costs. If it was, why didn't tollway traffic growth slow as gas shot past $3.50 a gallon last spring?
Year-over-year declines in traffic first occurred last September on all three local toll roads. That was just about the time that the county's worst job market since 2002 was emerging from the shadows of the local real estate debacle. People without jobs aren't good toll-road customers.
Across the county you see numerous businesses offering varying discounts – from price cuts to coupons – to lure in tight-fisted customers. Don't expect local toll roads, for various reasons, to be as generous.
Local tolls are habitually increased due to a logic that tries to keep toll lanes relatively free of heavy traffic as well as boost revenues to repay lenders who helped create the thoroughfares.
Toll hikes are a reason why San Joaquin's revenues are still up 4% this fiscal year and the 91 Express Lanes cash take is flat, not dropping. Foothill/Eastern revenues are actually down 3%.
DRIVING A BARGAIN?
The 91's Avila notes that the Express Lanes, in one way, have acknowledged driver reluctance: they rolled out two price hikes this fiscal year vs. four the year before. The top toll – at Friday's afternoon's eastbound peak – now runs $10.
Avila says the 91's basic math suggests another toll increase for July 1, both to tame congestion at certain times and to make an annual inflation adjustment. But he emphasized that it's up to the board of directors to figure out how to best juggle financial needs vs. the thinning wallets of Express Lanes' drivers.
The boards of the two South County toll roads should vote in June on what amounts to preplanned toll hikes. Transportation Corridor Agencies' spokeswoman Jennifer Seaton says the current driver shortages have not hurt the tollways' financial health.
Still, if it were up to me, some sort of toll cuts should be offered. That's simply good business in a slowdown. And I'm sorry if that upsets toll-road bondholders, who I pray have enough business acumen to realize that price cuts do motivate consumers.
Perhaps some out-of-the-lane price-cut logic is in order to get drivers back in the toll-road habit.
Like I said, how about "Toll Road Tuesday" discounts?
Area residents and officials have another opportunity to sound off on the proposed toll road that would run through one of California's most popular state parks.
A public comment period opened Monday for the appeal of the California Coastal Commission's rejection of a toll road on San Onofre State Beach. The comment period runs through May 28, according to a notice published in the Federal Register.
Written comments may be mailed to: NOAA Office of General Counsel for Ocean Services, 1305 East-West Highway, Room 6111, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Alternatively, people may file comments by e-mail to
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
.
In February, the Coastal Commission voted 8-2 to rule the Transportation Corridor Agencies' 16-mile extension of Highway 241 from Rancho Santa Margarita to San Onofre was inconsistent with federal and state coastal protection laws.
Officials for the Orange County-based agency appealed to the U.S. Commerce secretary, exercising an option it had as a result of the park being on leased federal land at Camp Pendleton.
Transportation officials are trying to build the final leg of a 67-mile Orange County toll road system begun nearly two decades ago and want to tie Highway 241 into Interstate 5. They have proposed a four-lane highway that would run for four miles through the park.
The growth of South Orange County's population to 1.15 million by 2030 – up from 809,600 in 2000 – is expected to be matched by another boom: traffic.
Volume on I-5 near the San Diego County line, now averaging 150,000 cars a day Monday through Thursday, could become 212,000 cars on weekdays by 2030.
A $1.2 million, more than two-year long Orange County Transportation Authority study expected to be completed by fall examines six alternatives to prevent gridlock.
The study targets improved travel from the San Diego County border to the Costa Mesa (55) Freeway and from the foothills to the coast. The agency has held several open houses with the public to get feedback on proposed solutions.
The alternatives range from widening sections of the I-5 and the 405 to adding more rail and bus options and closing major gaps on the regional major thoroughfares/streets in the study area.
Steve Christman, 70, a retired commercial artist in San Clemente, says he notices more cars around him when he's on the freeway.
Some developments have added more cars in town with bottlenecks where everyone tries to get on to the I-5. "Southern California has just grown too fast," he said.
He finds that traffic moves just as fast on the I-5 as it did a couple of decades ago, until you get to the El Toro Y. "I don't see it being any slower, you just notice that where there used to be five cars around you now there are 10."
Currently, South County traffic on the I-5 near the San Diego County line swells to more than 175,000 cars a day on the weekends.
Here are some key South County areas of traffic concern:
ORTEGA HIGHWAY
Efforts date back at least a decade to ease traffic buildup on Ortega Highway in San Juan Capistrano, including plans to widen different parts of Ortega and last month an environmental document outlined options to ease congestion at what some consider the worst freeway interchange chokepoint in Orange County at Ortega and the I-5.
And, one year after construction work began on a perilous stretch of the highway, transportation officials say that work is still on schedule despite months of night closures and traffic delays on a key link between Orange and Riverside Counties. The $40 million project on a 3.3 mile stretch from the San Juan Creek Bridge to the Riverside County line is approximately 60 percent completed, project manager Karl Lindquist said.
Also, Caltrans has agreed to a full environmental review of the Ortega widening from two to four lanes in a 1.9 mile portion of San Juan and county land.
241 EXTENSION
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.
CROWN VALLEY PARKWAY
A major South County thoroughfare – linking inland communities like Ladera Ranch and Mission Viejo to the Pacific Coast Highway in Dana Point – Crown Valley Parkway now carries about 70,000 cars a day. In 2025, it's projected to move as much as 90,000.
The 26-month, $17.5 million road widening project adds dual left-turn lanes at Marguerite Parkway and on westbound Crown Valley into the entrances of Mission Hospital and the Shops at Mission Viejo.
A fourth through-lane in each direction is being added between the mall entrance and the east city limits. Dual left-turn and designated right turn lanes in each direction are being added at the intersection of Crown Valley and Marguerite Parkway.
Roadway widening on the south side of Crown Valley is complete. A new lane has opened east of Bellogente and three lanes now run the entire length. A traffic signal timing sequence helps the traffic flow.
Construction continues on the north side of Crown Valley to add another westbound lane expected to be completed by the end of June. Median and landscape improvements should be completed by August.
"As development continues to east, 10 -15 years from now Crown Valley would essentially be gridlocked," said Mark Chagnon, project manager. "These improvements are to prevent us reaching failure in the future and to provide smooth traffic flow at today's traffic volume.
ALTON PARKWAY
The Alton Parkway Extension project got Board of Supervisors approval earlier this month when they approved a $2.2 million, two-year contract for the final design from Irvine Boulevard to Commercentre.
The remaining segment from Commercentre to the 241 toll road still needs to be designed and constructed.
Once completed, the two-mile, six-lane roadway will take motorists from Irvine Boulevard in Irvine to Towne Centre Drive in Lake Forest. It will also connect the 241 toll road with the I-5.
Construction on the county's project could start as early as next spring and be completed by the end of 2010. The timeline on the remaining portion is currently unknown.
The county's cost will be about $28 million. A portion will come from the Foothill Circulation Phasing Plan and other sources.
"The arterial system in Lake Forest has four major components – El Toro, Lake Forest, Bake and Alton," said Lake Forest Mayor pro tem Peter Herzog. "This completes the system and will dramatically improve congestion on the other streets like Bake which is now well over capacity."
Register Washington bureau chief Dena Bunis contributed to this report
The people who would be affected by it deserve to be heard before a decision is made.
April 19, 2008
Officials at the Transportation Corridor Agencies are doing what they can to defend their (misguided) proposal for a toll road through a state park in San Diego County. It's their idea, and they have every right to press for it. But even those who support the project should be chagrined at the agency's suggestion that it be approved without further public hearing.
Rare is the road that does not bring both help and harm to the public, and the public already has demonstrated its interest in the Foothill South tollway. After the state Coastal Commission presided over a jammed and lively public hearing and rejected the proposal, the toll-road agency appealed to the U.S. Department of Commerce. In the appeal, officials made clear how bothered they were by the sometimes boisterous -- on both sides -- meeting.
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.
Representing the 53rd District in San Diego, California
NEWS RELEASEApril 15, 2008
Media Contact: Aaron HunterOffice: 202-225-2040Cell: 202-225-1686
Congresswoman Susan Davis Leads Delegation Call for Denial of Toll Road Appeal
Letter to Commerce Secretary Gutierrez also requests public hearingWASHINGTON – Congresswoman Susan Davis, joined by U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer and 25 other California Members of Congress, urged the federal government to uphold the California Coastal Commission ruling that the South Foothill Toll Road project violates California law.The letter to Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez also requested that the Secretary hold a hearing “to access public opinion and input on the appeal.”“The environmental and transportation issues surrounding the proposed toll road are too important for the public to be shut out of the appeal process,” said Davis.“The integrity and transparency of the process must be maintained.Not only is there strong public opposition to the toll road project, but it is our belief that the project does not meet the criteria for overturning the state’s decision.”Davis recently wrote the federal law requiring the proposed toll road project to follow state environmental laws, from which it had been exempted due to earlier legislative action.The proposed toll road would have a devastating impact on the unique environmental and highly utilized recreational resources at San Mateo campground, San Onofre Beach State Park, and TrestlesBeach.In February, strong public interest in this issue drew more than 3,500 to a meeting of the California Coastal Commission in Del Mar.At that meeting, the Commission voted 8-2 that the proposed toll road violated the California Coast Act.The Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA), which has proposed the toll road, appealed the ruling.The TCA recently asked the Department to deny the public a hearing on the appeal.
Part of toll road agency's Foothill South appeal is inaccurate, Army Corps of Engineers says. TCA officials may seek a retraction.
By David Reyes, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 15, 2008
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.
Brian Segee, a staff attorney for the Washington, D.C.-based Defenders of Wildlife, which opposes the toll road, agreed. "For the corps to go on record like this, and directly contradict the TCA and say outright that they believe there are practical alternatives, absolutely undermines the TCA's appeal," he said.
TCA directors defended their agency's appeal and planning process, saying they were stunned by the corps' letter and its tone.
The communication prompted an angry call to Magness from Thomas Margro, the toll road agency's chief executive. The corps' letter, Margro said in an interview, makes it sound as if the TCA approved the route "in the dead of night," when, in fact, the action was known by all participants, including the corps.
TCA Director Jerry Amante said that after reading both the TCA's appeal and Magness' letter, he had concluded "there's nothing misleading in the appeal" and predicted the federal government would react favorably to it.
At an estimated cost of $875 million, the proposed Foothill South would be the final link in Orange County's network of toll roads. It would run 16 miles from Oso Parkway in Rancho Santa Margarita to Interstate 5 at Basilone Road, south of San Clemente.
Although opponents say it would destroy a popular state park, proponents say the road is needed to help alleviate congestion on I-5 and thoroughfares in southern Orange County.
The route was selected after being reviewed by a collaborative -- a term coined by the TCA -- including the Navy, Federal Highway Administration and the corps. But the TCA's description of the corps as part of a group that excluded alternative alignments was false, Magness wrote; the engineers provided only a preliminary opinion, making no assertion that other toll road routes were impractical.
"We find that lots of folks try to spin things to help their argument," said David J. Castanon, chief of the corps' regulatory division in Los Angeles. "Our role is to help cut through things . . . to find out what really matters and to make a fair and balanced decision."
Amante disputed Magness' version of events, calling his letter "disingenuous."
"Let's be honest," he said. "The letter was probably written as a result of pressure being put on the corps by environmentalists."
The corps' letter is part of a flurry of recent missives to the Commerce Department, including one from the TCA urging that no public hearing be held on its appeal to avoid a repetition of the "circus atmosphere" that occurred at the Coastal Commission's hearing. That lively February meeting drew a crowd of more than 3,500, the largest ever to attend a commission hearing. It concluded with commissioners voting 8 to 2 that the proposed Foothill South violated the California Coastal Act, which regulates development along the state's 1,100-mile shoreline.
In its letter, the TCA took exception, among other things, to the hearing's location at the Del Mar Fairgrounds, which, it said, is 50 miles from the proposed toll road, "a location calculated to maximize attendance by project opponents."
The Coastal Commission said the hearing was held at a mutually agreeable location and, for the most part, was civil and quiet.
The proposed toll road has also been the subject of intense political debate. Last month Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who supports the road, declined to renew the state Parks Commission terms of actor-director Clint Eastwood and Bobby Shriver, the governor's brother-in-law, both of whom oppose it.
And several state officials opposed to the road have urged the federal government to let the Coastal Commission's rejection of it stand.
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Last month, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger unceremoniously
fired a former mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California,
from the State Park and Recreation Commission. Ordinarily, the sacking of a
minor official from a state board most Californians have never heard of would
not have set off a media frenzy, even in the gossip-crazed GoldenState. But, in this case, the
ex-mayor just so happened to be Clint Eastwood, a longtime parks advocate who
had served on the panel since 2001. Adding fuel to the fire, Schwarzenegger
also axed his own brother-in-law Bobby Shriver from the same commission. The
governor claims he wanted to give others a chance to serve, but Eastwood,
Shriver, and environmentalists see an ulterior motive: The two men opposed a
planned 16-mile extension of a toll road that Schwarzenegger had championed,
which would cut through the picturesque San Onofre State Beach north of San
Diego.
The celebrity angle to the story tended to obscure its
larger significance. Schwarzenegger is often cited as a model for
Republicans--John McCain in particular--who want to build a greener public
image. But his firing of Eastwood is yet another episode in a relationship with
environmentalists that's been, at times, far rockier and more complicated than
his reputation might suggest. As McCain looks westward for an environmental
mentor, it's worth asking: Is Schwarzenegger's unique brand of environmentalism
a promising national model, or a futile effort to have it both ways?
Schwarzenegger's account of the origins of his environmental
bent includes two through-lines of his biography: an uplifting immigrant
experience and a determination to take on the bad guys. He recalls being
disgusted by the smog and garbage he found at VeniceBeach when he arrived in the late
1960s: "I thought, 'I'm going to fight those things,'" he told
Newsweek. As an actor, Schwarzenegger promoted recycling and energy efficiency
on his movie sets. But, in the 2003 recall election, he mainly hoped to prevent
conservatives from defecting to his right-wing opponent; as a result, he
emphasized economic themes, particularly his opposition to the despised car
tax.
Nor did Schwarzenegger's first years in office provide
environmentalists much to be excited about. Democrats criticized the governor
for initially failing to defend a Clinton-era ban on road-building in national
forests and complained that his proposed reorganization of state government
would have eviscerated the powerful Air Resources Board (ARB), which they
credit with dramatically improving the state's air quality. And, when
Schwarzenegger decided to devote most of 2005 to a series of ballot initiatives
that would have curbed unions and imposed strict spending caps, he abandoned
the environment as he sought support and money from conservatives and business
interests. "There were times in 2005 when we got very, very worried,"
says Bill Magavern, director of the Sierra Club's California affiliate.
The people who would be affected by it deserve to be heard
before a decision is made.
April 19, 2008
Officials at the Transportation Corridor Agencies are doing
what they can to defend their (misguided) proposal for a toll road through a
state park in San DiegoCounty.
It's their idea, and they have every right to press for it. But even those who
support the project should be chagrined at the agency's suggestion that it be
approved without further public hearing.
Rare is the road that does not bring both help and harm to
the public, and the public already has demonstrated its interest in the
Foothill South tollway. After the state Coastal Commission presided over a
jammed and lively public hearing and rejected the proposal, the toll-road
agency appealed to the U.S. Department of Commerce. In the appeal, officials
made clear how bothered they were by the sometimes boisterous -- on both sides
-- meeting.
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 OrangeCounty 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 OrangeCounty.
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.
A California
congressional delegation urges Commerce secretary to uphold a state panel's
veto of the proposal for OrangeCounty.
By David Reyes, Los Angeles
Times Staff Writer
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 OrangeCounty.
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."
At an estimated cost of $875 million, the proposed Foothill
South would be the final link in OrangeCounty's network of toll roads. It
would run 16 miles from Oso Parkway
in Rancho Santa Margarita to Interstate 5 at Basilone
Road, south of San Clemente.
Although opponents say it would destroy a popular state park
and famed surfing site, proponents say the road is needed to help alleviate
congestion on the I-5 and other thoroughfares in southern OrangeCounty.
Those who signed the letter include Sen. Barbara Boxer and
congressional leaders Maxine Waters, Xavier Becerra, Henry Waxman, Howard
Berman and Jane Harman. Most are Democrats from Los
Angeles and other counties; none were from OrangeCounty.
"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," said Aaron Hunter, Davis'
spokesman.
Jennifer Seaton, a TCA spokeswoman, said the letter's
contents didn't surprise her after she was told it was sent from Davis'
office.
In January, Davis
succeeded with an amendment to the military authorization bill that weakened
the TCA's effort because it would require the agency to follow potentially
restrictive state environmental laws. Davis'
amendment took away the TCA's ability to legally argue that state law would not
apply on federal property. The proposed road cuts through CampPendleton land.
"It's significant that not one legislator in the
immediate project area signed that letter because we do have strong support
among local legislators," Seaton said.
Meanwhile, 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.
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Lifeguard service at area state beaches will be as robust as
in years past this spring and summer – but after Labor Day, all bets are off.
That's the message from Rich Hayden, acting sector
superintendent for San Clemente,
Doheny and San Onofre State Beaches. The move follows a Register news article
that reported a warning from Hayden's colleague, Steve Long, about dangerously
low levels of lifeguard staffing due to budget constraints.
"Steve Long's (warnings) in the Sun Post News and the
Register did set off some seismic shock waves up in Sacramento,
as you might imagine," Hayden told San Clemente
parks commissioners Tuesday night. "Action at the Sacramento
level was very swift. Monies were freed up and sent down to our district. We
got some money that made us whole, meaning that from now until the end of the
fiscal year on June 30 there will be no change in the state lifeguard
service."
This applies to the entire South Coast District – San
Onofre, San Clemente, Doheny,
Crystal Cove, Huntington Beach and BolsaChicaStateBeaches,
said Rich Rozzelle, district director.
"We are moving monies around from one pot to the other
to put lifeguards on the beach and maintain a level of service for public
safety," Hayden said.
He said the plan is to extend traditional levels of service
through the summer, although uncertainties surround a new state budget that is
due July 1. That budget may not be adopted until the fall, Hayden said.
"Once we get a signed budget, I don't know … if it does
come up that we take a (forecasted) 50-percent cut." Hayden said. He
spends 60 percent of his budget for seasonal lifeguards in July and August so
there would be consequences. "I'm going to have to find that money
someplace or ask for forgiveness at the end of the fiscal year. That's the
stark reality of it," he told the city.
City officials had voiced concerns and invited Hayden to
appear before the commission to discuss state lifeguarding scenarios affecting San
Clemente.
"State parks has gotten to a point where we're at
critical mass," Hayden said. "We cannot take any more cuts."
He said the current park entry fees – $10 per car – are
about as high as users can take.
Parks commissioners voted 6-0 to encourage area residents to
write Gov. Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers to protest lifeguard cuts in the
new budget. Commissioners also asked San Clemente's
city staff to work closely with state parks to ensure there is ample protection
on state beaches bordering the city's beaches.
Residents can send e-mails to
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Contact the writer:
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
or 949-492-5127
The agency trying to build a toll road through San Onofre State Beach has misled federal officials about critical elements of its proposal, the top Army Corps of Engineers official in Los Angeles said in a letter obtained yesterday.
The letter, dated Monday, came from Col. Thomas H. Magness, district commander for the corps. It was sent to the U.S. Department of Commerce, which is reviewing the proposed 16-mile extension of state Route 241.
Magness said leaders of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency of Irvine have made false statements about the corps' level of support for their chosen tollway alignment. He also accused them of mischaracterizing his agency's stance on other options for reducing traffic congestion between southern Orange County and northern San Diego County.
“There are other practicable alternatives that would achieve the overall project purpose,” Magness said.
Online: To read the Army Corps of Engineers' letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce regarding the toll-road proposal, go to uniontrib.com/more/documents
Toll-road leaders aren't backing down.
“The colonel is trying to make it sound as if the proposed route is not the environmental consensus by collaborating agencies, and that is simply inaccurate and misinformed,” said Jerry Amante, mayor of Tustin and vice chairman of the transportation agency.
Magness' statements could be pivotal in the decades-long debate over how to improve traffic in fast-growing southern Orange County. The transportation agency's proposal for lengthening the tollway would cost an estimated $875 million.
The California Coastal Commission rejected that project in February, citing concerns about violations of the state Coastal Act and damage to the San Onofre park and other wildlife habitat.
The Army Corps of Engineers is one of the main agencies that would have to approve various environmental permits before the road could be built. The U.S. secretary of commerce is reviewing the transportation agency's appeal of the Coastal Commission's ruling.
A central question is whether reasonable alternatives to the current road proposal exist.
The transportation agency has studied several toll-road alignments, including variations that would avoid the state park. It also has looked at widening Interstate 5 – an expensive option because it would involve removing some homes and businesses.
Officials for the transportation agency prefer a plan to extend Route 241 from Oso Parkway in Rancho Santa Margarita to Basilone Road at Interstate 5 on the northern boundary of Camp Pendleton.
“The planning process for the Project clearly established that there is no other reasonable alternative,” the transportation agency's lawyers said in their February appeal to the Commerce Department.
Magness wrote in the Monday letter, “These assertions are false.”
He said the pathway preferred by the transportation agency “appears to be” the least environmentally damaging of the practical routes. But he stressed that the corps' opinion is preliminary and that “at no time” has his agency ruled out at least three other possible road alignments.
Amante said it's clear to all parties that the Army Corps of Engineers ' designation of the environmentally preferred route is preliminary.
“The colonel's letter finds ways to split hairs,” Amante said.
Magness' letter thrilled opponents of the toll-road project.
“We have said for a long time that there are viable alternatives to this project that don't destroy the park,” said Dan Silver, executive director of the Endangered Habitats League in Los Angeles.
billion project said it is the least environmentally destructive alignment.
