Verdict due on divisive toll road

In one of the region’s great environmental showdowns, the California Coastal Commission is set to decide Wednesday whether to approve a controversial toll road through San Onofre State Beach -- a popular park filled with endangered species, old Indian sites and famous surf spots.

The dispute over the proposed Foothill South tollway in southern Orange County has mushroomed into a statewide conflict over where to draw the line between protecting the environment and building highways to ease traffic congestion.

Supporters of the planned six-lane turnpike contend that the road is needed to accommodate development and take some of the burden off Interstate 5, one of the most heavily traveled corridors between Los Angeles and San Diego. They assert that no better alternative exists and that substantial steps would be taken to protect the environment.

Opponents argue that if the toll road is built, it would be the largest project of its type put through a state park. San Onofre would be permanently scarred, they say, and the road’s approval could open the door for other significant encroachments on park land statewide, such as utilities, rail lines and desalination plants.

“This is the most significant issue to come before the commission since the San Onofre nuclear power plant in the early 1970s,” said Peter M. Douglas, the agency’s executive director.

Estimated to cost at least $875 million, the Foothill South would run 16 miles from Oso Parkway in Rancho Santa Margarita to I-5 at Basilone Road south of San Clemente.

The highway would course through the northern half of San Onofre and pass over the Trestles marine estuary, which is a nature preserve. About 320 of the park’s 2,100 acres would be taken for the toll road, including traffic lanes and two ramps along I-5.

The area contains endangered species, an unspoiled stretch of San Mateo Creek, the 161-space San Mateo Campground and archaeological sites, such as the Juaneno Indian village of Panhe. The nearby beach is known for two surf spots, Trestles and Old Man’s.

The commission, which has 12 voting members, must decide whether the project complies with the California Coastal Act. Without such a finding, the Irvine-based Transportation Corridor Agencies cannot seek state and federal permits to build the road.

In September, the commission’s staff recommended against the Foothill South route, saying a six-lane highway through San Onofre would result in widespread violations of the Coastal Act by threatening endangered species, degrading coastal wetlands and compromising recreational resources.

The 236-page analysis conflicts with assertions from the Transportation Corridor Agency that the proposed route is the least harmful to the park out of eight options the agency studied. The commission report stated that it was hard to imagine a more environmentally damaging route.

“I’ve never seen a project so clearly inconsistent with the law that has come so far in the regulatory process,” Douglas said.

TCA officials contend that the commission staff report on San Onofre mischaracterizes the tollway project and grossly overstates its effect on recreational resources, wetlands and wildlife habitat.

Also, the transit agency’s environmental review for the Foothill South concludes that San Onofre’s surf breaks would not be degraded and that the park route would eliminate the need to substantially widen I-5 -- a costly project it says would require the condemnation of 1,237 homes and businesses.

“We have spent $20 million and several years working with a collaborative of federal and state agencies to determine the best route for traffic relief and how to do it in an environmentally sensitive way,” said Lance MacLean, TCA board chairman and Mission Viejo councilman. “Our hope is that our science will outweigh the emotion in this.”

Transit officials say the quality of the park already has been compromised by utility towers, a nuclear power plant, railroad trestles near the beach, and two roads that pass through the preserve -- I-5 and Christianitos Road.

“We are not trying to put down a state park,” MacLean said, “but this is not Yosemite.”

The weeks leading up to the commission meeting have been marked by intense campaigning by both sides.

Last month, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who appoints four members of the commission, broke his long silence on the tollway and endorsed it. In response, State Treasurer Bill Lockyer reiterated his opposition to the road, and environmentalists pitched 161 red tents on the Capitol Mall in Sacramento to symbolize the San Onofre campgrounds that would be affected by the tollway.

“It is no surprise that running a multilane highway through the park will violate the Coastal Act,” said James Birkelund, an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which has sued to stop the tollway.

Last week, in its latest shot at opponents, the transit agency filed a formal complaint with the state engineering board against consultants that environmentalists hired to explore alternatives to the tollway, such as widening I-5.

State officials said an investigation would be opened into accusations that Smart Mobility Inc. of Vermont was practicing engineering in California without a state license, a potential misdemeanor.

“This is just retribution for daring to submit in good faith an analysis that conflicts with the TCA’s views,” said Michael Fitts, an attorney for the Endangered Habitats League, a tollway opponent. “They are just attacking the messenger, not the message.”

Contrary to the transit agency’s findings, Smart Mobility has concluded that I-5 could be widened to accommodate traffic growth as well or better than building the tollway, a view consistent with TCA studies done in 2003. If innovative interchange designs are used, only about 60 condemnations would be necessary, the company estimated.

Smart Mobility’s analysis is supported by Philip J. Clark, a former director of highway design for the New York State Department of Transportation. An earlier version of Smart Mobility’s work became controversial in October when mistakes were uncovered in its analysis. Among other things, critics, including TCA officials, complained that the study was superficial, the conceptual designs did not meet Caltrans standards, and the company failed to account for planned carpool lanes for I-5.

The company’s study at the time was cited in the commission’s staff report as an indication that there might be a feasible alternative to the Foothill South.

Tollway opponents say that Smart Mobility has corrected what it concedes are mistakes in its earlier work. But transit officials say the company’s new analysis still contains some of the same flaws.

The Coastal Commission meets in Del Mar at Wyland Hall, a pavilion at the Del Mar Fairgrounds. At least 2,000 people are expected to attend.

--

dan.weikel@latimes.com