Fate of Tollways Is at a Crossroads

They’re right there beside the road, loud as a billboard. Like anyone else, Donna Martin noticed the dozens of saltwater-blue signs scattered in a carefully scripted path through the coastal foothills of southern Orange County.

Their message was clear: A massive strip of asphalt called the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor would one day cut a swath along this route from San Juan Capistrano to Newport Beach.

It seemed a distant day, and for years Martin didn’t worry much about the tollway. But now the bulldozers are poised, and Martin--along with many other residents--has been stirred. Seemingly overnight, they’ve hit the warpath, ready to fight perhaps the biggest environmental battle this county has ever seen.

With a pivotal set of hearings on the project’s ecological ramifications ready to begin Thursday, the 17.5-mile tollway faces widespread opposition from citizens groups, merchants fearful that their businesses will be uprooted, even two arms of the federal government.

At issue is not only the fate of a highway, but a vision of Orange County far into the 21st Century.

If the San Joaquin Hills tollway and two others planned in the county’s eastern outback are built, foes say, the quality of life will deteriorate amid the haze of auto exhaust and the congestion of new communities.

But if the roads are not realized, an even more disturbing scenario would emerge, tollway proponents say. Growth would occur in any case, traffic-choked Interstate 5 would only get worse and adjacent thoroughfares and parkways would resemble parking lots, resulting in more smog than ever before.

Although the project’s opponents have captured the headlines of late, tollway boosters contend that their plans enjoy widespread support from a silent majority that has yet to be heard. They also insist that chances of killing the project are remote at best.

But critics aren’t so sure. They argue that all three roads--expected to cost more than $2 billion when completed--face an uphill fight if they are to be built.

Opponents say they will assault several fronts in an effort to scuttle the highways, relying on political pressure, lawsuits and the significant power of several federal and state regulatory agencies.

The protest is hardly unusual. Some officials, including Caltrans Director Robert K. Best, have suggested that today’s political and legal hassles have made it virtually impossible to build another major freeway in Southern California. The six-lane, $667-million San Joaquin Hills tollway, in particular, appears vulnerable for a variety of reasons:

* The project poses a number of problems for wildlife. Perhaps the most vexing dilemma is the presence of the least Bell’s vireo, a tiny gray songbird on the federal endangered species list. An unmated male has been sighted amid the oaks and undergrowth along the route. Other sensitive species include the California gnatcatcher, a bird being considered for the endangered list, as well as the San Diego horned lizard, southwestern pond turtle, yellow warbler, golden eagle and Cooper’s hawk. A rare plant, the Dudleya, also exists along the route. Deer and bobcats frequent the area, prompting concern that the tollway will hem in such animals.

* Officials at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, among others, believe that tollway planners have failed to prove that construction of the highway will help reduce air pollution by speeding up the region’s existing traffic-choked streets and freeways. The EPA’s bottom-line philosophy is that new roads stimulate growth, attract more cars and thus result in more smog.

* Efforts to defeat the tollway could result in a war of attrition, with opponents trying to delay the start of construction until political and financial problems undermine the plans of road boosters. Unlike the big state or federal highway departments, the Orange County Transportation Corridor Agencies don’t possess particularly deep pockets. Dependent on loans and developer fees, the agencies could see their efforts reined in to cut costs if the environmental battle drags on into the fall, tollway officials say. But they also insist that a drawn-out fight over the roads would not sink the agencies.

“These roads are going to be built,” argued William C. Woollett Jr., the dogged and determined executive director of the corridor agencies. “The only thing that may happen is if things get slowed up, the costs could go up tremendously. . . . I think it’s possible we can make this a win-win situation with the environmentalists as long as they don’t say we shouldn’t build.”

But opponents, flush with confidence as their ranks have ballooned in recent months, are not about to concede anything.

“Personally, I thought six months ago that the San Joaquin Hills toll road was a certainty, a done deal,” said Norm Grossman, a staunch tollway opponent. “Now I think we’ve got a 50-50 chance. As it stands now, there’s no way they’re going to break ground for at least a year, if ever.”

Tollway officials say the need for the roads is as plain as the rolling hills that characterize the South County topography. Like tiny tributaries flowing downhill to form a mighty river, the lay of the land acts to funnel traffic onto one principal route--busy Interstate 5. The freeway reaches logjam proportions at the infamous El Toro Y, the confluence of the San Diego and Santa Ana freeways where more than 200,000 cars trundle by each day.

Each of the highways--the San Joaquin, the Foothill tollway paralleling Interstate 5 and the Eastern corridor linking the interstate with the busy Riverside Freeway--would help ease the strain on existing roads and highways, boosting speeds and reducing air pollution pouring from idling cars stuck in traffic, boosters say.

They also argue that the roads are needed to accommodate the growth that is projected for South County into the next century, homes that will sprout whether the tollways are built or not. Many of the largest land developments in the area--among them Aliso Viejo and Rancho Santa Margarita--have hammered out agreements with the county allowing them to build their houses and condominiums whatever the outcome of the tollway debate.

“Growth is going to happen whether the San Joaquin Hills corridor is built or not,” said Laguna Niguel City Manager Tim Casey. “If it’s not built, I would conjecture that five or 10 years from now, as these development agreements yield new homes, the conditions on our local streets will get worse without the benefits of the corridor.”

Many tollway opponents are irked by such prospects, but they say the roads should be blocked nonetheless. They contend that the highways, which will cost users about 15 cents a mile, will not do anything to ease traffic on existing roads. Instead, the tollways are a ploy to open new terrain for development, they say.

Battles over highways, of course, are hardly a unique event in California. Perhaps the most ferocious fight has revolved around the extension of the Long Beach Freeway into South Pasadena. For nearly three decades, opponents have managed to hold off state efforts to extend the freeway through several historic neighborhoods.

“I think the freeway era is just about over,” said Stanley Hart, regional transportation chairman for the Sierra Club in Los Angeles County. “I feel we have about a 95% chance of killing the Long Beach Freeway. And I don’t think these toll roads in Orange County are going to go anywhere either.”

Although much of the planning for the Orange County tollways has already been completed, the roads face a tough test in the coming months, undergoing intense scrutiny during the environmental review process and efforts to win construction financing.

Whereas the northern half of the 30-mile-long Foothill tollway has been approved and is under construction, the southern half faces solid opposition from environmentalists concerned about the road’s impact on sensitive ecological areas, San Clemente residents upset that the highway might run past their homes, and the Marine Corps, which prefers that the road not traverse Camp Pendleton.

The Eastern tollway, meanwhile, is about to enter the review process, with its environmental impact report scheduled to be released next month. Already, residents along that route in Peter’s Canyon east of Tustin have engaged in a legal skirmish with the tollway agency over concerns about noise from the highway.

But the San Joaquin Hills corridor remains the most pressing issue for tollway boosters. The upcoming environmental review of the project involves a two-tiered process that could ultimately play out like a Homeric epic.

Under state regulations, the highway must be approved by the tollway agency, which plans hearings Thursday and Feb. 28 before making a final decision March 14. The environmental review then goes before the Federal Highway Administration, probably sometime in early summer if all goes according to plan.

Even the best-laid plans, of course, can be turned topsy-turvy.

Opponents are expected to play a role by flooding the various hearings to make their sentiments known. They’ve already gained several concessions from tollway boosters and will fight for more.

Even the staunchest critics say such protests have a limit and suggest it’s unlikely the tollway agency’s board of directors will reject the environmental impact report.

But approval of the EIR would crack the door open for litigation. Several groups, most notably the Natural Resources Defense Council, have threatened to file lawsuits challenging the document, potentially delaying construction for months or even years.

Others are trying to sway individual city council members sitting on the tollway agency board. In San Juan Capistrano, for instance, the council voted to oppose the project’s environmental impact report after opponents presented a petition carrying more than 3,000 signatures.

Said Grossman: “If you can get six cities to say no, that would be it.”

Regulatory agencies such as the EPA, which has already called the tollway’s environmental review “inadequate,” could block the project by ordering that it be referred to the presidential Council on Environmental Quality.

That, however, would be an anomaly. Since the CEQ was formed in 1970, the three-member board of presidential appointees has helped mediate disputes involving only three highway projects, federal officials say.

Financial considerations will also be a factor, opponents say. Developer fees fuel the tollway agency’s day-to-day operations, and the downturn in housing sales has hurt. The agency recently borrowed $13 million from the Orange County Transportation Commission to keep its operation in high gear. Last month, it returned to the commission again to inquire about a loan of $25 million, prompting some foes to crow that the tollway boosters were at the fiscal edge.

Many of the highway’s strongest supporters are worrying less about lawsuits and more about the nation’s stingy credit market. Santa Ana Mayor Daniel H. Young, a tollway agency director, said “you can’t get a loan” from banks these days for a massive undertaking like the tollway. A delay of even a year, he warned, could leave the San Joaquin Hills project “dead in the water.”

The Sierra Club’s Hart, however, suggests that freeway fights elsewhere have taught that tollway boosters will not give up easily. “These people have staying power,” he said. “There’s an awful lot of money involved with these developers, billions of dollars. My assessment is that developers won’t hesitate to ante up more money.”

Indeed, the big financial winners in the construction of all three tollways are major landowners and developers. In Aliso Viejo and Rancho Santa Margarita, real estate sales representatives hype the tollways as selling points in their pitches to buyers skeptical about traveling on a clogged Interstate 5 to jobs in central or north Orange County.

Along the San Joaquin Hills route alone, 105,000 new homes are expected, as well as 54.7 million square feet of industrial and commercial development. More than twice as many homes are still planned along the paths of the Eastern and Foothill tollways.

Much of the growth, both completed and planned, sprouted in anticipation of the tollways. A major turning point came in 1976, when the road was added to the county’s Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Immediately, requests for development approvals skyrocketed, county officials say.

“It’s clear,” said Ken R. Smith, the County Environmental Management Agency’s transportation chief, “that many of these development projects were based on the idea that the (tollway) would be there.”

Foes of the project hope that the roads never even get a chance to be there.

Though they’ve been slow to mobilize, the blossoming opposition has nonetheless begun to make its presence felt. Residents have formed groups with snappy acronym names like ROT (Residents Opposed to Tollroads), SOS (Save Our San Juan) and SCAT (San Clementians Against the Tollway). Armed with placards, bands of protesters have flooded various city council meetings in recent weeks.

“I’m just an average citizen,” noted Donna Martin, who helped form ROT a few months ago. “But I feel strongly about this. I feel that citizens haven’t had a chance to go out there and say what they think. The toll road agency acts like it’s a done deal. But it’ not a done deal.”

These opponents are a varied band. A number are staunch slow-growth advocates and environmentalists who have been fighting the San Joaquin Hills corridor for more than a decade. But many more are new to the fight, some of them people who moved into the homes that were built in anticipation of the road.

“It’s just been something that for most people was low on their list of priorities until six or eight weeks ago,” suggested Woollett, the tollway agency’s chief executive. “When we had the groundbreaking ceremony for the Foothill, I think they suddenly realized we were serious about building these roads. . . . You don’t worry about the steamroller until it’s about to run you over.”

ORANGE COUNTY ROAD WARS

Conceived as a solution to South county traffic woes, three proposed tollways are drawing opposition from residents concerned about air quality, noise and damage to wildlife. The San Joaquin Hills route awaits final approval, but is peppered with points of contention.

BONITA CANYON Wildlife Oasis

The tollway would run along a rechanneled segment of Bonita Creek and the Bonita Reservoir, where over 90 species of birds have been spotted, among them the endangered least bells vireo. The tollway would destroy some patches of two sensitive plant species, including the many-stemmed dudleya.

ISSUES OF CONTENTION

Wildlife: Sensitive plants and animals adversely affected.

Parks: Tollway traverses dedicated park lands.

Wetlands: Creeks to be rerouted, destroying habitat.

Homeowners: Residents concerned about noise and traffic.

Businesses: Merchants in path of road could be uprooted.

Other: Air quality and fears that many views will be lost are also concerns of opponents.

MITIGATION Soothing the Wounds

The tollway authority has a variety of methods to offset problems caused by the route. Among these are:

* Replacing every acre of wetlands destroyed.

* Constructing undercrossings to allow animal movement.

* Partial revegetation of destroyed trees.

* Erecting sound walls to block out noise.

* Providing relocation services and payments to displaced businesses.

PAYING THE PIPER

The San Joaquin Hills tollway will have one main toll plaza with both an electronic collection system and manual payment booths. Similar dual collection systems will also be in place at six interchanges along the route to ensure tolls are collected.

Sensors suspended above traffic lanes or buried below the pavement will scan electronic tags and bill drivers automatically. Drivers needn’t stop.

Source: San Joaquin Hills tollway environmental impact report and Times reports.

Tollway Review

Three meetings are planned by the Orange County Transportation Corridor Agencies to review the environmental impact report for the San Joaquin Hills tollway.

Dates and Times: Hearings are set for Thursday (10 a.m.) and Feb. 28 (9:30 a.m.), with a final decision expected to be reached at a March 14 (9:30 a.m.) meeting.

Place: Santa Ana City Council Chambers. 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana.

TOLLWAY AGENCIES: WHO’S WHO

William C. Woollett Jr.

Transportation Corridor

Agencies exec. director

Gaddi H. Vasquez

Foothill/Eastern Corridor

Agency chairman

John C. Cox Jr.

San Joaquin Hills Corridor

Agency chairman

The Orange County Transportation Corridor Agencies were created in 1985 under a joint powers agreement between the Board of Supervisors and the cities that line the routes of the proposed tollways. Executive director is former Irvine city manager William C. Woollett Jr.

San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency.

Address: 345 Clinton St., Costa Mesa, Calif. 92626. Phone (714) 557-3298.

Chairman: Newport Beach Councilman John C. Cox Jr.

Members: Orange County Supervisors Gaddi H. Vasquez, Thomas F. Riley; Council members Peter F. Buffa of Costa Mesa, Sally Anne Sheridan of Irvine, Sharon Cody of Mission Viejo, Daniel H. Young of Santa Ana, Patricia C. Bates of Laguna Niguel, Kenneth E. Friess of San Juan Capistrano, Scott Diehl of San Clemente. Laguna Beach opposes the tollway and refused to join.

Project: San Joaquin Hills tollway, which is an extension of Corona del Mar Freeway (California 73).

Length: 17.5 miles.

Cost: $667 million to $800 million depending on final design.

Schedules: Groundbreaking in late 1991; completion 1994-1995.

Tolls: $2 to $2.25.

Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency.

Address: 345 Clinton St., Costa Mesa, Calif. 92626. Phone (714) 557-3298.

Chairman: Orange County Supervisor Gaddi H. Vasquez

Members: Orange County Supervisor Thomas F. Riley; council members Gary L. Hausdorfer of San Juan Capistrano, Sally Anne Sheridan of Irvine, Daniel H. Young of Santa Ana, Gene Wisner of Yorba Linda, Irv Pickler of Anaheim, Richard B. Edgar of Tustin, William S. Craycraft of Mission Viejo, Gene Beyer of Orange, Scott Diehl of San Clemente.

Projects: Foothill and Eastern tollways.

Lengths: The Foothill is 30 miles, Eastern is 23 miles, broken in two legs.

Costs: $746 million for Foothill, $630 million for Eastern.

Schedules: Grading under way on 7.6-mile segment of Foothill tollway between Antonio and Portola parkways, with completion of various tollway segments staggered between 1993 and 2000. Groundbreaking for Eastern scheduled in late 1991 or early 1992. Completion in four years.

Tolls: $3.75 to $4.50.