Del Mar Wants Refund From Sierra Club

Enraged by a proposed settlement agreement, supporters of the Sierra Club’s legal challenge to the planned California 56 freeway want their money back.

Monday night, the Del Mar City Council agreed by consensus to ask the Sierra Club to return $7,000 it gave the club for its fight against the freeway, which is designed to connect Interstate 5 south of Del Mar to Interstate 15 to the east.

Last week, the local chapter of the Sierra Club’s executive committee voted to settle its suit against the Coastal Commission, in return for money to mitigate potential environmental impacts to Penasquitos Lagoon, west of a proposed juncture of Interstate 5 and the new freeway.

Del Mar officiaals and representatives of Del Mar Terrace Conservancy, a group of local residents that donated about $2,000 to the Sierra Club suit even while it was raising money for its own suit against the project, say they have been betrayed by the settlement.

The goal of the suit was to force rethinking on the road alignment, not to seek financial mitigation, they say.

“If (the Sierra Club) only wanted to get money (for mitigation), they should have told us,” said Gay Hugo-Martinez, who served on the Del Mar City Council when it voted to give the Sierra Club money for its legal fight.

Monday, the Del Mar City Council made it clear that the Sierra Club’s settlement didn’t represent its wishes.

“If we donated money to the Sierra Club and it wasn’t used for the intended purpose, then we should get it back,” Del Mar City Councilman Elliot Parks said before the meeting.

As part of the settlement, the Sierra Club will receive $25,000 for legal and out-of-pocket expenses, but that covers only a portion of its expenditures, club officials say.

“As far as we’re concerned, they gave the money with no strings attached,” Sierra Club attorney Larry Silver said on Monday.

Among other things, the settlement, which still must be approved by the Sierra Club’s national office--a mere formality, club officials say--calls for the city of San Diego to open the mouth of the lagoon four times a year for 10 years, to conduct extensive work to control the flow of sediment into the lagoon and to study the impacts of the freeway on the area’s watershed. It also stipulates that the state will spend up to $200,000 to study and monitor the lagoon.

The total financial support from the city and state for the mitigation plan could reach $800,000, according to Joan Jackson, who negotiated the settlement for the Sierra Club.

Opponents of the settlement charge that most of the mitigations spelled out in the suit were required long before the agreement.

But Jackson said that there was nothing forcing the city to regularly open the lagoon mouth, and that the settlement will give environmentalists the power to force the city and state to act in good faith.

“With the enormous budget constraints in the city and state agencies, none of this would have been done without a court settlement,” she said.

The settlement removes one legal hurdle to the freeway’s construction, which has been proceeding despite the legal challenges. The east segment is already under construction, and Caltrans has accepted bids for construction of the west segment.

Last week, an attorney representing the Del Mar Terrace Conservancy asked the state 4th District Court of Appeal to issue a stay, which could halt construction. The city and Caltrans are due to file their arguments on the writ this week.

A Del Mar Terrace Conservancy suit, separate from the Sierra Club’s, charged the city of San Diego and Caltrans with preparing an inadequate environmental impact report that addressed only segments of the project, not the overall impacts of the road. A San Diego Superior Court ruled in favor of the city and Caltrans earlier this year, but the conservancy has filed an appeal.

The Sierra Club’s suit charged the Coastal Commission with failing to follow the guidelines of the California Coastal Plan and the California Environmental Quality Act.

“We looked upon (the settlement) as an environmental insurance policy,” said Jackson, who represented the Sierra Club in negotiations with the state. “If their (citizens’ group) suit fails and this settlement hadn’t been in place, then there would be no mitigation.”

The alignment of the road is an “abomination,” Jackson said, calling it unneeded and badly planned.

The settlement of the lawsuit simply ensures that the area wetlands will be monitored and controlled if the road is actually built, she said.

But that doesn’t appease opponents of the agreement, who say that the Sierra Club settled for a short-term solution.

“Their actions in settling speak louder than any words,” Hugo-Martinez said.

She charges that Jackson had a direct conflict of interest, since she also serves as president of the Los Penasquitos Lagoon Foundation. Most of the mitigation plans affect the lagoon.

“I’m not personally benefiting from any of this,” Jackson replied, denying any conflict.

Longtime Sierra Club supporter Lynn Benn, a member of the San Diego Planning Commission, said the settlement doesn’t follow the club’s national policy of opposing any project that will cause the net loss of wetlands or open space. The California 56 project, as proposed, would result in the loss of 42 acres, she said.

“I think (the Sierra Club) made a mistake,” Benn said. “Instead of trying to work with the community to find median ground, I think they were trying to cover their backside.”

Although the agreement still has to be approved by the national office, said Alex Levinson, litigation coordinator for the club’s national office in San Francisco, the national office usually shows “great deference” to the local chapters. The settlement will probably come up for final approval within the next few weeks, he said.