State files suit over toll road through parkland
By: PHILIP K. IRELAND - Staff Writer | ∞
Attorney General Bill Lockyer announces during a news conference in Sacramento on Friday that his office was filing a lawsuit to block a controversial toll road through the San Onofre State Beach. The lawsuit, filed in San Diego Superior Court, alleges the Foothill/Eastern Transportaton Corridor Agency violated the California Environmental Quality Act by failing to adequately assess the environmental impacts of the proposed Foothill South Toll Road.
Associated Press
SAN DIEGO ---- The state of California, an environmental coalition and an American Indian rights group filed separate suits in San Diego County Superior Court to stop an Orange County agency from building a planned toll road through state parkland in San Diego County's northwest corner.
"By choosing to build a six-lane highway through San Onofre State Beach, local public officials missed an opportunity to meet the transportation needs of this growing region without sacrificing public parklands that have been protected for future generations," state Attorney General Bill Lockyer said in a statement Thursday in Sacramento. "I am filing this lawsuit because these local officials chose to build the road without evaluating its toll on a state treasure."
The Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency, an organization created to plan, build and operate toll roads in Orange County, approved its $17 million environmental study and the road's route last month, setting in motion this month's flurry of legal action. The agency is governed by a 17-member board of elected Orange County officials
Agency officials have said the road through San Onofre State Beach and San Mateo State Campground would provide Orange, Riverside and San Bernadino county commuters an inland route to the coast. Designed to siphon north-south traffic off of Interstate 5, the 16.9-mile road is the final link in a 67-mile web of toll roads through Orange County.
Two other organizations ---- the Native American Heritage Commission and a coalition of environmental groups and state parkland advocates that include the Surfrider Foundation, the California State Parks Foundation and the Sierra Club ---- also filed suits to block the road. Both groups say that road planners failed to adequately address environmental impacts of the road.
Agency board President Ken Ryan characterized the lawsuits Thursday as "scare tactics" from longtime opponents of state Route 241, also known as the "Foothill-South."
"This is simply another delay tactic that avoids dealing with the number one issue facing Southern California today ---- traffic congestion," Ryan said. "This is from the same groups represented by the same lawyers who continue to oppose any transportation project designed to improve mobility."
Ryan, one of 17 elected officials on the board, said agency attorneys will defend the suits, and he called Lockyer's suit "a waste of taxpayer money."
Lockyer said in his statement that he filed the lawsuit on behalf of the people of California and the state Parks and Recreation Commission. The complaint alleges the agency violated California environmental laws when it did not completely assess the road's effects on visitors to the state campground and beach and area wildlife. Further, the agency did not completely identify plans for offsetting environmental damage, and did not properly study alternatives less damaging to the environment, the suit said.
The suit filed by the coalition of environmental groups made similar accusations.
"The (agency) has grossly underestimated the impacts that this toll road would have on San Onofre State Beach," said William White of Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger LLP, the lead attorney for the coalition. "It undermined the public process by failing to explore alternatives that would avoid the State Beach entirely and would provide traffic benefits equal or greater than the toll road."
The Native American Heritage Commission lawsuit alleges that the road would damage American Indian historical and ceremonial sites located on public property. The complaint states that the toll road would pass within a few feet of a cemetery still used by local American Indians near the ancient indigenous village of Panhe, recognized as one of the major villages of the Juaneno/Acjachemen people.
The existing portion of state Route 241 begins at state Route 91 and ends in Rancho Santa Margarita. The section targeted by three suits would continue from Rancho Santa Margarita and connect with Interstate 5 just south of San Clemente. The $875 million road ---- 25 years in the planning ---- would enter San Diego County 4 miles northeast of San Clemente and hug the northern border of San Mateo State Campground, coming within 400 feet of the closest campsite.
The agency and most directors ---- elected Orange County officials ---- have said that state Route 241 is needed to relieve traffic congestion on I-5 through Orange County.
Opponents agree that a solution to Orange County's traffic congestion is needed, but have said that other options provide better traffic relief while preserving the campground and state beach.
Contact staff writer Philip K. Ireland at (760) 901-4043 or pireland@nctimes.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
Linda wrote on Mar 24, 2006 8:37 AM:We do not need another toll road. They need to leave the country side alone. The 5 freeway is fine just the way it is in that area. Spend our tax dollars somewhere else. How about on the 15 by Temecula We could use a road from there to the 5 not curvey like the Ortega HWY. Try that area first.
Brad wrote on Mar 24, 2006 10:57 AM:Do you drive the same 5 freeway I do? Yes they desperately need help in Temecula, but so does the 5.
fred wrote on Mar 24, 2006 1:31 PM:More roads,more lanes,more vehicles,a viscous cycle. It never ends. If you move to Temecula and still work on the coast or San Diego, guess what ,you're part of the problem.
Sick of 909's wrote on Mar 24, 2006 4:33 PM:One way or another, The Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency will prevail in their pursuit of continuing, and or finalizing construction of the 241. Forget about their past financial difficulties, Attorney General Bill Lockyer’s recent lawsuit, the Native American Heritage Commission, Surfrider Foundation, the California State Parks Foundation and the Sierra Club. Looks like Ken Ryan might have a leg up on each these groups. Why? Because the 241 is incomplete as it ends temporarily in Rancho Santa Margarita. This struggle for power by the lobbying firms unaware of the social impact an influx of travelers from the 909 can’t see past their own turned up noses either. So we’re at an impasse here. Do the environmental groups continue to fight an impending losing battle or concede and let this thing happen? They should let it go. It ain’t about improving mobility, wasting taxpayer money or environmental impacts on state beaches. It’s about Ken Ryan not caring about anything but the completion of the 241, toll revenues and more 909’s coming to the beach to leave their trash. Think about it. The toll road will adversely affect one of Southern California’s precious gems: the beaches, particularly San Onofre State Beach, a place where many people find solace way from the hustle of life, and the wasting of time in gridlock traffic. The beach culture is a way of life for far too many people which doesn’t include those from Riverside and San Bernardino counties
Dave wrote on Mar 24, 2006 6:53 PM:Linda should learn about funding. Toll roads are not funded with taxes, but rather bonds. Temecula is free to build toll roads, if they actually wanted to do anything about traffic. I can't believe these groups can't just get over it and stop whining. All these complaints have been addressed. I'm getting sick of seeing taxpayer dollars being wasted on suing other governments, espescially on issues that are already decided.
teresa wrote on Mar 27, 2006 9:41 AM:It's so blatently obvious that the Attorney General is cow-towing to the environmental lobby, a political favor in exchange for their financial contributions. Not to mention the fact that he has a major conflict of interest here - his wife is from a Native American tribe that is claiming the project will destroy their ancestral. How can he use state taxpayer dollars to put his own personal interests ahead of the millions of commuters who want traffic relief? The real issue here is that traffic is bad, its only getting worse, yet the environmental groups don't have any viable solutions.
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.
Today's Stories
Advertisement
Videos
Advertisement