The Foothill-South (241) toll road extension, as we know it, is dead.
Bold claim, you say? Presumptuous, maybe? Not so.
Recently, mi hermano Gustavo Arellano pinpointed the root cause of the Transportation Corridor Agencies' failure to gain Coastal Commission approval for their Final Solution to San Onofre State Beach: ARROGANCE. The TCA presumptuously and sometimes even indignantly refuted the majority of criticism of their project, as reflected in the Response to Comments section of the Environmental Impact Report. A juicy excerpt:
Comment Number: O19-13
Commenter: Terrell Watt Planning Consultants
Comment: There is a remarkable claim made that PM10 emissions will increase but that PM10 levels will not and that violations of state standards will not worsen (AQR 4-69, 4-70, 5-10). This defies all logic. And of course that is without accounting for most of the PM10 emissions. Obviously any increase in emissions will increase PM10 levels. The large emissions increases that would actually occur would increase the levels substantially, quite possibly above the federal standards.
Response: The comment is incorrect in summarizing the statements in the Draft EIS/SEIR...."
The comment is incorrect. The impacts are insignificant. You're wrong. We're not listening. Nya nya nya. This has been the general tone of the TCA's response to criticism in the past, and it continues today.
The TCA has appealed the Coastal Commission's decision to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. According to the Coastal Zone Management Act, if a state denies approval of a project, the project builders can file an appeal with the Secretary of Commerce. It takes 265 days to analyze, or up to 325 days if extensions come into play.
Lance MacLean, who chairs the Foothill/Eastern TCA, told the LA Times, "Of the 16 miles to complete the toll road, only 2.2 miles are in the coastal zone. We can change the route, but that's just an idea, and of course, we will have to do studies."
What MacLean fails to understand, even though it was clearly articulated many times at the Feb. 6 Coastal Commission hearing which he attended, is that it doesn't matter how much of the project is in the coastal zone. If the project's impacts reach the coastal zone, then the Coastal Act applies.
Section 307(c)(3) of the Coastal Zone Management Act provides:
(3) (A) After final approval by the Secretary of a state's management program, any applicant for a required Federal license or permit to conduct an activity, in or outside of the coastal zone, affecting any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone of that state shall provide in the application to the licensing or permitting agency a certification that the proposed activity complies with the enforceable policies of the state's approved program and that such activity will be conducted in a manner consistent with the program. … No license or permit shall be granted by the Federal agency until the state or its designated agency has concurred with the applicant's certification or until, by the state's failure to act, the concurrence is conclusively presumed, unless the Secretary, on his own initiative or upon appeal by the applicant, finds, after providing a reasonable opportunity for detailed comments from the Federal agency involved and from the state, that the activity is consistent with the objectives of this title or is otherwise necessary in the interest of national security.
Even IF the TCA gets an override from the Secretary of Commerce, they will still have to come back to the Coastal Commission for a Coastal Development Permit for the project, according to Coastal Commissioner Steve Blank. "Given an 8-2 rejection by this commission," Blank told The Weekly, " they would have to either a) change the law that requires them to get a Coastal Development Permit, or b) change the makeup of the Coastal Commission so they can get an approval. Neither are impossible when a billion dollars are at stake."
February 11, 2008 09:19
Indeed, arrogance did doom the 241-- arrogance of the OC Republican Party, the Building Industry Association which depends on the party to carry its water, elected losers like Bates, Walters, Campbell, Norby, who on this issue are most certainly "losers," and the sycophant losers on city councils throughout south county.
How could TCA lose? They sit around regularly and congratulate each other on their brilliance and ability to shuck, jive, obfuscate, and hustle. Aren't they always right? Can't they change reality merely by denying it?
Guess what: Coastal Commissioners got your number. 20 years and a 3 foot pile of crap doesn't add up to research or mitigation-- it adds up to crap.
"Biased?" Absolutely. The Coastal Commission is biased by their job, defending the coast. Did the Commission pop up over night, a sudden obnoxious challenge to TCA's shining plans? No, it's been there all along, a known, understood, and predictable obstacle to 241's grimy destruction.
Wall Street must be lovin' the TCA now. Blowing $-millions on bogus science sure to be picked apart by a persnickety commission. Wagging it's finger at the commissioners and niggling over was is and isn't their jurisdiction. Behaving like the arrogant boneheads they are. And the best part: TCA's learned absolutely nothing in the process.
February 11, 2008 12:48
Arrogance and greed combined will defeat TCA's public and private investment and business objectives.....
February 20, 2008 13:11
Why didn't you print the entire response? Because it undermines your premise? Good thing the OC Weekly prints the whole truth. And by whole I mean 7.4% based on word count. But hey, what's 92.6% between friends.
I guess that's what one should expect from a publication that is picked up more for its escort service and phone sex ads than its reporting. Perhaps you should start working in the advertising department.
For the record here is the remainder of the response.
"... On page 5-10 (Table 5-3), the changes in regional PM10 emissions are shown for various FEC Alternatives and various growth Alternatives. The changes in PM10 emissions compared to the corresponding No Action Alternative range from an increase of five pounds per day to a decrease of five pounds per day. An increase or decrease of five pounds per day is not considered a significant change. As a comparison, the SCAQMD uses a very low operational significance threshold of 150 pounds of PM10 emissions per day. Theclaim that PM10 levels (concentrations) will not increase significantly at intersections is consistent with the regional forecast in the Draft EIS/SEIR which showed that the total PM10 emissions with and without the project does not change significantly. It is also consistent with the traffic assessment that shows the corridor Alternatives removing traffic from arterial roads and intersections, thereby reducing congestion at those intersections."
Now go back to law school and be a crappy lawyer rather than a crappy reporter. You'll be much less obvious as a crappy lawyer.
I love your linked in summary :
"I desire to help reveal, clarify and transmit information with the goal of helping others to make better, more informed decisions so that we all might have an easier time working together to try and foster progress."
and by love I mean it made me throw up in my mouth a bit.
You need modify it to read
"I desire to help reveal, clarify and transmit 7.5% of real information with the goal of helping others to make biased, less informed decisions so that we all might have an easier time by making the world the way I think it should be."
February 20, 2008 18:31
Hater:
Well? Which is it? 7.4% or 7.5%? Make up your mind! You TCA supporters can never get your numbers right.
I note you don't explain what about the remainder of the response undermined my premise.
By the way, kudos - I've never seen such a spiteful piece of apparently-researched bitchery actually be CROSS-POSTED before. The irony is, by visiting my personal blog, you've doubled my daily hit-count and brought me joy.
"Haters, if you need someone to hate on, feel free to hate on me." -Kat Williams
February 21, 2008 11:46
Listen, Alex, here's some advice from one journalist to another: when you quote something, you had better not just quote the relevant parts. A responsible journalist would quote the original statement in its entirety. When I get done with my 2,100 page review of War and Peace, I'll forward it to you as an example, so you never make this grievous mistake again.