I’ll probably catch heat for this, but how, exactly, does the toll road put Trestles at risk?
I’ve yet to read anything less than hyperbole with detailed points of how this affects our ability to surf the spot.
The road is clearly not being built out in the ocean (or is it)?
Is the problem that the path from Cristianitos gets impacted by the infrastructure?
Sediment?
…what’s the beef?
No, the construction and supports etc. for the road have big impact on Christianitos Creek. And the concern is that runoff will speed up and wreck the sandbars at Trestles.
Now, the creek meanders naturally, brings down fresh sand, etc. - basically a perfect freak of nature that produces the bars at the beach. The construction would turn C.Creek into a concrete channel (think LA River) and change the outflow. Faster flow during rain, no flow at any other time, no gradual sand replenishment from upstream erosion (or too much at times)… I think its a very legitimate concern, but you’re right - they’re doing a terrible job of explaining it to people.
Trestles is a wonderful happy accident. To change the creek will definitely change the break, even though the road is 1/2 mile from shore.
People need to be in less of a hurry, or as a resident of SoCal learn how to plan around traffic. I feel like most SoCal kids now should already have this skill by the age of 10. There is a perfectly good road there already, and I wouldnt be surprised if the toll rode only provides temporary relief to a problem that isnt going to stop growing anytime soon. I guess Arnold listens to the (rich Orange County) citizens of CA.
Seriously…give the bastards and inch and they’ll take a mile. The people behind the toll road don’t give a flying you-know-what about the environment, the beaches, the whales, or us. That is 100% fact. They are, to be fair, trying to plan for the truly monsterous increase in traffic along the I-5 corridor expected in the next few years…I believe one of the figures was a 60% increase.
Here are a few snips from Surfline’s interview with the head of Surfrider, Jim Moriarty
"AFTER THE DECISION, THE GOVERNOR REALEASED A STATEMENT SAYING HE “CONCLUDED THAT THIS PROJECT IS ESSENTIAL TO PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR EVERYONE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.”
One of the downsides to the recent surge in interest in the environment is that advertisers, companies and politicians have chosen to turn it into hyperbole. In this case it’s total, 100% folly. I mean really, how exactly does the Governor plan on “protecting a state park” by endorsing a project that would result in the loss of 60% of it? We’re talking about putting a road directly through the fifth most visited park in the state. We’re talking about putting a road directly through a watershed habitat that is home to no less than 11 federally endangered and threatened species. I challenge him and anyone to name a single paved road, anywhere on the globe, that did not lead to pollution? "
"THE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY (TCA) HAS OFFERED TO GIVE CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS A MONETARY INCENTIVE IF THE ROAD IS BUILT. WHAT DOES THAT OFFER ENTAIL?
In October of last year, the TCA made the California State Parks Department a mitigation offer of $100 million dollars ostensibly to make state park improvements elsewhere. The California State Parks Department turned the offer down cold. Why? Simple. Because our state parks are not for sale! Can you imagine the precedent this would set? 100 million dollars for the 5th most visited park in the state? What’s next - are we going to start selling off sections of Richardson Grove Redwoods or Antelope Valley Poppy Reserve?"
There is a very insideous movement inside the high offices of those in the environmental movement to assess monetary value to everything, to make easier the notion of raising money through sale and exchange of “environmental” or “Carbon” credits…here’s an example from a prominent website…
"Welcome to ECC
Environmental Credit Corp. (ECC) is a leading supplier of high quality environmental credits to emerging global financial markets. We are establishing a large and reliable source of carbon credits through cost-effective, long-term projects that reduce greenhouse gases. By creating economic value from environmental benefits, we are demonstrating our commitment to a sustainable balance between profitability and environmental stewardship ̶ for us, our partners, our world. "
Off the top the notion doesn’t sound too bad, but basically it can be easily reduced to “expiation of sins”…cash for cover. Company A proposes a project that will employ several hundred people and increase local tax base, but will render the water table undrinkable. They offer to purchase offsetting credits through a (probable) non-profit corporation, who will invest it in lavender fields in another state, ostensibly balancing the books. A win-win situation, in theory…unless you live where the water is now polluted.
It’s a slippery slope…say the toll road goes in and everybody gets to pay to drive through there…more money for the state and the contractors and developers…at a loss of 60% of a State Park. Maybe they offer to mitigate the loss by building a 10 story parking structure right above Trestles, something with a smaller footprint than the old road and camping area at San Onofre and the exisiting parking. Most of America would say that’s a good trade, better for the environment. I could take this on in many different directions…including making a case for the obvious: close parks to all visitors. What could be better for the environment? And at the same time, what could be better for business interests?
Duck and cover, my friends…and throw rocks when needed.
I reviewed this plan in depth. There are a few main issues.
There will be no construction or alteration of any sort to the west of the current position of I-5.
There will be a fraction of a percent alteration in the Trestles watershed floor (concrete pillars to support the freeway where Cristianitos road goes now).
There will be no interruption in the creek basin or flow.
The real environmental issues are in the conservancies and land trusts that the toll road will cross, which are not really Trestles issues, and the changes in traffic patterns.
The slippery slope argument is also relevant - to what extent will development cause a reconsideration of these issues in the future?
Also, the toll road is a very bad solution to the posed traffic flow problem. They really should bring the toll road over to the 5 substantially further north (at the 74, for instance). Unfortunately, that solution will require widening existing roads which would cost a lot more than paving over state parks.
In short, I think the toll road is a bad solution to the problem. But itself is a minimal issue for Trestles - certainly less of an issue than putting the 5 in was.
I’ve objected strenuously to the coupling of this issue to Trestles by Surfrider. They are running a slime corporate campaign and trying to market this as if Trestles itself were about to be paved over. That doesn’t make the toll road a great idea, but such blatant misrepresentation of the issues doesn’t sit well with me either.
watch out guys
your threads gunna get locked
If the entire surfing community showed up on Arnold’s front porch one day, I guarantee that would have an impact on him.
I’ve been involved with the Surfrider Foundation on this, but it is not enough. If we don’t physically get off of our butts and walk directly to the source… we are going to get trampled, and we’ll be surfing crap-ass waves at “Suckles”, our new protected state park break. Playing arm-chair quarterback isn’t going to get anywhere or score any touchdowns in this game!
I wonder how the {inerting key word 
} BOARD DESIGN for Trestles boards would have to change with altered wave shape due to the toll road implementation?
play nice everyone
I wonder how the {inerting key word
} BOARD DESIGN for Trestles boards would have to change with altered wave shape due to the toll road implementation?
The design changes may have to be less about changed wave shape than the general health of Trestles/Onofre regulars…massively increased traffic spewing pollutants, particulates getting into the water, respiratory issues from airborne things and increasing problems with MRSA from water contact, and possible genetic mutations down the road…I don’t think current news items about girls hitting puberty at age 8 is a reflection of too much exposure to Paris Hilton. But what the hell; it’s all good, right?
sounds like you have your own version of our “super ferry” problem so good luck…
Things must be really bad financially for the state when you can’t pay all your teachers for months or pay them the wrong amounts. I’m sure the muscle brain has some serious financial worries no one wants to know about…
when Haseko finallyl punches a hole in the coast on the right of this monstrosity and dredges the channel(with no planned break waters) for all the pleasure craft who’ll use this new marina for their new multi million dollar marina homes, all my favorite breaks will be washed away along with the coastal sand.
But then no one cares about a beach full of homeless, low class beach bums…
The state would never get away with this anywhere except here in ewa beach the arm pit of oahu…
So I can somewhat relate to the battle across the pacific
maybe we need an Off Topic Discussion forum here for this stuff.
I respect the current climate given the whaling thread snafu…lock or move as moderators see fit, but
I don’t see a more suitable format for legal/political discussions that directly relate to our hobbies and
livelihoods…plus there are plenty of intelligent people here to help foster fruitful discussion on such
matters.
regarding the notion of planning around the traffic…I respectfully disagree. I do the LA to SD thing
a lot and traffic through San Clemente and San Juan Capistrano has become untenable. there’s traffic
even when there shouldn’t be…population projections all call for even more growth.
I wholeheartedly agree that this thing should be tied directly in to the 74, I assumed that was always
the case. I regularly use the 74 to avoid Irvine…even if it only shaves a few minutes, it’s a gorgeous
drive…I was surprised to learn that it is not profitable and it is currently projected to fall short of it’s
debt responsibilities…what makes anyone think that a second, poorly integrated toll road is a better
business venture?
I’m glad to hear that they aren’t just paving a slough from far upstream…if the riverbed stays largely
untouched with the exception of some pillars as needed I feel slightly less nauseous…hopefully this
information is able to percolate upwards.
Just to play devil’s advocate…and ignoring the notion of the slippery slope re: poppies and redwoods,
what if the inland section of San O gets usurped by eminent domain…how many people who visit
san onofre state beach ever go east of the freeway?..shoot, I’ve seen the leathernecks blazing
around in tanks over there…I figured that was all camp pendelton land anywho.
Killer Dana, Salt Creek, Strands, what’s next? Your break? So the developers can make more $$$. Grrreat. Pave it over. What the F$K. It’s just a State Park on protected land. And when it all looks like El Segundo we can all say “What Happened?”
Tim,
You make a valid argument that should (should have?) been made more vehemently than hanging everything on the lies, hyperbole and misinformation put out there by the opposition groups such as Surfrider. I’ve lurked around the interchange site and read the planning documents and I agree completely with Blakstah. I’m afraid the opponents put their eggs in the wrong basket.
There’s no question that the road is going to change the character of one of the last “natural” areas near the coast not owned by the Marines. That’s tragic and worth fighting for. But it’s not going to change the surf at Trestles if it’s built the way it’s planned.
There’s no question that the road is going to change the character of one of the last “natural” areas near the coast not owned by the Marines
As I kick out of this thread, hopefully, let me make a last couple of observations based on growing up in Ventura County. Stanley’s, Oil Piers, and South Jetty: gone. Inland is currently on a relentless buildout. Projects are sold to officials by their “benefits”, such as a developer-paid freeway interchange to ease traffic congestion…in exchange for project approval that will overwhelm any traffic flow improvement the mitigation project would generate.
To hope that, in the case of this thread, Trestles will survive as a surf break is of course the very least we should all desire…I would say demand, but then it’s hard to make demands on nature or moneyed interests. Why I don’t think anybody should give an inch on this project is two-fold: one is I don’t like the precedent, which I could easily see applied to the Ventura/Santa Barbara corridor perhaps at the loss of more surf spots. The other is it would provide the trafic infrastructure for massively increased local development…and you have that nice big Camp Pendleton sitting on all that gorgeous SoCal coastline and a government strapped for cash that’s already using private forces for military functions…
I will try to say no more on this, I’m feeling as edgy as anybody around here, and I’m certainly not the only one who hears the weasels chewing on the edges of the world and sees the damage in the light of day. Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile…and this time they’re already asking for miles to begin with.
Via con Dios, Amigos.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t want the Road or the interchange either but by using the surf as the reason de jour, the opponents have left themselves open to “mitigation”. The whole EIR process allows you to gig the proponent with facts. If your facts are wrong, the proponent has an easy course to mitigate your concerns. When you take the process to the next level, the Courts, your arguments won’t hold water and you are sunk.
Given the current real estate market and the availability of funds for this kind of project, nothing will likely happen on the short term. The opponents should take advantage of the hiatus and fight this with the right argument.
agree, have watched trestles change over the 42 years I have been a wavester. But get real, if these loons at surfrider were in existence years ago, then the I-5 never would have been built. Do you think there were any thoughts to lessen impact back then? Unfortunately, what makes our country so great is also one of its weaknesses, the need for continued growth.
You’ve got to be kidding me… or you’ve taken a couple too many lumps in the fashion of your cartoon namesake. Surfrider is opposed to a road that makes no sense… unless your a politician or a developer.
OCTA admits road extension provides no traffic relief. (common sense if you live there - I do)
CCC study says the toll road makes no sense and not eco sound.
TCA has previous projects about to go BK (who pays for it…? um, yeah, taxpayers.)
CT must sign a non compete… no improvements within a certain distance of toll road. WTF? There is no possible way this can be spun to serve the interest of the greater good.
and Arnold. Wow. Transparent political bs if you ask me.
Ok… now surf related…
San Mateo Creek Watershed is benchmark for water quality in S.CA- NO UPSTREAM DEVELOPMENT. The last of it’s kind for hundrends of miles each direction. Upstream development undoubtedly will eventually come with the road. No doubt there would be short term contamination to a unique, fragile ecosystem during construction.
A large portion of San O state park (granted as part of the nuke development) will be closed… and paved over by the road. The San Mateo Campground goes as well.
Anyone who surfs the place frequently enough knows how subtle movements of rock/sand can change the wave(s)… let alone when the creek breaks through. To what extent the flow will be affected and how the waves will be affected is up for debate. I can’t imagine a 75’+ flyover leaving a small footprint in the creek bed.
which way do you want it?
http://www.surfline.com/surfnews/photo_bamp.cfm?id=13362&ad=1
Trestles is truely one of a kind. Uniquely the best and most used surf area in SoCal. The state has already destoyed or taken too much away from a sport woefully overcrowded in the state. Trusting them with the keys to this gem would be foolish. Surfing is a CA staple. Like any other sport which adds as much to the state economy as this one, we should demand the return for what has already been stolen. The politicos can obviously not be trusted.