SAVING TRESTLES OR SAVING TIME IN TRAFFIC?
Coast News Group
March 03, 2006
By Lacy Ottenson

If you surf and live in Southern California, no make that anywhere, then you know about Trestles. Located off the beaten path in San Clemente, the most hallow, perfect barrels form on a beach in a remote area surrounded by dense growth of reeds, sage scrub and the San Mateo Creek.

It's now in a fight to save the beach or to build a toll road extension that is purported to relieve congestion on Interstate 5.

The issue has been at the forefront of many minds recently as a vote on the issue looms. But going between the Surfrider Foundation and the Transportation Corridor Agency's Web sites, one could get lost in the rhetoric and spin displayed between the two. I'll do my best to explain the situation for you as clearly and objectively as possible.

The extension of Toll Road 241 or the Foothill-South, was proposed by the TCA in an effort to relieve traffic congestion on Orange County's freeways. There were three other non-toll road options considered, including the widening of I-5, the widening of various major arterial roads, or doing absolutely nothing. However, further research concluded that widening I-5 would require the seizure of too many businesses and homes under the law of eminent domain. The same was found for widening local area roads. So they scratched those ideas. And since doing absolutely nothing would yield no results, on with the toll road extension the TCA went.

The proposed extension would cut through parts of San Onofre State Beach, affecting the San Mateo Creek and possibly the break at Trestles which includes Uppers, Lowers, Church and Cottons.

This, of course, has environmental agencies and advocates up in arms about preserving the land that is at the center of this controversial road. The Surfrider Foundation's Web site, www.savetrestles.org, claims that the project would entail construction that would affect the sediment flow through San Mateo Creek, which supplies the sand to Trestles bottom which creates the unique shape of the break, leading ultimately to the degradation of the perfect wave.

Now whether or not that is true, both the TCA and the Surfrider Foundation stand adamantly by their claims. The TCA continues to stand by its position that building the extension will not harm the water quality and, in fact, say that it will be improved with the installation of 12 extended basins located along I-5 and the toll road. According to the TCA's Web site, the basins are designed to detain 100 percent of the first flush storm water, which is typically the most polluted, and will release it back to the watershed once the harmful elements have dissipated. As of now, Trestles has no defense against this polluted run-off.

However, the Web site fails to evaluate how the break at Trestles will be affected.

The Surfrider Foundation argues that the toll road won't relieve the traffic it says it's being built for. Its Web site claims that building on undeveloped land will promote more development which would lead to more traffic through more urbanization. They fail to site any other reasons supporting their position that Toll Road 241 will hurt traffic more than help it.

The TCA's environmental analysis states that in 2025 peak traffic will be significantly reduced with this new extension. It goes on to say that congested segments along I-5 will be reduced by as much as 70 percent during evening peak hours. It also says if nothing is done about it, that traffic will increase by 60 percent in 2025.

So there you have it. You've got two things dear to us all; a nice smooth commute and a one-of-a-kind break that rivals the best in the world. I'll leave it to you, the reader, to decide whether or not you want to take issue with this controversial toll road.

For me, loving the surf and the environment but also being realistic, is what is pulling me in the middle on this one. While I'm not totally convinced that the surf at Trestles will be affected, despite the hundreds of statements made by members of the surf industry on Surfrider's Web site that it undoubtedly will, it's definitely a scary thought that the famous break of Trestles could be no more once this toll road is built.

However, while I'm sure I'll be burned at the stake by the environmentalists, a part of me really likes the idea of lighter traffic. Besides, arguments made by environmental agencies fell short of providing solid facts proving the eventual wave degradation of Trestles. It's more speculation than fact. And with the addition of the water basins actually improving water quality, I wonder why the environmental organizations aren't backing the move or at least making an effort to work with the agencies involved to realize a Trestles-friendly medium?

I know there are rational thinking environmentalists out there and hopefully they can work together with the TCA to find a happy medium for all of us. I know many will say it's horrible of me to say, but if it's just the difference between the protected pocket mouse and arroyo toad and me sitting through hours of ungodly traffic, then I'm for it. But if studies end up showing that the break at Trestles will be affected, in anyway at all, then an alternative should be chosen. Until then, don't take any of your surf breaks for granted, especially Trestles, a great treasure to all of us.

link to article