THE LATEST: The California Coastal Commission approved a permit on Wednesday for Southern California Edison to build a 126.7-acre artificial reef from San Mateo Point to just north of the San Clemente Pier. The reef will stretch 2.5 miles in length approximately .6 miles offshore.
The reef has been in the works since the 1960s when a study revealed that water pumped from the Pacific Ocean into the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station to cool Units 2 and 3 was returned to the ocean 20 degrees warmer, which was declared harmful to the ocean’s kelp beds. To compensate, Southern California Edison agreed to build an artificial reef to mitigate any damage done to the ocean environment.
“What we’re about to do it attempt to create a complex eco system on a rather large scale,” said SCE Manager of Environmental Projects David Kay at Wednesday’s meeting. While optimistic about the project, he did warn the commissioners that it may not go perfectly. “We have time to adapt our reef to the curveballs that Mother Nature occasionally throws,” he said.
In the past four decades, Southern California Edison has cooperated in years of study and testing. In 1999 they build their first test reefs: 22.5 acres in 56 different patches, crafted from ruble and rock in various densities and heights. In the years since, project leaders have learned that these reefs must be located in waters not too deep or shallow and not on ground that’s too sandy or too hard. They also learned that smaller formations of rock that move with major storms is most effective for the kelp, a weed-like plant that claims ground quickly but can be blocked out by coral. This coral, in turn, is usually jarred from the rocks when they move during a storm, allowing the kelp to again thrive.
WHAT’S NEXT: Southern California Edison plans to start this summer and finish before the lobster season.
—NW When posting comments please be courteous. No bad language, vulgarity or racial slurs.
Add A Comment
Posted by Mike
July 18, 2008, 3:58 pm
Planning in OC? you mean planning for sprawl? If county leaders had been smarter they would have put homes and neighborhoods near job centers so that hour commutes weren't necessary. The RMV and 241 is just a continuation of this craziness. They apparently won't stop until all of OC is paved over...
As for the reef, hvy drt clearly has no clue about coastal or ocean processes if he thinks it will have any impact on the surf.. It's far too deep and low relief to have any impact on waves. It should actually help improve surfing conditions by cutting down on the chop during the afternoon winds.
Posted by hvy drt
February 8, 2008, 3:34 pm
I think the planning that has been done in Orange County far surpasses any other place in the country. It shows that over 25 years ago planners saw their would be a need for a 2nd freeway in South Orange County. The 241 was on maps as a future freeway prior to that portion of Navy property becoming a state park. Rancho Mission Viejo is going to built with or with out the Toll Road being completed. It is already approved. I think once it is completed the 241 will be completed. By then things will be so congested we will have no choice.
The problems with the 5 are obvious. No one is arguing that. Millions of people use the current Toll system everyday. People will do the same thing on the new road once it is completed.
Do you use the current Toll Roads? No one seems to answerer that when I ask. Hmmmm.
You want your leaders to plan better? The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Highway Administration, Caltrans and Camp Pendleton were all involved in selecting the route. Thirty-eight alternatives were extensively analyzed. The route chosen was the best for all parties involved. That seems like good planning to me.
And where exactly would you build this magical transit system so that it doesn't compromise any resources? We are all open to ideas.
The non-compete clause does not allow TCA to stop any project.
Your solution for "fixing" the 5 is not a fix, its a patch. To really fix the 5, hundreds of homes an business would need to be destroyed. I agree it will probably create more jobs, that is why it would cost 3 times the amount of finishing the Toll Road.
Posted by anti pro
February 8, 2008, 11:11 am
If the beach is to be protected at trestles from degradation why do we allow the national surf snot assocition(NSSA) and other surf industry minions hold giant contests with bleachers...?Seems that we are giving people a reason to say the beach is allready degredaded.
Posted by charmaine
February 8, 2008, 8:21 am
Thank you to David Kay for offering to provide additional info on the reef and its potential impacts.
No thanks to "HVYDRT", though, for using this forum as a soap box from which to perpetuate fallacies about the toll road and its opponents. It just opens my eyes further to the unbelievable ignorance that drives support for the road.
Since you opened the discussion with some seriously uninformed and harmful statements, I feel I, too, need to make some sort of rebuttal.
If what you claim is true, that almost every development in Eastern Orange County was designed around the proposed toll road, what does it say about Orange County's urban planning when its officials permit thousands of developments to go up BEFORE the infrastructure is in place? This just bolsters the argument that only poor planning and the need to fix it is behind the bid to slam this highway through a STATE PARK (leased or not, it is still a state park, which should be NOT be exploited so Rancho Mission Viejo developers can engorge their bank accounts further).
And if you honestly believe that your drive to San Clemente will be improved by the construction of this highway, then your mind has been seriously addled by years of listening to marginal punk rock. Where do you think many of the people from the 241 are going to exit? Yes, that's right - SAN CLEMENTE. You will be able to sit in traffic in your own backyard instead of just through Mission Viejo. Instead of wasting an hour going from Calafia to Oso, you'll get to spend that time just trying to get to Dana Point.
Incidentally,the real reason why a trip from Oso to Calafia takes so long is because the SB5 squeezes down from 5 (even 6 lanes at some spots)to 4, then 3, then 4 lanes again, once it hits the curve. Given that this portion of the 5 is used not just by residents of Orange County but by truckers transporting goods and by residents of Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and Kern counties, to name just a few, to get to or from San Diego or Mexico, I hardly think the 241 is going to make a dent in your commute- very few of these commuters and travelers are going to be willing to make the trek further east across the 91 to get on a TOLL road.
Opponents to the toll road simply want, from their leaders, better planning and transit design that can grow in proportion to our population without compromising what few rescources we have left. While the toll road will make a HUGE difference in the quality of the state park and watershed, it will have little positive effect on the grueling conditions of the 5 or Southern California traffic in general, especially since the TCA's non-compete clause eliminates any potential adjacent highway improvements for many years to come.
Contrary to what you allege, opponents to this toll road have hired numerous consultants to carefully study other options, options that would actually serve a greater percentage of commuters without requiring them to pay an ever-increasing toll. One of these options, which includes aligning the lanes on both sides of the 5 so they are thru-lanes, does NOT mean the loss of hundreds of homes and businesses but does guarantee far more jobs than the toll road can provide (nearly double).
The TCA's agenda is NOT to solve California's traffic woes but to make money for its investors. Opponents to this toll road have no financial interest either way. They simply want what is best for the state, not just for a small fraction of the population who chose to live in areas not serviced by an interstate. The campaign to stop the toll road and explore other options could hardly be be described as "trendy" - trends are short-lived and the people opposed to this ill-conceived debacle are in it for the long haul.
Posted by george granger2
February 7, 2008, 8:28 pm
Couldn't we remove the breakwater at Dana Point and restore meepees toooo!!!
Posted by hvy drt
February 7, 2008, 7:33 pm
This road has been in the works for 25 years. Nearly every development built in the past 25 near the area of the proposed Toll system was designed based on the idea that this system would be completed. There has been study after study done on every aspect of the project. Multiple routes were studied by multiple agency's. To me, this is careful consideration of its effects. This is far from the first solution to be proposed. It was been reworked and redesigned more times than you can imagine.
There will never be a solution were all parties are content. The current alignment was chosen as the best for all involved by many agencies and groups. TCA has done more than enough to meet the concerns of the opponents. The problem is that the opponents don't want ANYTHING built. There will never be a solution that Surfrider or Sierra Club would agree with.
If this road wasn't the solution, what road is? And if your answer is fix the 5, are you willing to give up your home to do so?
Posted by Dustin Franks
February 7, 2008, 6:29 pm
hvy drt, so what you're basically saying is that convenience should come before careful consideration of the massive effects that road would have on it's surrounding environment. It's too bad you've got a distaste for the park, but there's still millions of visitors that pass through every year that don't share your views. For a lot of people in town that really is their little slice of heaven. While the trail may have built up some slightly obnoxious taggings, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a cleaner beach. South Orange County was the last to get hit by the traffic problem and there's no doubt it's going to get worse. I definitely get irritated when it takes 15 minutes for me to get from Presidio to Estrella, BUT jumping on the first solution that gets proposed is ludicrous. I can't imagine a plan that could have been any more invasive. I'm not saying there's not a problem, and I have no doubt in my mind that eventually some sort of road will be going in, but I strongly feel that other options weren't explored properly. Some sort of middle ground needs to be found and negligence on either side is counterproductive. Thinking that road is gonna fix all the problems with traffic and not have any sort of negative effect is in my opinion, plain ignorant. On the flip side, I think reasoning such as surf quality or overcrowding is equally as ignorant and places no consideration on current commuting problems. The bigger picture needs to be focused on and both sides need to work together to find some sort of compromise. It seems peachy and merry but it's not that far fetched that a solution could be found where all parties were content. This road was not that solution.
Posted by eric
February 7, 2008, 6:07 pm
will it creat waves?
Posted by hvy drt
February 7, 2008, 4:38 pm
Lucas N - hvy drt was a punk band in the 80's. Try google next time before you make any guesses. Just because you support something doesn't mean you stand to make money from it. Surfrider made it cool or trendy to be against the Toll Road. The majority of sheep following them could care less about a pocket mouse. Most of them just don't want to share their beach with more people, or are trying to fit in with the surfing crowd by having a "save trestles" sticker on their hummer.
Are you willing to give up your home to re-engineer our existing infrastructure? Do you use the existing Toll Roads?
Dustin Franks- I do live in San Clemente, and cant stand it when it takes 1 hour to go from Oso to Calafia on a Saturday. Do you enjoy sitting in traffic?
Do you think we have a traffic problem in South County? What is your solution for fixing it? Do you use the existing Toll Roads?
David Kay- Thanks for the info. I understand SCE is being forced to do this. This just goes to show that Surfrider was full of crap when they came up with the idea that placing a few more pillars in a creek miles from the shore would change the waves at trestles.
To all of you- The Toll Road will be completed eventually. My guess is it will finally be under construction after the 14,000 new homes are built in Rancho Mission Viejo. I think by then traffic will be so bad we will have no choice. It would have been nice to prevent 10 more years of suffering in traffic.
I have said this before and will say it again. Surfers destroyed trestles long ago. It is the dirties beach around. You can follow the trash, stickers, obscenities written in surf wax, and graffiti all the way from the beach to Carls Jr. To me, an area with a major freeway, an abandoned freeway, a major railway, a nuclear power plant, and neighbored by one the largest military bases in the country and a trw test facility is not a pristine wilderness.
By the way, did you know the marines are going to turn the agricultural area next to the campground in to a training facility?
Posted by lobster
February 7, 2008, 3:13 pm
40 years of study ?? give me a break !!
Posted by Dustin Franks
February 7, 2008, 11:46 am
hvydrt, This is an attempt to restore nature, not thrash it. I think you're totally missing the point and are rerouting your frustration from the ass-kicking you took in Del Mar yesterday out on something beneficial that's trying to be done for our environment as mitigation for the last time they messed with nature in the San Onofre area. From what been seen first hand since 1999, is that the kelp planted outside much of the San Clemente beaches minutely affected the surf, except maybe slightly on the positive side, helping to keep the water's inside the kelp beds slightly more protected from the wind. The reefs that were built already were in too deep of water to affect the waves at all, and from what I gather, that project was the rough draft of the project they're now taking on. Don't bad mouth it because you're sore about that monstrosity of a road that is getting denied. Take a look at pictures from 40 years ago and you'll see a thriving kelp bed that cloaked the coastline. If SCE is trying to restore those beds in a non-invasive way, I say good on 'em. I'm stoked that active steps are being taken in a positive direction environmentally in and around San Clemente instead of vice versa. I know this isn't some massive plan to supposedly "fix" all of Southern California's traffic problems, generate income for union workers and private road-builders, and to make it more convenient for you to get from Coto de Caza to Trail 7 on the weekends, but try giving it a chance. If that last crack wasn't true and you actually do live in San Clemente, then shame on you for your destructive attitude on your own home. Lucas already eloquently put you in your place, but I had to put my two cents in. -Dustin Franks
Posted by David Kay
February 7, 2008, 10:53 am
Good questions.
The potential for the reef to affect surf and other coastal processes nearby was invesigated by the State Lands Commission during their preparation of the EIR approved in 1999 for the project. In summary, no potential for adverse effects on waves or coastal landforms was predicted. Mark Cousineau, Michelle Kremer, and Pierce Flynn of Surfrider commented on the EIR. If the prediction turns out to be wrong, I'm sure you'll let us know, and the Coastal Commission could require SCE to mitigate.
If you send me an e-mail address, I can forward a copy of the EIR.
david.kay@sce.com
Posted by dirty marty
February 7, 2008, 10:48 am
if the lighning don't get ya than the thunder will!
Posted by Lucas N
February 7, 2008, 10:30 am
hvydrt,
I imagine your name is some sort of an abbreviation for "heavy dirt." My guess and it's just a guess, I could be wrong, is that you are in the earth moving business and that you have a vested interest in the pro toll-road lobby. That said, I suggest caution in generalizing about all the "Toll Road Haters." It is probably true that several individuals who are against the toll-road care mostly about wave quality. However, even though you may be aware, you did not acknowledge the other motivations that could lead someone to be against the toll-road. Some of these motivations are as follows: -Objecting to significant and disruptive development within one of the last wild watersheds in Southern California, -Objecting to the degradation of one of California’s most visited State Parks, -Objecting to the perpetuation of cancerous and inefficient suburban sprawl, -A desire for the TCA to genuinely plan for the long-term sustainable existence of people and nature in Orange and San Diego Counties, -A desire for the reengineering of our existing infrastructure to make transit more efficient and to foster a more thriving civic culture. hvydrt, The toll-road could only make for short-term profitability for some (developers, heavy construction firms), long term cash flows for very few(toll-road operators) while it would permanently extinguish long-term environmental, recreational and social equity for all. Saying “no” to the Toll-Road forces the TCA and contingent developers to me more innovative. The Toll-Road is a "path of least resistance" solution and those who support it should be ashamed of their lack of good will towards the communities in which they live and do business. Secondly, the sediment and cobble are brought to Trestles by the San Mateo and Christianitos Creeks' watersheds. The artificial reef may adversely affect wave quality between the San Clemente Pier and San Onofre, but the ocean is not the source of sediment and cobble. The artificial reef may also improve wave quality. Yes, Surfrider should be concerned about the impacts of the artificial reef. However, to say the 126.7 acre reef is a more ominous threat to wave quality at Trestles than the Toll Road extension demonstrates a poor understanding of Earth Sciences, especially the forces of terrestrial and marine geology. It seems that someone with the moniker “hvydrt” would demonstrate a better understanding of the natural forces at work between the Earth’s crust and troposphere. Furthermore, your personal success would depend on it. I await your well-reasoned reply.
Posted by Doug Benesch
February 7, 2008, 7:04 am
Will this have any effect on wave and surf quality?
Posted by hvydrt
February 6, 2008, 5:13 pm
This cracks me up. All these Toll Road Haters think a road is going to destroy the waves at Trestles, yet the coastal Commission wants so cal edison to put tons and tons of rock over a 126.7-acre area at San Mateo Point. Good one.
If anything will effect the cobble and sediment movement near trestles, a 126.7-acre artificial reef will. Seems to me Surfrider should be more concerned about this than a Toll Road.
Add A Comment
Planning in OC? you mean planning for sprawl? If county leaders had been smarter they would have put homes and neighborhoods near job centers so that hour commutes weren't necessary. The RMV and 241 is just a continuation of this craziness. They apparently won't stop until all of OC is paved over...
As for the reef, hvy drt clearly has no clue about coastal or ocean processes if he thinks it will have any impact on the surf.. It's far too deep and low relief to have any impact on waves. It should actually help improve surfing conditions by cutting down on the chop during the afternoon winds.
I think the planning that has been done in Orange County far surpasses any other place in the country. It shows that over 25 years ago planners saw their would be a need for a 2nd freeway in South Orange County. The 241 was on maps as a future freeway prior to that portion of Navy property becoming a state park. Rancho Mission Viejo is going to built with or with out the Toll Road being completed. It is already approved. I think once it is completed the 241 will be completed. By then things will be so congested we will have no choice.
The problems with the 5 are obvious. No one is arguing that. Millions of people use the current Toll system everyday. People will do the same thing on the new road once it is completed.
Do you use the current Toll Roads? No one seems to answerer that when I ask. Hmmmm.
You want your leaders to plan better? The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Highway Administration, Caltrans and Camp Pendleton were all involved in selecting the route. Thirty-eight alternatives were extensively analyzed. The route chosen was the best for all parties involved. That seems like good planning to me.
And where exactly would you build this magical transit system so that it doesn't compromise any resources? We are all open to ideas.
The non-compete clause does not allow TCA to stop any project.
Your solution for "fixing" the 5 is not a fix, its a patch. To really fix the 5, hundreds of homes an business would need to be destroyed. I agree it will probably create more jobs, that is why it would cost 3 times the amount of finishing the Toll Road.
If the beach is to be protected at trestles from degradation why do we allow the national surf snot assocition(NSSA) and other surf industry minions hold giant contests with bleachers...?Seems that we are giving people a reason to say the beach is allready degredaded.
Thank you to David Kay for offering to provide additional info on the reef and its potential impacts.
No thanks to "HVYDRT", though, for using this forum as a soap box from which to perpetuate fallacies about the toll road and its opponents. It just opens my eyes further to the unbelievable ignorance that drives support for the road.
Since you opened the discussion with some seriously uninformed and harmful statements, I feel I, too, need to make some sort of rebuttal.
If what you claim is true, that almost every development in Eastern Orange County was designed around the proposed toll road, what does it say about Orange County's urban planning when its officials permit thousands of developments to go up BEFORE the infrastructure is in place? This just bolsters the argument that only poor planning and the need to fix it is behind the bid to slam this highway through a STATE PARK (leased or not, it is still a state park, which should be NOT be exploited so Rancho Mission Viejo developers can engorge their bank accounts further).
And if you honestly believe that your drive to San Clemente will be improved by the construction of this highway, then your mind has been seriously addled by years of listening to marginal punk rock. Where do you think many of the people from the 241 are going to exit? Yes, that's right - SAN CLEMENTE. You will be able to sit in traffic in your own backyard instead of just through Mission Viejo. Instead of wasting an hour going from Calafia to Oso, you'll get to spend that time just trying to get to Dana Point.
Incidentally,the real reason why a trip from Oso to Calafia takes so long is because the SB5 squeezes down from 5 (even 6 lanes at some spots)to 4, then 3, then 4 lanes again, once it hits the curve. Given that this portion of the 5 is used not just by residents of Orange County but by truckers transporting goods and by residents of Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and Kern counties, to name just a few, to get to or from San Diego or Mexico, I hardly think the 241 is going to make a dent in your commute- very few of these commuters and travelers are going to be willing to make the trek further east across the 91 to get on a TOLL road.
Opponents to the toll road simply want, from their leaders, better planning and transit design that can grow in proportion to our population without compromising what few rescources we have left. While the toll road will make a HUGE difference in the quality of the state park and watershed, it will have little positive effect on the grueling conditions of the 5 or Southern California traffic in general, especially since the TCA's non-compete clause eliminates any potential adjacent highway improvements for many years to come.
Contrary to what you allege, opponents to this toll road have hired numerous consultants to carefully study other options, options that would actually serve a greater percentage of commuters without requiring them to pay an ever-increasing toll. One of these options, which includes aligning the lanes on both sides of the 5 so they are thru-lanes, does NOT mean the loss of hundreds of homes and businesses but does guarantee far more jobs than the toll road can provide (nearly double).
The TCA's agenda is NOT to solve California's traffic woes but to make money for its investors. Opponents to this toll road have no financial interest either way. They simply want what is best for the state, not just for a small fraction of the population who chose to live in areas not serviced by an interstate. The campaign to stop the toll road and explore other options could hardly be be described as "trendy" - trends are short-lived and the people opposed to this ill-conceived debacle are in it for the long haul.
Couldn't we remove the breakwater at Dana Point and restore meepees toooo!!!
This road has been in the works for 25 years. Nearly every development built in the past 25 near the area of the proposed Toll system was designed based on the idea that this system would be completed. There has been study after study done on every aspect of the project. Multiple routes were studied by multiple agency's. To me, this is careful consideration of its effects. This is far from the first solution to be proposed. It was been reworked and redesigned more times than you can imagine.
There will never be a solution were all parties are content. The current alignment was chosen as the best for all involved by many agencies and groups. TCA has done more than enough to meet the concerns of the opponents. The problem is that the opponents don't want ANYTHING built. There will never be a solution that Surfrider or Sierra Club would agree with.
If this road wasn't the solution, what road is? And if your answer is fix the 5, are you willing to give up your home to do so?
hvy drt,
so what you're basically saying is that convenience should come before careful consideration of the massive effects that road would have on it's surrounding environment. It's too bad you've got a distaste for the park, but there's still millions of visitors that pass through every year that don't share your views. For a lot of people in town that really is their little slice of heaven. While the trail may have built up some slightly obnoxious taggings, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a cleaner beach.
South Orange County was the last to get hit by the traffic problem and there's no doubt it's going to get worse. I definitely get irritated when it takes 15 minutes for me to get from Presidio to Estrella, BUT jumping on the first solution that gets proposed is ludicrous. I can't imagine a plan that could have been any more invasive. I'm not saying there's not a problem, and I have no doubt in my mind that eventually some sort of road will be going in, but I strongly feel that other options weren't explored properly. Some sort of middle ground needs to be found and negligence on either side is counterproductive. Thinking that road is gonna fix all the problems with traffic and not have any sort of negative effect is in my opinion, plain ignorant. On the flip side, I think reasoning such as surf quality or overcrowding is equally as ignorant and places no consideration on current commuting problems.
The bigger picture needs to be focused on and both sides need to work together to find some sort of compromise. It seems peachy and merry but it's not that far fetched that a solution could be found where all parties were content. This road was not that solution.
will it creat waves?
Lucas N - hvy drt was a punk band in the 80's. Try google next time before you make any guesses. Just because you support something doesn't mean you stand to make money from it. Surfrider made it cool or trendy to be against the Toll Road. The majority of sheep following them could care less about a pocket mouse. Most of them just don't want to share their beach with more people, or are trying to fit in with the surfing crowd by having a "save trestles" sticker on their hummer.
Are you willing to give up your home to re-engineer our existing infrastructure? Do you use the existing Toll Roads?
Dustin Franks- I do live in San Clemente, and cant stand it when it takes 1 hour to go from Oso to Calafia on a Saturday. Do you enjoy sitting in traffic?
Do you think we have a traffic problem in South County? What is your solution for fixing it? Do you use the existing Toll Roads?
David Kay- Thanks for the info. I understand SCE is being forced to do this. This just goes to show that Surfrider was full of crap when they came up with the idea that placing a few more pillars in a creek miles from the shore would change the waves at trestles.
To all of you- The Toll Road will be completed eventually. My guess is it will finally be under construction after the 14,000 new homes are built in Rancho Mission Viejo. I think by then traffic will be so bad we will have no choice. It would have been nice to prevent 10 more years of suffering in traffic.
I have said this before and will say it again. Surfers destroyed trestles long ago. It is the dirties beach around. You can follow the trash, stickers, obscenities written in surf wax, and graffiti all the way from the beach to Carls Jr. To me, an area with a major freeway, an abandoned freeway, a major railway, a nuclear power plant, and neighbored by one the largest military bases in the country and a trw test facility is not a pristine wilderness.
By the way, did you know the marines are going to turn the agricultural area next to the campground in to a training facility?
40 years of study ?? give me a break !!
hvydrt,
This is an attempt to restore nature, not thrash it. I think you're totally missing the point and are rerouting your frustration from the ass-kicking you took in Del Mar yesterday out on something beneficial that's trying to be done for our environment as mitigation for the last time they messed with nature in the San Onofre area.
From what been seen first hand since 1999, is that the kelp planted outside much of the San Clemente beaches minutely affected the surf, except maybe slightly on the positive side, helping to keep the water's inside the kelp beds slightly more protected from the wind. The reefs that were built already were in too deep of water to affect the waves at all, and from what I gather, that project was the rough draft of the project they're now taking on. Don't bad mouth it because you're sore about that monstrosity of a road that is getting denied. Take a look at pictures from 40 years ago and you'll see a thriving kelp bed that cloaked the coastline. If SCE is trying to restore those beds in a non-invasive way, I say good on 'em.
I'm stoked that active steps are being taken in a positive direction environmentally in and around San Clemente instead of vice versa. I know this isn't some massive plan to supposedly "fix" all of Southern California's traffic problems, generate income for union workers and private road-builders, and to make it more convenient for you to get from Coto de Caza to Trail 7 on the weekends, but try giving it a chance. If that last crack wasn't true and you actually do live in San Clemente, then shame on you for your destructive attitude on your own home.
Lucas already eloquently put you in your place, but I had to put my two cents in.
-Dustin Franks
Good questions.
The potential for the reef to affect surf and other coastal processes nearby was invesigated by the State Lands Commission during their preparation of the EIR approved in 1999 for the project. In summary, no potential for adverse effects on waves or coastal landforms was predicted. Mark Cousineau, Michelle Kremer, and Pierce Flynn of Surfrider commented on the EIR. If the prediction turns out to be wrong, I'm sure you'll let us know, and the Coastal Commission could require SCE to mitigate.
If you send me an e-mail address, I can forward a copy of the EIR.
david.kay@sce.com
if the lighning don't get ya than the thunder will!
hvydrt,
I imagine your name is some sort of an abbreviation for "heavy dirt." My guess and it's just a guess, I could be wrong, is that you are in the earth moving business and that you have a vested interest in the pro toll-road lobby. That said, I suggest caution in generalizing about all the "Toll Road Haters." It is probably true that several individuals who are against the toll-road care mostly about wave quality. However, even though you may be aware, you did not acknowledge the other motivations that could lead someone to be against the toll-road. Some of these motivations are as follows:
-Objecting to significant and disruptive development within one of the last wild watersheds in Southern California,
-Objecting to the degradation of one of California’s most visited State Parks,
-Objecting to the perpetuation of cancerous and inefficient suburban sprawl,
-A desire for the TCA to genuinely plan for the long-term sustainable existence of people and nature in Orange and San Diego Counties,
-A desire for the reengineering of our existing infrastructure to make transit more efficient and to foster a more thriving civic culture.
hvydrt, The toll-road could only make for short-term profitability for some (developers, heavy construction firms), long term cash flows for very few(toll-road operators) while it would permanently extinguish long-term environmental, recreational and social equity for all.
Saying “no” to the Toll-Road forces the TCA and contingent developers to me more innovative. The Toll-Road is a "path of least resistance" solution and those who support it should be ashamed of their lack of good will towards the communities in which they live and do business.
Secondly, the sediment and cobble are brought to Trestles by the San Mateo and Christianitos Creeks' watersheds. The artificial reef may adversely affect wave quality between the San Clemente Pier and San Onofre, but the ocean is not the source of sediment and cobble. The artificial reef may also improve wave quality. Yes, Surfrider should be concerned about the impacts of the artificial reef. However, to say the 126.7 acre reef is a more ominous threat to wave quality at Trestles than the Toll Road extension demonstrates a poor understanding of Earth Sciences, especially the forces of terrestrial and marine geology. It seems that someone with the moniker “hvydrt” would demonstrate a better understanding of the natural forces at work between the Earth’s crust and troposphere. Furthermore, your personal success would depend on it.
I await your well-reasoned reply.
Will this have any effect on wave and surf quality?
This cracks me up. All these Toll Road Haters think a road is going to destroy the waves at Trestles, yet the coastal Commission wants so cal edison to put tons and tons of rock over a 126.7-acre area at San Mateo Point. Good one.
If anything will effect the cobble and sediment movement near trestles, a 126.7-acre artificial reef will. Seems to me Surfrider should be more concerned about this than a Toll Road.