Save San Onofre Targets Misleading San Clemente City Council Toll Road Lawsuit “Fact Sheet”

The following is a press release from an organization unaffiliated with Voice of OC. The views expressed here are not those of Voice of OC.

SAVE SAN ONOFRE COALITION

Contact: Matt Klink (310) 283-6267

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SEPTEMBER 11, 2017

SAVE SAN ONOFRE COALITION TARGETS MISLEADING SAN CLEMENTE CITY COUNCIL TOLL ROAD LAWSUIT “FACT SHEET”

***
Is the PR document’s purpose to hide the City Council’s true intent
to force a road through San Onofre State Beach?

SAN CLEMENTE, CALIF. Responding to the release of a newly created ‘fact sheet’ at the last San Clemente City Council meeting on Sept. 5, 2017, the Save San Onofre Coalition responded forcefully to the document that, at best, is misleading and, at worst, is deliberately spreading inaccurate information about the intent of the City Council’s toll road lawsuit to San Clemente residents. the last San Clemente City Council meeting on Sept. 5, 2017, the Save San Onofre Coalition responded forcefully to the document that, at best, is misleading and, at worst, is deliberately spreading inaccurate information about the intent of the City Council’s toll road lawsuit to San Clemente residents.

In a pointed letter to Mayor Kathleen Ward and members of the San Clemente City Council, all 12 members of the Save San Onofre Coalition requested that the City Council correct factual inaccuracies in the document. The letter also highlights an essential point – the exact words in the City Council’s lawsuit – that the ‘fact sheet’ conveniently ignores.

“The City Council’s ‘fact sheet’ about this project is surprisingly short on actual facts,” said Damon Nagami, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Southern California Ecosystems Project. “The City Council’s real intent is abundantly clear in its lawsuit: they want to force a devastating road through San Onofre State Beach. But this ‘fact sheet’ hides the real impact if they win: the loss of critical protections for San Onofre State Beach.”

The City Council’s lawsuit states:

“…any alignment approved concerning the southern portion of the Foothill Transportation Corridor Segment of SR-241 must connect to Route 5 south of San Clemente near Basilone Road in San Diego County.” (San Clemente lawsuit, p. 34, lines 9-11)

“The City Council knows that ‘San Onofre State Beach is located just south of San Clemente near Basilone Road’ and that ‘SR-241 cannot reach Basilone Road without going through the heart of San Onofre State Beach’,” added Dan Silver, executive director, Endangered Habitats League. “The City Council’s own lawsuit states that it believes ‘SR-241 must connect to Route 5 south of San Clemente’ – in other words, through the state park!”

In addition to unmasking the stated intent of the City’s lawsuit, the Save San Onofre Coalition’s Sept. 11, 2017 letter highlights other factual inaccuracies in the document:

  • Claim 1: “The collateral Protective Agreement binds TCA and Caltrans to a solution that would be ruinous for San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, and all park land.”Truth: The Protective Agreement does not include any terms that ‘binds TCA and Caltrans’ to any course of action nor does it require that any roads be constructed. The specific and only purpose of the Protective Agreement is to protect San Onofre State Beach and additional watershed lands located in the Avoidance Area.
  • Claim 2: The City’s ‘fact sheet’ indicates that “City lawsuit DOES NOT CHALLENGE the TCA- Save San Onofre Coalition’s Settlement Agreement but challenges the collateral Protective Agreement.”Truth: The Protective Agreement implements Provision #4 of the Settlement Agreement and is an integral part of the protections that San Onofre State Park received in the Settlement Agreement.
  • Claim 3: The Protective Agreement would be “ruinous for…all park land.”Truth: The City’s lawsuit only seeks to remove protections that prevent a major road from destroying San Onofre State Beach, the Donna O’Neill Conservancy and other natural lands. The City’s lawsuit seeks to eliminate protections for parks.
  • Claim 4: The Protective Agreement would result in a course that would urbanize existing parklands, violate local voter initiatives, and take private property.Truth: Nothing in the Protective Agreement supports this wild claim.“Over the past 15 years, thousands of Californians and the Save San Onofre Coalition fought to protect San Onofre State Beach and the watershed lands from being destroyed by a major road proposal that would have bifurcated these resources,” said Stefanie Sekich-Quinn, coastal preservation manager with Surfrider Foundation. “San Onofre State Beach contributes more than $8 million annually to the economies of San Clemente and surrounding communities. It’s mind-boggling that the City Council would do anything to harm this community asset that is cherished by millions. The City Council should drop its lawsuit.”

    About the Save San Onofre Coalition

    The Save San Onofre Coalition comprises the following 12 California and national environmental organizations: Audubon California, California Coastal Protection Network, California State Parks Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, Endangered Habitats League, Laguna Greenbelt, Inc., Natural Resources Defense Council, Orange County Coastkeeper, Sea and Sage Audubon Society, Sierra Club, Surfrider Foundation and WiLDCOAST/COASTALVAjE.

    The Save San Onofre Coalition recently launched a new website, to provide updated information to the community about its efforts to protect San Onofre State Beach.

     

  • ###

    Voice of OC posts press releases to provide readers with information directly from organizations. We do not edit or rewrite press releases, and encourage readers to contact the originator of a given release for more information.

    To submit a press release email pressreleases@voiceofoc.org.

 

  • Amanda Quintanilla

    I have posted this comment and it continues to be deleted. (PART 1)

    Elizabeth Corder’s comment.

    “First, I’d like to start by reminding Save San Onofre Coalition that the

    City of San Clemente nor the residents of San Clemente are the enemy. The

    TCA is the enemy. Please fight them, not us. After all, we were the

    thousands of people supporting this cause to “Save Trestles” for 17 years.

    SSOC and San Clemente residents want the same end-game, NO TOLL ROAD, but

    that means not through the park, not through our city and not through our

    homes. Is that so unreasonable? We are fighting to protect both, not just

    one. That being said, lets look at the FACTS.

    1. The lawsuit does not say the City wants to force a road through San

    Onofre State Beach. Instead, what it says is that the legislative route

    for the 241,the one set forth in Streets and Highways Code section 541 for

    over 30 years, states that the SR-241 must connect to Route 5 south of San

    Clemente near Basilone Road in San Diego County. The City is NOT

    advocating for the toll road in this area, it is simply pointing out that

    “any alignment for the southern portion of the Foothill Transportation

    Corridor section of the SR-241 connecting to Route 5 in the City of San

    Clemente does not, and cannot, conform to the route description for SR-241

    as set forth in Streets and Highways Code section 541.” (page 34, lines

    11-15). It is pretty disingenuous of you to represent otherwise; nowhere

    in the City’s complaint does it say “a road should be built.”

  • Amanda Quintanilla

    I have posted this comment and it continues to be deleted.

    Elizabeth Corder’s comment (PART 2)2. I’m not sure why you think you should assume and proclaim,³The City
    Council¹s real intent is abundantly clear in its lawsuit: they want to
    force a devastating road through San Onofre State Beach.” You have no
    right to assume such things. If we were to use that same assumptive logic,
    should we assume that Surfrider was aware that the TCA would seek to put a
    road through San Clemente as a result of the Settlement Agreement? In a
    November 11, 2016 OC Register article (the day after the settlement
    agreement was signed), Rick Erkeneff is quoted as saying that one toll
    road proposal would run through the east side of San Clemente. Was that
    why the design of the “Avoidance Area” was made so big to include RMV,
    including all of the contemplated homes? Just as we wish to give Surfrider
    the benefit of the doubt that this latest assault by the TCA was
    unforeseen, I’d ask that you refrain from assumptions saying that the
    City’s lawsuit is aimed at putting a toll road through the park.

    Respectfully, it is our desire that we all work together to abolish the
    TCA once and for all and find better mobility solutions. We should be on
    the same side, as I and all of San Clemente thought we were for the last 2
    decades.

  • Roger Butow

    I’ve read everything online multiple times, I’ve become increasingly nauseated by what these NGOs are now trying to gaslight, spin, distort to recover what should surely be dented reputations.

    On my 20 year watch, I don’t think that I’ve ever read a dicey resolution like this. Holes big enough that you could drive a TCA extension through.

    Sleeping with the TCA, the SSOC through propinquity (lengthy proximity) has become hard to tell from that agency themselves.

    The SSOC should have looked out for ALL of the biota and human populations in deep SOC, not just Trestles/SOSB—-Instead, like guards who abandoned their life-sustaining posts once payday rolled round, they’ve left the remainder of deep SOC’s human, plant and critter habitat defenseless, in jeopardy, in harm’s way. If they’re so savvy, what were they thinking, mission accomplished, that the TCA would just give up? The TCA maps (duh!) reflect other alternatives that punch through the hills of SJC and SC.

    First these NGOs became elitist themselves, negotiated as if THEY were in charge of ANY resolution to the dispute. Somewhere during the 20 years on my protectionist watch, they separated from their constituency, conveniently set aside their fiduciary role, now sit in echo chambers drinking their own kool-aid, just like the developers they once demonized. Well, slurping trendy martinis at toney happy hours actually.

    If seen as home security, the TCA are typical intruders: Alert opportunists. The SSOC settlers secured the front door, but left every other potential entrance (route extension alternatives) vulnerable.

    And if those dozens of enviro-attorneys DIDN’T see the possible CSC & HOA/TCA litigation scenario playing out, that the CSC had these legally allowed options as did private property owners, then maybe those NGOs need new representation. CSC governance and it’s citizens are merely using what tools, what remedies they have left. The NGOs aren’t the only ones that have rights.

    These NGOs procured VERY fiscally-friendly settlements (plural) for themselves, one of which demanded under breach (with gnarly ramifications) that they vacate their TCA obstruction role in the future, basically neutering themselves, leaving the ENTIRE remainder of SC’s sub-sheds/watercourses and habitat plus the same exposure for entire lower reaches of the San Juan Watershed fair game for destruction.

    TCA’s 30 pieces of silver offer?

    “Stay out of Trestles (Area of Avoidance) and we’ll not only pay whatever you demand in obviously fluffed-up, inflated compensation for legal and staff invoicing ($7.1 million), the Settlement Agreement….. but $28 million for a San Mateo Creek Conservation Fund (Promissory Settlement). Just bill us, then just go away unless we need you for pro-TCA PR.

    Oh, about that PS restoration gig, none of you actually performs wetlands/streambed/watershed restoration? That’s ok, you sub-contract it out, skim the gravy off of the top as Project Managers from your vendors, we don’t mind at the TCA, not our money, as long as you just go away.
    Value-add for us is that those vendors, waiting in line, will remain silent, if contracted, can’t litigate us either: Whooppeee!”

    It begs the question: Do ANY of these upper echelon reps even LIVE in SC, Ladera, SJC or RMV, where the other TCA alternatives will adversely impact THEIR neighborhoods?

    Worser, insult to injury, now that the CSC realizes that it’s been had, as have the HOAs subject to imminent domain, residents living near the paths of the destructive, space-consuming Alternate Routes on the verge of being impacted, the NGOs want to micromanage the City’s litigation, wordsmith it.

    First the NGO’s claimed unilateral veto power, now want to extend their impact, control the endgame by threatening, by twisting the City’s arm—-so exploitation during every facet seems to be the new NGO paradigm. Are they going to bill the CSC $450/hour (pay staff 1/3, keep the other 2/3) as they did the TCA, hold them for ransom, file for what I’d arguably propose is thinly-veiled extortion fees?

    Clean Water Now believes that these NGOs were already counting and dreaming of spending OUR $$$, this latest turn of events means they’re in panic mode. Me Thinks the NGOs Doeth Protesteth Too Much.

    In a sense it might be slipping away (hence the urgent/insistent tone of the harassing letter), not only a portion of that initial $7.1 is at stake (maybe not all delivered/deposited yet) but obviously the $28 million that is predicated upon the TCA’s final, successful connection of the 5 to the 241. The CSC and HOA litigation could hold up resolution for years, pending REAL enviro-protection by a SOC coalition of grass roots that can’t be bought—-as it should have been.

    So what did SC and other taxpayers get? One of several routes taken off of the table, but everywhere else up for grabs—And those same NGOs in support. Go online folks, there’s videos with glorious testimonials, extolling the praises of the TCA.

    No wonder these NGOs have launched a website, it’s CYA, jump the shark, nuke the fridge time. Can you spell DAMAGE CONTROL? I knew you could! SC is jeopardizing the salaries, benefit and retirement packages of these bloated organizations, how dare they, we had a done deal, ink drying on the checks.

    And just because they’re non-profits doesn’t===No one profits.

    Clean Water Now is quite proud to have helped several of these NGOs (a) Slash the Rancho Mission Viejo buildout by thousands of housing units, and (B) Early in the confrontation, plus during the constellation of the Trestles confrontation. CWN Board member (aquatic/riparian field tech) Mike Hazzard deserving of special recognition.

    Once we saw more NGO attorneys than reps in the focused group meetings for both RMV and even more so at San Ono, over-the-top/over-kill redundancy, we sensed the eventual carving up of the spoils, hence our pro gratis/donated participation was no longer necessary. When you’ve got 20 lawyers, circling and hovering like sharks, why stay in the room?

    And someone, please tell me how a Mexican-American border NGO (CostaSalvaje) and Laguna Greenbelt) got a piece of the action, Jackson? Pretty big trough, though disconnected geographically the lapping extends 20 miles north and 60 miles south.

    The best that these settlers could do is just stand down, go away, stay out of the SC vs. TCA litigation—you’re an embarrassment to yourselves, your members and your respective mission statements. If you’re lucky, everyone will forgive you…if you keep drawing attention, picking at this scab, it’ll never heal, you’re just going to be looking worse by the revelations regarding the really lousy, fatally-flawed deal you struck, selling the souls of SJ Watershed and SC’s as if your own personal property.

    HELLO? If you’ve forgotten, what with all of that $$$ being waved in your collective faces, they belong to everyone.

    Clean Water Now is returning, going to try and be a supporting asset to those in the deep SOC who, after SSOC vacated local ecological leadership, need help. I firmly believe that an independent assessment would reveal that we’ve had more “boots on the ground” experience than nearly any other NGO, and no, before the TCA asks, we’re not for sale.
    Roger E. Bütow Founder & Executive Director
    Clean Water Now (Established 1998)

  • Amanda Quintanilla

    Elizabeth Corder’s Comment:

    “First, I’d like to start by reminding Save San Onofre Coalition that the

    City of San Clemente nor the residents of San Clemente are the enemy. The

    TCA is the enemy. Please fight them, not us. After all, we were the

    thousands of people supporting this cause to “Save Trestles” for 17 years.

    SSOC and San Clemente residents want the same end-game, NO TOLL ROAD, but

    that means not through the park, not through our city and not through our

    homes. Is that so unreasonable? We are fighting to protect both, not just

    one. That being said, lets look at the FACTS.

    1. The lawsuit does not say the City wants to force a road through San

    Onofre State Beach. Instead, what it says is that the legislative route

    for the 241,the one set forth in Streets and Highways Code section 541 for

    over 30 years, states that the SR-241 must connect to Route 5 south of San

    Clemente near Basilone Road in San Diego County. The City is NOT

    advocating for the toll road in this area, it is simply pointing out that

    “any alignment for the southern portion of the Foothill Transportation

    Corridor section of the SR-241 connecting to Route 5 in the City of San

    Clemente does not, and cannot, conform to the route description for SR-241

    as set forth in Streets and Highways Code section 541.” (page 34, lines

    11-15). It is pretty disingenuous of you to represent otherwise; nowhere

    in the City’s complaint does it say “a road should be built.”

    2. I’m not sure why you think you should assume and proclaim,³The City

    Council¹s real intent is abundantly clear in its lawsuit: they want to

    force a devastating road through San Onofre State Beach.” You have no

    right to assume such things. If we were to use that same assumptive logic,

    should we assume that Surfrider was aware that the TCA would seek to put a

    road through San Clemente as a result of the Settlement Agreement? In a

    November 11, 2016 OC Register article (the day after the settlement

    agreement was signed), Rick Erkeneff is quoted as saying that one toll

    road proposal would run through the east side of San Clemente. Was that

    why the design of the “Avoidance Area” was made so big to include RMV,

    including all of the contemplated homes? Just as we wish to give Surfrider

    the benefit of the doubt that this latest assault by the TCA was

    unforeseen, I’d ask that you refrain from assumptions saying that the

    City’s lawsuit is aimed at putting a toll road through the park.

    Respectfully, it is our desire that we all work together to abolish the

    TCA once and for all and find better mobility solutions. We should be on

    the same side, as I and all of San Clemente thought we were for the last 2

    decades.”

  • SoCalFam

    Deleting comments Voice of OC? It’s ok, I took screen shots.

    SHADY!

  • Amanda Quintanilla

    Elizabeth Corder post: “First, I’d like to start by reminding Save San Onofre Coalition that the

    City of San Clemente nor the residents of San Clemente are the enemy. The

    TCA is the enemy. Please fight them, not us. After all, we were the

    thousands of people supporting this cause to “Save Trestles” for 17 years.

    SSOC and San Clemente residents want the same end-game, NO TOLL ROAD, but

    that means not through the park, not through our city and not through our

    homes. Is that so unreasonable? We are fighting to protect both, not just

    one. That being said, lets look at the FACTS.

    1. The lawsuit does not say the City wants to force a road through San

    Onofre State Beach. Instead, what it says is that the legislative route

    for the 241,the one set forth in Streets and Highways Code section 541 for

    over 30 years, states that the SR-241 must connect to Route 5 south of San

    Clemente near Basilone Road in San Diego County. The City is NOT

    advocating for the toll road in this area, it is simply pointing out that

    “any alignment for the southern portion of the Foothill Transportation

    Corridor section of the SR-241 connecting to Route 5 in the City of San

    Clemente does not, and cannot, conform to the route description for SR-241

    as set forth in Streets and Highways Code section 541.” (page 34, lines

    11-15). It is pretty disingenuous of you to represent otherwise; nowhere

    in the City’s complaint does it say “a road should be built.”

    2. I’m not sure why you think you should assume and proclaim,³The City

    Council¹s real intent is abundantly clear in its lawsuit: they want to

    force a devastating road through San Onofre State Beach.” You have no

    right to assume such things. If we were to use that same assumptive logic,

    should we assume that Surfrider was aware that the TCA would seek to put a

    road through San Clemente as a result of the Settlement Agreement? In a

    November 11, 2016 OC Register article (the day after the settlement

    agreement was signed), Rick Erkeneff is quoted as saying that one toll

    road proposal would run through the east side of San Clemente. Was that

    why the design of the “Avoidance Area” was made so big to include RMV,

    including all of the contemplated homes? Just as we wish to give Surfrider

    the benefit of the doubt that this latest assault by the TCA was

    unforeseen, I’d ask that you refrain from assumptions saying that the

    City’s lawsuit is aimed at putting a toll road through the park.

    Respectfully, it is our desire that we all work together to abolish the

    TCA once and for all and find better mobility solutions. We should be on

    the same side, as I and all of San Clemente thought we were for the last 2

    decades.”

  • Amanda Quintanilla

    I suggest when writing this article of my hometown and making claims that the City of San Clemente is misleading the public, please do not mislead the readers of Voice of OC. Please do not underestimate San Clemente Residents or anyone who will cross check this article with the 248 page lawsuit. Other newspapers have posted the complete lawsuit for readers to view it for themselves. There is no “unmasking” as you claim. The two page City of San Clemente lawsuit that you posted is insufficient to convey the depth and breadth of the entire lawsuit. The small section that you quote on page 34, lines 9-11, is only a small part of the entire 9 causes of action and it does not address nor refute those causes of action.

  • Elizabeth Corder

    First, I’d like to start by reminding Save San Onofre Coalition that the City of San Clemente nor the residents of San Clemente are the enemy. The TCA is the enemy. Please fight them, not us. After all, we were the thousands of people supporting this cause to “Save Trestles” for 17 years. SSOC and San Clemente residents want the same end-game, NO TOLL ROAD, but that means not through the park, not through our city and not through our homes. Is that so unreasonable? We are fighting to protect both, not just one. That being said, lets look at the FACTS.

    1. The lawsuit does not say the City wants to force a road through San Onofre State Beach. Instead, what it says is that the legislative route for the 241,the one set forth in Streets and Highways Code section 541 for over 30 years, states that the SR-241 must connect to Route 5 south of San Clemente near Basilone Road in San Diego County. The City is NOT advocating for the toll road in this area, it is simply pointing out that “any alignment for the southern portion of the Foothill Transportation Corridor section of the SR-241 connecting to Route 5 in the City of San Clemente does not, and cannot, conform to the route description for SR-241 as set forth in Streets and Highways Code section 541.” (page 34, lines 11-15). It is pretty disingenuous of you to represent otherwise; nowhere in the City’s complaint does it say “a road should be built.”

    2. I’m not sure why you think you should assume and proclaim,“The City Council’s real intent is abundantly clear in its lawsuit: they want to force a devastating road through San Onofre State Beach.” You have no right to assume such things. If we were to use that same assumptive logic, should we assume that Surfrider was aware that the TCA would seek to put a road through San Clemente as a result of the Settlement Agreement? In a November 11, 2016 OC Register article (the day after the settlement agreement was signed), Rick Erkeneff is quoted as saying that one toll road proposal would run through the east side of San Clemente. Was that why the design of the “Avoidance Area” was made so big to include RMV, including all of the contemplated homes? Just as we wish to give Surfrider the benefit of the doubt that this latest assault by the TCA was unforeseen, I’d ask that you refrain from assumptions saying that the City’s lawsuit is aimed at putting a toll road through the park.

    Respectfully, it is our desire that we all work together to abolish the TCA once and for all and find better mobility solutions. We should be on the same side, as I and all of San Clemente thought we were for the last 2 decades.

  • Roger Butow

    https://www.facebook.com/VentureStrategic/videos/1393783224001612/
    CWN believes that it’s the settlers that are intentionally misleading the public and court system….

  • Roger Butow

    “I’ve read everything online multiple times, I’ve become increasingly nauseated by what these NGOs are now trying to gaslight, spin/distort to recapture what should surely be dented reputations.

    Sleeping with the Devil, they through propinquity (lengthy proximity) are hard to tell from that Devil.

    Frankly, if their donors took a closer look, that shouldn’t send them one more cent. Clean Water Now considers them traitors….greedy ones at that.

    They should have looked out for ALL of the biota and human populations in the deep SOC, not just Trestles/SOSB—-Instead, like guards who abandoned their life-sustaining posts once payday rolled round, they’ve left the remainder of deep SOC’s human, plant and critter habitat defenseless, in jeopardy, in harm’s way. If they’re so savvy, what were they thinking, mission accomplished, that the TCA would just give up?

    First these NGOs negotiated as if THEY were in charge of ANY resolution to the dispute. Somewhere during the 20 years of my watch, as the Executive Director of Clean Water Now, many de-evolved, separated from their constituency, now sit in echo chambers drinking their own kool-aid, just like the developers they once demonized. Well, slurping trendy martinis at toney happy hours actually.

    Here, they procured VERY fiscally-friendly, beneficial settlements (plural) for themselves, one of which demanded under breach (with gnarly ramifications) that they vacate their TCA protectionist role in the future, basically neutering themselves, leaving the ENTIRE remainder of SC’s sub-sheds/watercourses and habitat plus the same exposure for entire lower reaches of the San Juan Watershed fair game for destruction.

    TCA’s 30 pieces of silver offer?

    “Stay out of Trestles (Area of Avoidance) and we’ll not ONLY pay whatever you demand in obviously fluffed-up, inflated compensation for legal and staff invoicing ($7.1 million), the Settlement Agreement…. but we’ll sweeten the pie to close the deal, $28 million for a San Mateo Creek Conservation Fund (Promissory Settlement). Just bill us, then just go away unless we need you for pro-TCA PR.

    Oh, about that PS restoration gig, none of you actually performs wetlands/streambed/watershed restoration? That’s ok, you sub-contract it out, skim the gravy off of the top as Project Managers from your vendors, we don’t mind at the TCA, not our money, as long as you just go away. Value-add for us is that those vendors can’t litigate us either. Whooppeee!”

    As a matter of fact, do ANY of these upper echelon reps even LIVE in SC, Ladera, SJC or RMV? Have families in the proposed alternatives flight path?

    Worser, insult to injury, the CSC realizes that it’s been had, betrayed by those they trusted, as have the HOAs subject to imminent domain, residents living near the paths of the destructive, space-consuming Alternate Routes on the verge of being impacted, NOW the NGOs want to micromanage the City’s litigation, wordsmith it.

    First the NGO’s claimed unilateral veto power, now want to extend it by threatening, by twisting the City’s arm—-so exploitation and control during every facet seems to be the new NGO paradigm. Are they going to bill the CSC $450/hour (pay staff 1/3, keep the other 2/3) as they did the TCA, hold them for ransom, file for what I’d arguably propose is thinly-veiled extortion fees?

    Clean Water Now believes that these arrogant NGOs were already counting and dreaming of spending OUR $$$, this latest turn of events means they’re in panic mode. Me Thinks the NGOs Doeth Protesteth Too Much.

    In a sense it might be slipping away (hence the urgent/insistent tone of the harassing letter), not only a portion of that initial $7.1 is at stake (maybe not delivered/deposited yet) but obviously the $28 million that is predicated upon the TCA’s final, successful connection of the 5 to the 241. The CSC and PAC litigation could hold up resolution for years, pending REAL enviro-protection/intervention by a SOC coalition of grass roots that can’t be bought—-as it should have been.

    So what did SC and other OC taxpayers get? One of several routes taken off of the table, but everywhere else up for grabs—And those same NGOs in support. Go online folks, there’s videos with glorious testimonials, extolling the praises of the TCA. Time heals all wounds, millions do too.

    No wonder these NGOs have launched a website, it’s CYA, jump the shark, nuke the fridge time. Can you spell DAMAGE CONTROL? I knew you could! SC is jeopardizing the salaries, benefit and retirement packages of these bloated organizations, how dare they, we had a done deal, ink drying on the checks.

    And just because they’re non-profits doesn’t===No one profits.

    Clean Water Now is quite proud to have helped several of these NGOs (a) Slash the Rancho Mission Viejo buildout by thousands of housing units, and (B) Early in the confrontation, plus during the constellation of the Trestles confrontation. CWN Board member (aquatic/riparian field tech) Mike Hazzard deserving of special recognition.

    Once we saw more NGO attorneys than reps in the focused group meetings for both RMV and even more so at San Ono, picked over, redundant reps, we sensed the eventual carving up of the spoils, our participation no longer necessary. When you’ve got 20 lawyers, circling and hovering like sharks, and you’re not up for sale like these are, why stay in the room while they chat about trendy junkets to Tahiti, 2nd homes in resorts, their next “Sue & Settle” victims, etc…..

    And someone, please flipping tell me how a Mexican-American border NGO (CostaSalvaje) and Laguna Greenbelt) got a piece of the action, Jackson? Pretty big trough, though disconnected geographically the lapping extends 20 miles north and 60 miles south.

    The best that these settlers could do is just stand down, stay out of it—you’re an embarrassment to yourselves, your members and your respective mission statements. You’ve breach your fiduciary responsibilities. If you’re lucky, everyone will forgive you…if you keep drawing attention, picking at this scab, it’ll never heal, you’re just going to be looking worse by the revelations regarding the fatally-flawed deal you struck, selling the souls of SJ Watershed and SC’s as if your own personal property.

    HELLO? If you’ve forgotten, what with all of that $$$ being waved in your collective faces, they belong to everyone.

    PS: Clean Water Now is rotating back in, to try and help where you so abjectly failed/fell short, wanna come after us? Oh, that’s right, we don’t have deep pockets, any $$$ because we don’t litigate. We DO invite these NGOs to send us a “Love Letter,” as in we’d LOVE to read/hear more of your excuses for the mess you helped create, now blame others for challenging, quite legal (within their rights) and justifiably so. Tell us more, especially the part where you’ve vowed to defend the TCA—we could use a few laughs after all of the tears.

  • Joanna Mathews

    First, I’d like to start by reminding Save San Onofre Coalition that the City of San Clemente nor the residents of San Clemente are the enemy. The TCA is the enemy. Please fight them, not us. After all, we were the thousands of people supporting this cause to “Save Trestles” for 17 years. SSOC and San Clemente residents want the same end-game, NO TOLL ROAD, but that means not through the park, not through our city and not through our homes. Is that so unreasonable? We are fighting to protect both, not just one. That being said, lets look at the FACTS.

    1. The lawsuit does not say the City wants to force a road through San Onofre State Beach. Instead, what it says is that the legislative route for the 241,the one set forth in Streets and Highways Code section 541 for over 30 years, states that the SR-241 must connect to Route 5 south of San Clemente near Basilone Road in San Diego County. The City is NOT advocating for the toll road in this area, it is simply pointing out that “any alignment for the southern portion of the Foothill Transportation Corridor section of the SR-241 connecting to Route 5 in the City of San Clemente does not, and cannot, conform to the route description for SR-241 as set forth in Streets and Highways Code section 541.” (page 34, lines 11-15). It is pretty disingenuous of you to represent otherwise; nowhere in the City’s complaint does it say “a road should be built.”

    2. I’m not sure why you think you should assume and proclaim,“The City Council’s real intent is abundantly clear in its lawsuit: they want to force a devastating road through San Onofre State Beach.” You have no right to assume such things. If we were to use that same assumptive logic, should we assume that Surfrider was aware that the TCA would seek to put a road through San Clemente as a result of the Settlement Agreement? In a November 11, 2016 OC Register article (the day after the settlement agreement was signed), Rick Erkeneff is quoted as saying that one toll road proposal would run through the east side of San Clemente. Was that why the design of the “Avoidance Area” was made so big to include RMV, including all of the contemplated homes? Just as we wish to give Surfrider the benefit of the doubt that this latest assault by the TCA was unforeseen, I’d ask that you refrain from assumptions saying that the City’s lawsuit is aimed at putting a toll road through the park.

    Respectfully, it is our desire that we all work together to abolish the TCA once and for all and find better mobility solutions. We should be on the same side, as I and all of San Clemente thought we were for the last 2 decades.

  • Roger Butow

    I’ve read everything online multiple times, I’ve become increasingly nauseated by what these NGOs are now trying to gaslight, spin/distort to enhance what should surely be dented reputations.
    Sleeping with the Devil, they through propinquity (lengthy proximity) are hard to tell from that Devil.
    Frankly, if their donors took a closer look, that shouldn’t send them one more cent. Clean Water Now considers them traitors….greedy onset that.
    They should have looked out for ALL of the biota and human populations in the deep SOC, not just Trestles/SOSB—-Instead, like guards who abandoned their life-sustaining posts once payday rolled round, they’ve left the remainder of deep SOC’s human, plant and critter habitat in jeopardy, in harm’s way. If they’re so savvy, WTF were they thinking, mission accomplished, that the TCA would just give up?
    First these NGOs became elitist snobs, negotiated as if THEY were in charge of ANY resolution to the dispute. Somewhere during the 20 years of my watch, as the Executive Director of Clean Water Now, they separated from their constituency, now sit in echo chambers drinking their own kool-aid, just like the developers they once demonized. Well, slurping trendy martinis at toney happy hours actually.
    They procured VERY fiscally-friendly settlements (plural) for themselves, one of which demanded under breach (with gnarly ramifications) that they vacate their TCA protectionist role in the future, basically neutering themselves, leaving the ENTIRE remainder of SC’s sub-sheds/watercourses and habitat plus the same exposure for entire lower reaches of the San Juan Watershed fair game for destruction.
    TCA’s 30 pieces of silver (Think Dan Silver of EHL) offer?
    “Stay out of Trestles (Area of Avoidance) and we’ll not only pay whatever you demand in obviously fluffed-up, inflated compensation for legal and staff invoicing ($7.1 million), the Settlement Agreement….. but $28 million for a San Mateo Creek Conservation Fund (Promissory Settlement). Just bill us, then just go away unless we need you for pro-TCA PR.
    Oh, about that PS restoration gig, none of you actually performs wetlands/streambed/watershed restoration? That’s ok, you sub-contract it out, skim the gravy off of the top as Project Managers from your vendors, we don’t mind at the TCA, not our money, as long as you just go away…with whattaknow, whattyasay, Dan Silver as your designated rep, top dog again as he was at RMV.”
    Wonder how much he’s worth, SOC obviously Danny Boy’s cash cow these past 15 years and he lives/based in LA.
    As a matter of fact, do ANY of these upper echelon reps even LIVE in SC, Ladera, SJC or RMV?
    Worser, insult to injury, now that the CSC realizes that it’s been had, as have the HOAs subject to imminent domain, residents living near the paths of the destructive, space-consuming Alternate Routes on the verge of being impacted, NOW the NGOs want to micromanage the City’s litigation, wordsmith it.
    First the NGO’s claimed unilateral veto power, want to extend it by threatening, by twisting the City’s arm—-so exploitation during every facet seems to be the new NGO paradigm. Are they going to bill the CSC $450/hour (pay staff 1/3, keep the other 2/3) as they did the TCA, hold them for ransom, file for what I’d arguably propose is thinly-veiled extortion fees?
    Clean Water Now believes that these arrogant NGOs were already counting and dreaming of spending OUR $$$, this latest turn of events means they’re in panic mode. Me Thinks the NGOs Doeth Protesteth Too Much.
    In a sense it might be slipping away (hence the urgent/insistent tone of the harassing letter), not only a portion of that initial $7.1 is at stake (maybe not delivered/deposited yet) but obviously the $28 million that is predicated upon the TCA’s final, successful connection of the 5 to the 241. The CSC and PAC litigation could hold up resolution for years, pending REAL enviro-protection by a SOC coalition of grass roots that can’t be bought—-as it should have been.
    So what did SC and other taxpayers get? One of several routes taken off of the table, but everywhere else up for grabs—And those same NGOs in support. Go online folks, there’s videos with glorious testimonials, extolling the praises of the TCA. Like being Jewish and cheering for Hitler?
    No wonder these NGOs have launched a website, it’s CYA, jump the shark, nuke the fridge time. Can you spell DAMAGE CONTROL? I knew you could! SC is jeopardizing the salaries, benefit and retirement packages of these bloated organizations, how dare they, we had a done deal, ink drying on the checks.
    And just because they’re non-profits doesn’t===No one profits.
    Clean Water Now is quite proud to have helped several of these NGOs (a) Slash the Rancho Mission Viejo buildout by thousands of housing units, and (B) Early in the confrontation, plus during the constellation of the Trestles confrontation. CWN Board member (aquatic/riparian field tech) Mike Hazzard deserving of special recognition.
    Once we saw more NGO attorneys than reps in the focused group meetings for both RMV and even more so at San Ono, picked over/redundancy, we sensed the eventual carving up of the spoils, our participation no longer necessary. When you’ve got 20 lawyers, circling and hovering like sharks, and you’re not up for sale like these are, why stay in the room while they chat about trendy junkets to Tahiti, 2nd homes in resorts, their next “Sue & Settle” victims, etc…..
    And someone, please flipping tell me how a Mexican-American border NGO (CostaSalvaje) and Laguna Greenbelt) got a piece of the action, Jackson? Pretty big trough, though disconnected geographically the lapping extends 20 miles north and 60 miles south.
    The best that these settlers could do is just stand down, stay out of it—you’re an embarrassment to yourselves, your members and your respective mission statements. If you’re lucky, everyone will forgive you…if you keep drawing attention, picking at this scab, it’ll never heal, you’re just going to be looking worse by the revelations regarding the really crappy, fatally-flawed deal you struck, selling the souls of SJ Watershed and SC’s as if your own personal property.
    HELLO? If you’ve forgotten, what with all of that $$$ being waved in your collective faces, they belong to everyone.
    PS: Clean Water Now is rotating back in, to try and help where you so abjectly failed/fell short, wanna come after us? Oh, that’s right, we don’t have deep pockets, any $$$ because we don’t litigate. We DO invite these NGOs to send us a “Love Letter,” as in we’d LOVE to read/hear more of your excuses for the mess you helped create, now blame others for challenging, quite legal (within their rights) and justifiably so. Tell us more, especially the part where you’ve vowed to defend the TCA—we could use a few laughs after all of the tears.

  • Joanna Mathews

    San Clemente is not the enemy. There are lots of innocent people who are caught in the middle of this mess. I was aware of the Save Trestles movement but never got involved. When I saw the settlement was protecting Trestles, I was happy for all those that fought in opposition. However, that happiness for you has left me in confusion as new 241 extension routes/ideas from the TCA was introduced that could go through existing San Clemente and neighboring cities. What about the children? The toll road is being graded apparently “feet” from Tesoro High School and may continue if it makes it to San Clemente to come very close to schools and parks and trails. Please realize that the citizens of San Clemente are not the enemy and a great deal of us would like to see the TCA abolished and stop the insanity.

  • Elizabeth Corder

    First, I’d like to start by reminding Save San Onofre Coalition that the City of San Clemente nor the residents of San Clemente are the enemy. The TCA is the enemy. Please fight them, not us. After all, we were the thousands of people supporting this cause to “Save Trestles” for 17 years. SSOC and San Clemente residents want the same end-game, NO TOLL ROAD, but that means not through the park, not through our city and not through our homes. Is that so unreasonable? We are fighting to protect both, not just one. That being said, lets look at the FACTS.

    1. The lawsuit does not say the City wants to force a road through San Onofre State Beach. Instead, what it says is that the legislative route for the 241,the one set forth in Streets and Highways Code section 541 for over 30 years, states that the SR-241 must connect to Route 5 south of San Clemente near Basilone Road in San Diego County. The City is NOT advocating for the toll road in this area, it is simply pointing out that “any alignment for the southern portion of the Foothill Transportation Corridor section of the SR-241 connecting to Route 5 in the City of San Clemente does not, and cannot, conform to the route description for SR-241 as set forth in Streets and Highways Code section 541.” (page 34, lines 11-15). It is pretty disingenuous of you to represent otherwise; nowhere in the City’s complaint does it say “a road should be built.”

    2. I’m not sure why you think you should assume and proclaim,“The City Council’s real intent is abundantly clear in its lawsuit: they want to force a devastating road through San Onofre State Beach.” You have no right to assume such things. If we were to use that same assumptive logic, should we assume that Surfrider was aware that the TCA would seek to put a road through San Clemente as a result of the Settlement Agreement? In a November 11, 2016 OC Register article (the day after the settlement agreement was signed), Rick Erkeneff is quoted as saying that one toll road proposal would run through the east side of San Clemente. Was that why the design of the “Avoidance Area” was made so big to include RMV, including all of the contemplated homes? Just as we wish to give Surfrider the benefit of the doubt that this latest assault by the TCA was unforeseen, I’d ask that you refrain from assumptions saying that the City’s lawsuit is aimed at putting a toll road through the park.

    Respectfully, it is our desire that we all work together to abolish the TCA once and for all and find better mobility solutions. We should be on the same side, as I and all of San Clemente thought we were for the last 2 decades.

  • Elizabeth Corder

    First, I’d like to start by reminding Save San Onofre Coalition that the City of San Clemente nor the residents of San Clemente are the enemy. The TCA is the enemy. Please fight them, not us. After all, we were the thousands of people supporting this cause to “Save Trestles” for 17 years. SSOC and San Clemente residents want the same end-game, NO TOLL ROAD, but that means not through the park, not through our city and not through our homes. Is that so unreasonable? We are fighting to protect both, not just one. That being said, lets look at the FACTS.

    1. The lawsuit does not say the City wants to force a road through San Onofre State Beach. Instead, what it says is that the legislative route for the 241,the one set forth in Streets and Highways Code section 541 for over 30 years, states that the SR-241 must connect to Route 5 south of San Clemente near Basilone Road in San Diego County. The City is NOT advocating for the toll road in this area, it is simply pointing out that “any alignment for the southern portion of the Foothill Transportation Corridor section of the SR-241 connecting to Route 5 in the City of San Clemente does not, and cannot, conform to the route description for SR-241 as set forth in Streets and Highways Code section 541.” (page 34, lines 11-15). It is pretty disingenuous of you to represent otherwise; nowhere in the City’s complaint does it say “a road should be built.”

    2. I’m not sure why you think you should assume and proclaim,“The City Council’s real intent is abundantly clear in its lawsuit: they want to force a devastating road through San Onofre State Beach.” You have no right to assume such things. If we were to use that same assumptive logic, should we assume that Surfrider was aware that the TCA would seek to put a road through San Clemente as a result of the Settlement Agreement? In a November 11, 2016 OC Register article (the day after the settlement agreement was signed), Rick Erkeneff is quoted as saying that one toll road proposal would run through the east side of San Clemente. Was that why the design of the “Avoidance Area” was made so big to include RMV, including all of the contemplated homes? Just as we wish to give Surfrider the benefit of the doubt that this latest assault by the TCA was unforeseen, I’d ask that you refrain from assumptions saying that the City’s lawsuit is aimed at putting a toll road through the park.

    Respectfully, it is our desire that we all work together to abolish the TCA once and for all and find better mobility solutions. We should be on the same side, as I and all of San Clemente thought we were for the last 2 decades.