Nightglow Window

The Trestles Toll Road Meeting

The Bean and Doofus -- 6:11 p.m. (hour nine and going strong)

Here's an article lifted from my day job at surfexpo.com, posted here for posterity.

What I didn't mention in the story is the fact that Sydney was with me all day. I was so proud of her, her passion about the topic, and her poise when Channel 10 interviewed her. She was a real pleasure to be with--even after we were there for almost twelve hours.




Surf Industry Mostly MIA At Trestles Meeting
Thousands came, despite the obstacles.

On September 22, more than 3,000 people gathered at O’Brien Hall at the Del Mar Fairgrounds in California to give public testimony either in favor of or in opposition to the proposed extension of the 241 Toll Road, which would bisect San Onofre State Park in southern Orange County and cut within a quarter mile of the lineup of Lower Trestles.

The fact that such a meeting was even necessary was irritating to many. In February of this year, in a decisive 8-2 vote at the end of a marathon meeting, the California Coastal Commission ruled that plans for the 241 Toll Road extension through the San Mateo Creek watershed and San Onofre State Park were not in compliance with the California Coastal Act.

That February ruling was a massive victory for the “Save Trestles” campaign and a significant moment in the history of the surf industry—but it wasn’t to be the final chapter. The Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA), the for-profit road-building company behind the 241, appealed to the federal government’s Department Of Commerce, which decided to hear the case. Despite the oftentimes emphatic rejection by the California Coastal Commission, the latest chapter in the battle over the 241 will be decided 2,300 miles away in Washington D.C. by the federal government.

The Del Mar Meeting was designed to get the public's comment on the proposed extension, but it really didn't turn out that way in the end.

Opponents say the toll road, which is expected to have a $12 fee, would close 60% of San Onofre State Beach, cause the likely abandonment of the San Mateo campground, pollute the pristine San Mateo watershed and the world-class Trestles surf beach, degrade critical habitat for endangered/threatened species and damage the Donna O'Neill Land Conservancy and the sacred Native American site of Panhe.

And so they came to have their say, despite having the first public comment meeting abruptly cancelled when nearly 10,000 people expressed interest in attending. They came despite the fact that, unlike the February meeting, no ruling would take place at the end of a long day of speech making—U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez has until January 7, 2009, to make a ruling. They came despite the nine dollar parking fee and the lousy acoustics within O’Brien Hall that made listening to the speeches difficult. They sat for hours in a hot, buggy hall expressing their approval for what was being said with either a thumbs up or thumbs down, like the crowds in the Roman Coliseum.

And the battle lines were starkly defined. The mostly overweight, barrel-chested, orange-shirt wearing supporters of the 241 held signs declaiming “Drive Less, Live More.” That is, they held them until 2:00 p.m. sharp, when nearly all of the group made a mass exodus from the hall. That was quitting time apparently and it seemed their enthusiasm only lasted as long as they were on the clock.

Outnumbering them ten to one were the opponents of the 241, everyone from a 92 year old grandmother who sat eight hours for a chance to speak to an eleven-year boy who nearly brought the house down with his simple eloquence at the microphone. Despite the hassles thousands were on hand, passionately expressing their opposition to the road with loud catcalls or cheers at the end of many speeches.

But where was the surf industry? Unlike the February meeting where a phalanx of industry RVs were lined up outside the hall in unified opposition to the toll road and hundreds of industry players were on hand, surf industry participation at this meeting was lacking, disappointing, and bordering on pitiful.

According to Bob Mignogna, former publisher of Surfing Magazine and someone who has sent out constant appeals to the industry to stay involved, “I was disappointed with the turnout, although I do want to acknowledge those from the industry who I did see.”

There were some familiar faces in the crowd: Dave Gatto from VF Corp, top executives from Rip Curl (including Kelly Gibson, Rick Petri, and Paul Harvey), and many Billabong managers were there. Gary Ward from Ocean Minded, EG from Sector 9, Vipe Desai from Propaganda, surf legends Peter Townend and Shaun Tomson, and Rod Tomlinson from Firewire were also in the crowd. The magazines were well represented—as was Fuel TV. Scott Daley and Greg Browning from Body Glove were there, as was Chad DiNenna from Nixon and the SIMA staff.

“Even so, it was a disappointing turnout,” says Mignogna. “Only Etnies and Billabong had buses, and some execs who attended the February hearing were not there yesterday.”

No doubt there were others there who escaped notice, but this was not a show of force from a seven-billion dollar industry.

According to Mignogna, figuring why that was the case is a bit of a guess at the moment. “Maybe it was, in part, because of the horrible format of the meeting, which bothered me even more than the [level of] industry support. In fact, it may have been responsible for industry execs not making the trip.”

Indeed, the morning was filled with speechifying from elected officials. “Who wanted to arrive at 10 a.m. and sit through five hours of testimony from elected officials, most of whom are on the TCA Board?” asks Mignogna. “That was a slap in the face to the public, as this was billed as a public hearing, yet the true public did not get to the podium until after 6:30 p.m., and only approximately 35 of the 500 registered public speakers actually spoke before the strict 8:30 p.m. ending time was enforced. No wonder some in the surf industry who were signed up to speak never appeared!”

And while Secretary Gutierrez is ultimately charged with determining whether to overturn the CCC’s decision, he was nowhere to be seen. Instead the meeting was presided over by Jane Luxton, a counsel for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department.

According to Jim Moriarty, executive director of the Surfrider Foundation, “She [Luxton] was flanked by two anonymous individuals. In an era of demanded transparency this didn't fly. Thousands of people committed twelve hours to hear and see testimony given to this panel and were never told who two of the people were nor their roles in defining this larger question: Does the proposed toll road through a State Park warrant national involvement? Their black box approach feeds the public’s lack of trust in the process.”

Yes, there were stenographers diligently transcribing what was said at the meeting, but how will they convey the conviction of those in the crowd to Gutierrez? This became especially worrisome when Luxton momentarily excused herself from the meeting, leaving the nameless automatons in charge. “Don’t worry, everything that is being said will be recorded,” she said rising from her seat.

“I am not confident that the Department of Commerce will do a fair job evaluating TCA’s appeal, given the format the Department of Commerce used for this ‘public’ meeting,” says Mignogna. “To me, the format was a sham.”

Upon reflection, Mignogna says this poor format did more to hurt industry involvement than anything else. “I don’t think poor attendance was symptomatic of a blasé attitude from industry execs,” he says. “I have received so many emails and calls of support, that it’s been crazy. Every industry event I attend, I am given positive feedback on the work to Save Trestles and the State Park. I just don’t see industry apathy on the subject. The more I think about it, the more I think it was the format.”

In order to overturn the CCC’s ruling, the TCA must prove to Department of Commerce that there is an overriding national security issue at stake with the toll road extension, or that the road is necessary to fulfill a larger than regional transportation issue. No matter what the ruling, the losing side is expected to appeal.