|
|
|
San Mateo Point, A Battle to Protect A Coastal Jewel by Mark Cousineau MAKING WAVES, April 1998  Location of Marines' housing development facing Trestles at the Orange County/San Diego County border in California |
April 8, 1998 Update: Surfrider's emergency appeal for an injunction was denied. Construction has started. As of April 8, half of the 40 acres has been graded by bulldozers. It's a tragedy!As many people know, the San Clemente Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation has been actively opposing a proposed housing development atop San Mateo Point in northern San Diego County. The United States Marine Corps plan to build 120 officer housing units on the bluff which sits adjacent to the San Mateo wetlands reserve, San Onofre State Park and the Trestles surfing area. The irony is that Surfrider Foundation, working with the local community, was instrumental in helping the USMC obtain title to the site in the first place! Originally planned to be auctioned off for a hotel development by the Federal Government, the USMC approached the local community to lobby on their behalf that the property be transferred to the USMC so that they could preserve it as open space in San Onofre State Park. The Park was the creation of former President Nixon via the negotiation of a lease agreement between the California State Parks Department and the USMC. Once they obtained title, the USMC did an about face and claimed that they now needed the site for officer housing. In documents we have recently received during litigation, we have learned that the USMC had their eye on this property for housing dating back to 1980. The local community was betrayed; Semper Lie!! The USMC claim that they need officer housing in the northern portion of the base to fill an estimated 5,000 housing unit shortage primarily caused by the overall reduction in bases across Southern California which leads to an increase in the mission of Camp Pendleton. Surfrider does not dispute the need to house officers and their families and has not come out against housing in general. In fact, early on Surfrider worked with the State Parks to create a land swap that would have allowed more housing units to be built closer to the base for less money. The Marines rejected this as they put it: There is nothing in it for us! We are actively and intently opposed to housing on the proposed site for many reasons. The best and highest use for the site is as open space to benefit the public and protect the fragile wetlands adjacent to the site. We have tried to reach agreement with the USMC to locate the housing to a more environmentally suitable location. The USMC has bold faced said to the Coastal Commission, the Court and the community at large that there is not one other site that is suitable that they can build on in the over 200,000 acre base. One must ask where the other 4,880 housing units will go; minor details! Now that we are in litigation, we have received documents that directly dispute this claim and have a USMC document claiming that a site exists for 2,000 housing units but it is not preferred because it may take a bit longer! The USMC contends that it takes 50 minutes or longer to drive from Oceanside to Trestles! Most surfers make it in under 20 minutes. The site in question sits atop the San Mateo headlands which has had an active history. Originally, the site was a winter home of the Juanero Indians and was named Panhe. Much later, the site was used by the Coast Guard as a navigational aid site which included a Loran station. The site is immediately adjacent to the former Western White House made famous in the 1960's. After closing of the Western White House as well as the Loran station, the site was considered excess. Originally the Coast Guard attempted to swap the property with a developer who would have constructed housing for the Coast Guard in the Long Beach Harbor in exchange for the property. That deal fell through. Fearing an imminent development along its northern border, the USMC approached the local citizens for assistance in preserving the site in its open state. The USMC said that they would add the site to the State Park lease (San Onofre State Park is located on leased land from the USMC to the State Parks system) if the local citizens would help them lobby to keep the site open and not sold on the public market. The coalition was successful but unfortunately, the USMC backed out of their end of the bargain and one year later (1986) proposed USMC family housing on the site. The fight has ebbed and flowed since that point. In addition to the loss of one of the last open space coastal bluff tops in Southern California to housing, Surfrider opposes building on this spot for several environmental reasons. The USMC has prepared an Environmental Assessment and recently issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Surfrider has reviewed these documents and along with the experts assisting us, has commented in many forums that the EA is inadequate and that the potential for significant environmental impacts does occur and has not been adequately evaluated. Some of our concerns include:
Currently, Trestles is a walk in experience that includes both surfing as well as an escape from the urban world. Adding 120 units on top of the bluff overlooking the wetlands and beach will change that experience. Surfrider has tried to work with the USMC in a cooperative fashion and even proposed an alternative concept of a land swap between the USMC and State Parks whereby, the USMC would receive "pad-ready" golf course home sites (a significant savings in tax payer money) with ocean views in another location of the State Park in exchange for leaving the site open. The USMC would not even entertain a discussion on the topic. As they put it: "What's in it for us?" The staff of the Coastal Commission agreed with Surfrider and recommended on two occasions that the Coastal Commission agreed with Surfrider and recommended on two occasions that the Coastal Commission vote to find the project inconsistent with the Coastal Act. On the first occasion, the Commission agreed. After a two month delay and much political maneuvering, the Commission reversed their vote with no new information presented. We were sold out. After extensive efforts at negotiation, we were forced to bring litigation to stop the project. We filed an action in the conservative Federal Court in San Diego claiming two main points:
Unfortunately, the judge sided with the USMC in a decision that seamed to ignore certain points of law. On the EA claims, the judge basically concluded the USMC did an adequate job; we disagree. On the Executive Order, the judge issued a strange ruling in essence saying that if all we wanted was a certain piece of paper from the USMC saying there were no alternatives, he was sure the USMC would issue such a paper. The ruling ignored the higher standards of review that was required by the USMC for this law. Surfrider has filed an emergency appeal at the Appellate Level in San Francisco asking for an injunction stopping the project while the appeal is heard. Our hope is that the appeals court can see the folly being perpetuated by the USMC and protect this special and beautiful place. The public has been defrauded by the USMC with broken promises, lost views and threats to the water quality at Trestles being the legacy. |
Next Article: What's a Day at the Beach Worth?
MAKING WAVES table of contents
|
Surfrider Foundation USA: 122 S. El Camino Real #67 San Clemente, CA 92672 tel. (949) 492-8170 fax (949) 492-8142 
|
Email addresses: Membership: mmate@surfrider.org Chapter Issues: emazzarella@surfrider.org Envir. Issues: ekliszewski@surfrider.org Legal Issues: mkremer@surfrider.org Catalog: jwright@surfrider.org Website Staff: mbabski@surfrider.org Other: info@surfrider.org See our feedback page. Surfrider Website INDEX |
All rights reserved