The Foothill South toll road--in whose interest, exactly?
The California Coastal Commission has already said no way. Now the fate of the proposed toll road 
through San Onofre State Beach lies with the Bush administration--and given the administration's distaste for environmental protection and near-hostility toward parks, that can't be a good thing for the "Save Trestles" crowd.
But the feds aren't supposed to just decide based on how much they like the road. The criteria are supposed to be narrow--the road's supporters are supposed to show that it's in the national interest, overriding local and state interests.
The Transportation Corridor Agencies have come up with some creative arguments for why the road, which would travel the length of the inland canyon that's also part of the state park, as well as running through a nature preserve in south Orange County, is in the national interest. Like it would make coastal access easier. Actually, I always thought coastal access was supposed to mean people's ability to use the beach up to the high tide line, not to provide high-speed transit from, say, the desert. Another argument involved quick evacuation in case of an accident at the San Onofre nuclear plant. Not only has the plant been operating for decades without one, but it's odd to think that residents of San Clemente, by far the closest community to the nuclear plant, would escape it by driving south to the entrance of the freeway.
The editorial board has taken a stand several times against the toll road, and a new editorial is in the works. But the federal government's involvement raises different questions to address about the road. Exactly what should it mean for the toll road to be in the national interest? Here's a place for all of you who didn't get to speak at the big Del Mar hearing to have your say. A summary of the toll-road agency's viewpoint, sent to me by its public affairs person, is after the jump.
Photo: L.A. Times
1) Furthers the national interest in development of the coastal zone. 241 provides an alternative evacuation route, serving the national interest in public safety on a nationally significant transportation corridor. The Federal Highway Administration agrees – noting the lack of alternative routes for re-routing of traffic and commenting on the risks to the region if the 5 is not functioning. Also noted that evacuation plans fro the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station rely heavily on I-5
2) Involves the priority consideration given to orderly processes for siting major regional transportation facilities and in improving mobility on the Interstate Highway System. The purpose of the project is to provide relief for I-5 – the most important transportation corridor of the second largest metropolitan area in the nation and a primary corridor for goods movement and international trade between the US and Mexico.
3) Furthers the national interest in providing access to the coast for recreational purposes. The coastal commission has made formal findings that congestion on this portion of I-5 interferes with coastal recreation access. (findings regarding north county transit district’s railroad passing track extension)
4) Furthers national interest in improving, safeguarding and restoring the quality of coastal waters by installing water treatment system along 2 miles of I-5 that are currently untreated.
5) Furthers national interest by assisting the state in complying the federal Clean Air Act requirements. The 241 is a transportation control measure identified by the EPA and the Air Quality Management District as necessary to meet clean air standards. While the emission benefits of any one TCM may be modest, in the aggregate they play an important role. As a practical matter, no single project would be likely to provide the equivalent emission reductions for the 66 lane miles of the 241 within the South Coast Air Basin.
6) Furthers national interest by providing improvements to enhance training mission at Camp Pendleton. The Marine Corps has acknowledged the project will provide important training and infrastructure improvements.
* A project is of significant and substantial national interest if it will benefit large metropolitan areas. The 241 will benefit 21 million Southern California residents
* The national interest is furthered by the activity outweighs the adverse coastal effects
* No reasonable or available alternative. Alternatives proposed by opponents violate state design and safety standards, have enormous community impacts and have no source of funding – thus they are not reasonable and available.
* State and federal transportation funding is in crisis – highway trust fund depleted
* The Secretary’s review is de novo – does not focus on the rationale underlying the objection.
Better arguments for the road: improved commuting for everyone in the region (visitors and residents and commercial vehicles), reduced commute times, reduced green house gas emissions, and a route that outside experts have said is safe for the environment, species and the surf. The road ends a half mile from Trestles and the Save Trestles campaign is a hoax. Several outside experts said there will be zero impact on the surf. The Surfrider Foundation is using the slogan in a continuing money-raising campaign. I'd bet they have the biggest bank account in their history (in addition to new offices and higher salaries). I'm tired getting stuck on the I-5. Here's hoping the Commerce people decided on the facts. Not the anti-road, anti-growth BS spewed by those who testified and don't even live in the area (elitists from Malibu, Santa Monica, San Francisco, etc.).
Posted by: OC Driver | October 02, 2008 at 05:18 PM
Thanks for the chance to post on this subject. I was one of MANY who did not get a chance to speak at the public hearing at Del Mar.
We definitely need the completion of this roadway. Right now, we have NO alternatives other than the I-5 freeway in South Orange County... No other way in or out of town.
Why would you mock having an alternate route? ("it's odd to think that residents of San Clemente, by far the closest community to the nuclear plant, would escape it by driving south to the entrance of the freeway.") I don't think it would be odd to go a quarter mile south in order to get on a road going north if the I-5 were gridlocked, do you?
I would encourage you to actually go to Trestles beach (although you have to walk under the I-5 freeway and under a set of train tracks to get there - so much for the "pristine" setting) and ask some of the surfers WHY they don't want the 241 completed. It is crystal clear. They don't want folks from the 909 to have access to "their" beach! They won't say it to the Secretary of Commerce and the Surfrider Foundation has all but gagged any surfer who says it, but that's their real agenda.
Every legitimate scientific study has show that connecting this road to the I-5 a half-mile from the beach has zero impact on the surf. It's a complete red-herring.
After a quarter century of "environmental review" it's time to finish this roadway... NOW!
Posted by: Needin' Traffic Relief | October 02, 2008 at 07:16 PM
This road has been a joke since the very beginning. In 2005, Bobby Shriver (then a State Parks Commissioner) and Joel Reynolds (NRDC Counsel) wrote a letter to this paper explaining the problems with the 241 extension. A woman named Mary Anna Anderson wrote to complain that a "Santa Monica city councilman and L.A. lawyer" had no business in Orange County affairs. Interestingly enough, in attacking their credentials she did not list hers. 1) Mrs. Anderson was at the time Board President of the San Clemente Ocean Festival, to which the 241-extending Transportation Corridor Agencies was a Shark-level donor. 2) Mrs. Anderson is married to Mr. Anderson, who at the time was a San Clemente city councilman AND ALTERNATE for JIM DAHL on the TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES itself.
When no one else likes the project, get your wife to write a letter, right?
Posted by: Alex Brant-Zawadzki | October 02, 2008 at 09:11 PM
I live in the OC, and I don't understand how the toll road will alleviate congestion on the 5. If you live in San Clemente the only place the 241 will take you is eastern Orange County and then on to Riverside and vice versa. While there is a lot of traffic from Riverside County, most of it is going to Irvine, which is already served by the 261 toll road. OC Driver is implying that someone will take the 241 to the 261 to the 91, then head west to get to LA county? That roue is 12 miles longer!
If South Orange County wants this traffic relief so bad, then let them put it through one of their cities. IF you look in Google earth you can see that all the South OC cities have built residential communities to block the 241 corridor from the 5. Also do some research on the idea of widening Hwy 74 (Ortega Hwy) to help the commuters from South Riverside county, and you will find the most insulting, degrading elitist comments from South OC residents.
The only traffic this toll road is meant to serve is the future traffic of planned developments in South East Orange County. Great! More Sprawl!
Posted by: Marcotico | October 03, 2008 at 01:18 PM
I love it.. "provide access to the coast" by paving over it. Uh huh.
Posted by: Joe | October 03, 2008 at 03:03 PM
Typical scare tactics... It'll "pave over" the coast, huh Joe? Actually, it connects to the I-5 a half-mile from the coast... but let's keep that a secret and maybe the LA Times Editorial Board, who have probably never stepped foot in San Clemente, will think that the road goes on the beach!
Posted by: Say it ain't so, Joe! | October 03, 2008 at 03:41 PM
Imagine the amount of traffic there will be where the toll road combines with the 5. Why not build a better public transportation system instead of building a road that is just going to promote more driving? What ever happened to being green? Is or aren't we concerned about being green and saving our earth? Why not expand our train system instead of building an ugly road way that ruins everything wonderful about our gorgeous coast.
Posted by: gal | October 03, 2008 at 04:27 PM
The people finally get it and we are mad as hell. This road provides the mitigation for 14,000 homes to be built. It only took approval of our Board of Supervisors in 2004 to change agricultural land to residential and to approve 14,000 homes. BOS used the SCAG report to justify this increase in housing based on SCAG's "forecast for growth". SCAG did not consider what our communities wanted nor what our county could support in terms of population. Our county has too many people and we need to reconsider the "growth machine" that just keeps chuggin along and destroying what we worked so hard to achieve. Look at the 73 toll road, it provided the mitigation for all of the homes bordering it. Problem is, those homes use the FREEway and impact us all.
Posted by: NO MO | October 03, 2008 at 04:33 PM
It's a shame that a federal agency thinks they can overule our State Government. This was already mitigation land for the harm that San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant has caused and it's a dedicated conservation area to boot. Think of the dangerous precedent they could set if they allow the toll road. No park or mitigation land will be safe.
Posted by: Coast Watcher | October 03, 2008 at 04:42 PM
A price cannot be put on open wilderness space.
When it is all gone what will we have?
It is almost all gone!
Quality of live has no price and when it's pavd over you cant get it back!
Is a year of temp jobs worth this BS, no!
Think long term, and preserve open space.
Just look to LA for results when developers are left unchecked.
Half of So Cal is urban Stripmall slum!
Posted by: jake | October 03, 2008 at 04:54 PM
Once this land is paved over it will never be the same!
Urban sprawl is not worth it. Do we need more strip malls, do we need more retail??
Isn't that what this is about? ..it is , don't fool yourself!
Southern Cal was once a beautiful place, it still is in places with no strip malls and freeways!
Posted by: mike billups | October 03, 2008 at 05:04 PM
The following is a response from the Save San Onofre Coalition, a diverse group that includes four former state parks commissioners, local, regional, state and national environmental organizations, cities, counties and elected officials statewide:
1) The Toll Road does not further the national interest. It is a local transportation project that would benefit residential and commercial development in one part of southern Orange County. The 16-mile-long road runs through the middle of the proposed 14,000-home Rancho Mission Viejo housing development, and would serve those homes.
2) The Toll Road is not needed to improve goods movement. Most trucks hauling cargo throughout Southern California travel along corridors other than the portion of the I-5 near the Toll Road, such as the 710 and I-15.
3) The Toll Road is not needed as an alternate evacuation route. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission – the federal body charged with ensuring public health and safety in the nation’s civilian use of nuclear materials – stated that the current evacuation routes for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station are adequate.
4) The Toll Road will devastate our precious coastal resources, outweighing any negligible national interest. TheToll Road would have devastating impacts on endangered species, coastal recreation, water quality and watershed stability, irreplaceable cultural resources, and wetlands. The road would also eliminate coastal recreational opportunities at San Onofre State Beach, the fifth most popular park in the State Park system.
5) Reasonable alternatives to the Toll Road are available now. The Coastal Commission specifically identified several such alternatives, such as improving I-5 with carpool lanes and expanding local arterials, that would provide congestion relief similar to or better than the Toll Road. Transportation experts have confirmed that these alternatives are reasonable and available to TCA.
6) The Toll Road is not necessary to our national security. The Marines stated that neither the Toll Road nor its associated “enhancements” are essential to adequate security at Camp Pendleton.
For more information about the Save San Onofre Coalition, visit www.savesanonofre.com.
Posted by: Save San Onofre | October 03, 2008 at 05:34 PM
The agency who wants this road are FOR PROFIT ! They do not care about anything but profit. If you believe otherwise you are not paying attention.
If we don't preserve the natural beauty that we have left it will ALL be gone.
There are too many examples to mention, and greed is the human condition .
Posted by: bob bass | October 03, 2008 at 05:55 PM
We all understand that freeway congestion is a nightmare. I hate sitting in traffic! But right now we are faced with a critical decision- we can either expand roads and build over the top of natural reserves, or we can change the way we travel!
Sitting on a train is so much nicer than sitting in the car! Please, lets fight for proactive progress. We all want the same thing, we just want it done in different ways.
Contact OC Transit and ask them to build us a train!
customers@octa.net
Be innovative!!
Posted by: Aaron | October 03, 2008 at 06:38 PM
In 1921 my grandparents left Scotland and came to California. My mother was born here, I was born here and my son was born here. We are "invested", not a business or a labor organization, we are citizens of California. Please respect the people of California. We want our State Parks to remain State Parks, places where we can go and enjoy the natural beauty of our state..........a place where our children and grand-children can enjoy in the future. The California Coastal Commission has said "NO" to this toll road, we the people say "NO" to this toll road. The self-serving interests of labor and big business are the only ones who stand to gain from this toll road. The people who attended the hearings told me that the only reason they were there was for the money. They said that they were paid $29.00 per hour and brought down to Del Mar in buses. There are other alternatives to this problem and we should look at them before doing something that we can never reverse. Again, please do what is right and say "NO" to the toll road. Thank you.
Posted by: roy bream | October 03, 2008 at 07:06 PM
The City Project is proud to work with the United Coalition to Protect Panhe, the Native American Acjachemen people, and a diverse and growing national alliance of civil rights, social justice, and environmental justice leaders to stop the toll road and save the sacred Native American site of Panhe and San Onofre State Beach.
We have urged the Commerce Department to uphold the 8-2 decision of the California Coastal Commission to stop the toll road. The Department must defer to the state and federal agencies that oppose the toll road. The Department must defer to the elected Native American leaders and tribal members under the national policies favoring Native American self-determination and respectful government to government consultation. The Department must defer to the expertise of these agencies and Native Americans.
State agencies opposing the toll road to save Panhe and San Onofre include the California Coastal Commission. Commissioner Mary Shallenberger stated at the February 6 hearing that the impacts against the Native Americans are reason enough to stop the toll road. The Native Americans are entitled to decide how to protect their own sacred sites. Why is that? Because Native Americans bear a special relationship with their ancestral lands.
“From the Indian perspective, the relationship with their ancestral lands operates in the form of a sacred covenant between the community and the land, in which Indian people regularly minister to the land as stewards and the land reciprocates by supporting, nurturing and teaching the community to live in proper balance with its surroundings.”
The Acjachemen people will lose a 9,000 year old village and current burial ground, sacred site, and ceremonial site. No one else will. Panhe is also the site of the first baptism in California. The Acjachemen people built San Juan Capistrano mission.
The Native American Heritage Commission agrees with the Coastal Commission because the impacts against Panhe are completely unmitigated.
The California State Historic Preservation Hearing Officer (SHPO) has testified that the impacts on Panhe are unmitigatable, they simply cannot be mitigated.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has questioned whether the Federal Highway Administration has the ability to evaluate the impacts on Panhe without consulting with the Native American tribes and the SHPO. Those consultations with the Native Americans have not occurred.
Native American elected tribal leaders including Joe O’Campo and Sonia Johnston oppose the toll road in letters to the Department. Three tribal resolutions have been passed against the toll road.
Under the Coastal Zone Management Act, (1) there is no national interest in putting a local private toll road through a public state park and a sacred site over the objections of the state of California and the Native Americans. (2) Any national interest in such a local private toll road is outweighed by the discriminatory impacts against the Acjachemen people and the impacts on the environment. (3) There are reasonable alternatives to the toll road, including fixing the 5 freeway, car pooling, and transit including bus and rail service.
There is no national security interest that justifies discriminating against the Native American people by building a toll road that would devastate their sacred site. The United States Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States approved racial discrimination when it upheld an executive order relocating Japanese and Japanese-Americans to concentration camps. That decision has been reversed in the court of history.
Finally, the toll road discriminates against working class people who are entitled to affordable recreation at San Onofre State Beach and affordable transportation. Coastal Commissioner Larry Clark emphasized these concerns on Febraury 6. The Southern California Association of Governments has called for a multiagency effort including transit to alleviate disparities in access to state and national parks in its 2008 regional transportation plan environmental justice report. The toll road destroying San Onofre and Panhe is the opposite of what environmental justice requires.
Robert Garcia Executive Director and Counsel The City Project
Visit www.savepanhe.org and www.savesanonofre.org.
Posted by: Robert Garcia | October 03, 2008 at 09:40 PM
The transportation corridor agencies are made up of a bunch of litigators. Their points are words, with very little substantial evidence.
1. The 5 has never had a traffic problem at the San Onofre location, North or south.
1b. In the event of an evacuation, no one in San Clemente will have to drive south towards the plant to evacuate.
2. Once again, relief is not needed in this area. The borders Camp Pendelton, and is never congested.
3. Once again, there is no congestion in this area. Do we see the fruitless repeated attempts at pushing the public into falling for scare tactics?
4. The two miles of untreated waters are on Federal land. The tests that have been conducted over the past decade (that's over thanks to our Governor, who abolished water testing in Southern Cali) do not show a water quality issue. Two miles? Are you kidding me?
5. Clean air act? OK, I am not a super genius, but once again this falls back to traffic congestion, of which there is none. This is the fourth attempt by the TCA to brain wash the word congestion into our memories. DO NOT FALL FOR IT!
6. The military? Roads do not help the military. They would rather none of us in the area as they train with live weapons carried by troops, heli's, jets, and tanks.
21 million residents of Southern California will be majorly affected in one way; their taxes will be spent to pay the litigators that destroyed a national treasure.
Please read between the lines. Sometimes knowledge is the best weapon.
Posted by: Mark Nakagawa | October 03, 2008 at 09:42 PM
My responses to each item:
#1. False claim. Nobody in their right mind will drive toward a nuclear accident to escape a nuclear accident.
#2. Uhmm, exactly what important goods & services are coming from Mexico? Are they legal? If so then why don't you make a toll road to Tijuana instead? Note: The ATA (American Truckers Associatation) is against toll roads--adds to the cost of moving goods and services, tolls are capable of putting the smaller trucking companies out of business--see their website or Google this for more info.
#3. The Coastal Commission found the Toll Road illegal... And what does the train track have to do with this topic? FYI, I go to Trestles often. I take the I5. From LA county. I've NEVER had a problem getting there. I'm still trying to find this traffic jam keeping me from going to the beach, I can't find it. Please help me, contact me down on the beach.
#4. False claim. TCA has a track record of attempts at "water quality improvement" along their roads that NEVER WORK.
#5. False again. They plan to propose building of about 26 more housing developments along the 241 extension--this is not in national interest as that will not assist the State with clean air. More houses=more cars=more carbon emissions. STOP KILLING US! What does TCA get for every house built along the toll road? Impact use fee $4k+ per new home or business! Does anyone honestly believe them on this clean air thing?
#6. How would a toll road enhance training missions at Camp Pendleton? Target practice?
How does a toll road (built by a company that already has toll roads with financial problems) benefit a large metropolitan area when it is to be located in a wilderness!!!! Don't you have to put a road in a metropolitan area to really benefit a metropolitan area and it's traffic issues? How does a toll road (east-west route) relieve traffic of the I5 (north-south route)? I don't believe that will work very well...
Widen the I5! Build the toll road someplace where it will do some good. Do both and then you can double the jobs! And leave the state park exactly as is, toll roads do not belong in state parks or beaches.
Posted by: Cindy | October 03, 2008 at 11:05 PM
I attended the hearings in Del Mar. The proponents of the 241 extension all spoke of this roads necessitiy.
"If the road is so necessary, why isn't it public". That was the question I wrote on my protest placard.
It would be interesting to know just HOW much PUBLIC money is going into this PRIVATELY administered TOLL road AND how much is the State going to get out of this deal and WHEN will any remuneration for Public monies used be scheduled.
I suspect there will be many bond investitures and those investors will probably garner a greate deal of money in the beginning before the State earn one dime!
Posted by: Paul Aguilar | October 03, 2008 at 11:34 PM
I live in Riverside, in the "Inland Empire." Lucky to work out here also, and not commute to OC, where I grew up. However, 3 or 4 weeks every summer I camp at beach, on the base near San Onofre and the Trestles. I love it there. We take the toll road from the 91. Usually have to make a trip in the middle of each week to pick-up or bring grandkids back home. That means 12-15 trips on the toll road every summer. Currently costs us $6.00-$7.00 one-way, depending on when we travel. What I have seen on the toll road is... NO TRAFFIC. Ever. Not at 4-6 pm. Not at 5-9 am. However, the 91 is ALWAYS jam-packed. The obvious conclusion is, the toll roads ONLY benefit a few people. I cannot see how the toll roads have done much to ease traffic or reduce vehicle exhaust.
Additionally, though I see the fast-trak lanes on 91 are moving along pretty good about 75% of the time (max estimate), I can't help but wonder, what if these lanes were open to ALL drivers, would that relieve congestion and fumes? I propose we try that experiment for a week; see what happens.
The extension of the 241 is a bad idea. Even worse is the building of 14,000 new homes in that area! That's at least 28,000 more cars. That land should be left alone. I really believe that the only people benefiting are very few, 1-2% of all Southern Californians. And this road is for national interest? Funny, in a ridiculous sort of way!
Posted by: Pennie Wyrick | October 04, 2008 at 09:51 AM
Even if the toll road were built, it would leave Interstate 5 significantly congested. But we can save the state park and really relieve traffic congestion at the same time – simply by widening Interstate 5 in southern Orange County. Such widening is now being done all the way north to Los Angeles, yet the self-serving toll road agency claims it "can't be done" in southern Orange County. This position is untenable in light of draft plans now put forward by the Orange County Transportation Authority to perform this very widening. There is no excuse for sacrificing a park.
Posted by: Dan Silver | October 04, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Thank you so very much for allowing us to post in this forum. A few months back I attended a lecture in Fallbrook, CA. The main lecturer was one of the heads of the U.S. Geological Survey, Pasadena. The lecture was presented and heavily attended by first responders and a very conservative, concerned community. Seismologist Lucile Jones explained that we (southern California) is 150 years LATE for the "big quake" on the San Andreas fault. She explained that fires and other catastrophe are natural events preceeding any quake. She explained that after the small Northridge quake in 1994, there were 110 fires that first responders had to attend to. First responders also spoke. They explained that we are understaffed and not even remotely prepared for natural catastrophe in southern California. They explained that new roads and development are a major hinderance until we (southern California) is properly staffed and we've decided throughout the south on our current water issues. The first responders explained that many fire houses were built in the 1960's and when large quakes occur, they may not even be able to get out of their fire houses. In a major catastrophe, the first responders explained that they must think of their lives and families first and that we must be proactive, wise, and responsible when it comes to overdevelopment, poor planning, disaster preparedness, and water issues. Please let's stop this development rush and greed until we have all homes built for those that lost their homes in 2003 as well as 2008. Please let us pay our San Diego Firefighters properly so they stop leaving the city and moving off to where they can be paid value for value. Please let us all agree on responsible, ethical, safe, and sound IPR water solutions and stop the slander perpetrated by greedy, manipulated leaders like San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders. When do we pay attention to facts instead of rhetoric and lies? Why did Arnold immediately fire Clint Eastwood and his brother-in-law Bobby Shirver (California State Parks Commission) immediately after we won the first hearing back in February? Why don't we live in the truth and bugger being intimidated by money and greed? The toll road extension is illegal. Please let that truth speak for itself and let us live a wiser and more peaceful existence here in southern Cali.
Posted by: Beatrice Arthur | October 04, 2008 at 03:06 PM
Please see the video of Acjachemen elders and tribal members speaking of the meaning of Panhe in their lives at www.savepanhe.org and www.savesanonofre.org. The following is a transcript of that video.
Anita Espinoza Cruz: My name is Anita Espinoza Cruz. I was born in Orange County, Fullerton, 1928. I am Acjachmen Indian, yes. It’s not just our sacred land here which is a big factor. It’s so sad to even think that there will be destruction here and our wildlife, where are they all going to? Very sad if they do permit the toll road to come through. I just hope and pray that it does not go through. Panhe means a sacred village site where my ancestors have been buried.
Michael Tacayos Bracamontes: Panhe Najoana for me means a place of beginning, a place where everything begins.
Alfred Cruz: Well, Panhe’s important because that’s where I came from, that’s … my ancestors are buried there. We come from Panhe, we come from Patee, and we come from some of the old Tuppleway and some of the other … old villages, you know.
Domingo Belardes: It’s a place where we can be ourselves basically. Be who we were born to be. Be native. Enjoy the land, the plants, and the animals and be able to do our ceremonies and sing sing our songs so our ancestors can feel good again.
Rebecca Robles: I consider it a power place, a spirit place, a gathering place, a holding place, and you know like when I walk around I feel kind of at peace like a going home, sort of a feeling.
Richard Andrew Quiroz: Like today for instance, you know, coming here with the song fest and any chance I have to come out here and just spend time with our tribe, you know, no matter who with, you know, which people it is or just myself, you know, just come out here and just be here is very uplifting for me, it’s very strenghtful in some ways, it gives me peace.
Anita Espinoza Cruz: And when I come here it’s like I belong and I feel the presence of my, of my ancestors, I feel close to them. I feel like this is a place of prayer. It’s not a church but it’s still, to us it’s like a church.
Michael Tacayos Bracamontes: This is where our history started here.
Rebecca Robles: I can trace my Acjachmen lineage through my mother, I’m Acjachmen. The baptismal records at San Juan Capistrano list Panhe as being my, my mother’s relatives’ home and 1779 they were baptized.
Michael Tacayos Bracamontes: To have, not just our ancestors, but to also to have a modern day Juaneño Acjachmen person, especially of my own blood, buried here on this beautiful land. And yes it’s a very great honor.
Alfred Cruz: And my dad would buy this fish. Its smoked fish, and we would go to the ocean and that’s part of Panhe there. And we always used to come and camp there, you know in the 50’s, I would take my kids there camping now and then. That part of Panhe always kind of brings me back and it has a lot of sense of you know just in my heart. It’s just something that I know that I belong there.
Michael Tacayos Bracamontes: Ever since I was at the age of 9, going as far back as 1981, during that time here at Panhe, this we turned into a thriving village again.
Domingo Belardes: There used to be, like 400 or 500 people here and we’d be able to sing our songs and then we’d be here for days. For days and doing ceremony.
Alfred Cruz: We play pion there. I’m a pion player also.
Anita Espinoza Cruz: We had a hyan that had not been done for over 500 years.
Rebecca Robles: I’ve participated in three ghost dances or spirit dances there. And then, I participated in the hyan.
Domingo Belardes: We also even brought in people from different, other tribes and stuff and done ceremonies with them. It’s been for, for many years that we’ve done it and I’ve come here since I was little. I was, like I said I’m 38 now, but I’ve been coming since I was young, 10 years old, been coming here cleaning the land, trying to make sure, tending to the plants that we want to grow, and then the ones where we’re trying to clear areas where we can camp out and and set our camps and stuff, so its been ongoing. Been down in the creek, down in San Mateo Creek off and on for many years, picking the willows or looking at the rocks, it’s just an array of stuff and been doing it since I was little.
Michael Tacayos Bracamontes: This was a place of wonder.
Richard Andrew Quiroz: I think the favorite thing I have here is just being able to be here with the elders and be able to take part in the ceremonies that our native people have done for many years.
Michael Tacayos Bracamontes: But my biggest worry is that I won’t be able to come here and see and pay respects to my uncle that’s here.
Rebecca Robles: My biggest fear would be it be altered in such a way and the beauty of it would be destroyed. The peacefulness of it would be destroyed. And then, the other question of that is that that would be destroyed for not, you know, in the name of want and greed. In the name you know, of building a road, you know. That we as people would not be wise enough to see that, that a place like that needs to be protected and needs to be preserved.
Anita Espinoza Cruz: And I will keep on praying, in hopes that they will listen.
The video is produced by United Coalition to Protect Panhe, The City Project, and Womyn Image Makers.
Posted by: Robert Garcia | October 04, 2008 at 05:46 PM
I cant wait to pay $10 to go to Rancho Santa Margarita - YAY!...and then see my taxes get sucked into Southern California's "bridge to nowhere" as it fails to pay for itself, juuuust like all of the other toll roads around here. I'm still unclear as to just how a road that dumps traffic onto I-5 will relieve traffic on I-5...I guess I should call TCA for some "new logic" & forked-tongue lessons. Take a tip - get hip & listen to the CCC on this one.
Posted by: scott harrison | October 04, 2008 at 06:02 PM
I presented the following testimony to the United States Department of Commerce on September 22, 2008.
The majority of us here represent the efforts of people from every walk of life and various cultures that are trying to save the world from human destruction. The dinosaurs did not know why they became extinct, but unlike them, we are able to understand our demise. It is time to be careful about how much of Mother Nature we destroy.
I am here to represent my ancestors from the Acjachemen Nation. We are the ancient people of this land. We are terrified at the thought of a toll road destroying our sacred land—an ancient village and burial site called Panhe.
There are no Great Pyramids at Panhe, no Stonehenge, no Great Wall, or no Machu Picchu. What exists at Panhe is a way of life, a culture, a place of worship, peace and tranquility.
Before my eyes I see it—the sage, sweet grass, trees and brush. I can smell it. It lies off the edge of San Mateo Creek beneath the earth, the bones of the ancients, and the body of my cousin, Ronnie Bracamontes, who was buried there about 15 years ago.
Is this sacred site so simple and plain for you that it holds no value in your eyes? There is no gold or oil for you to exploit; there is only my past, my culture and my life. Please look deep into your hearts and ask yourself, where and when should humankind stop building, excavating and expanding human creations in the name of progress. These kinds of super cement monuments you call freeways and toll roads are, to a great degree, contributing to the demise of Mother Nature and our planet.
Save this world from destruction. Start now by saving the San Onofre State Beach and the campgrounds at San Mateo Creek.
Save my precious Panhe so that your children and their children can see where you helped to stop destroying the planet. We must stop putting the profiteers of TCA before human integrity. We must understand the masquerade and consequences of these so-called “infrastructure improvements.”
I came here today to bare my naked soul to you. How can I prove to you that my culture, my life, and my existence are in great danger? The past behavior of your government has a history of making decisions based on the sea to shining sea, genocidal philosophy. I do not want to harm you. I am not asking for your riches. But I am shocked by the TCA corporation and their insistence to hurt and do harm to the Juaneno people. I do not mean any political talking heads that are self-served by taking money from TCA like David Belardes and others. I speak for the ordinary people like most of us here today.
What if I set a flame to end my life? Would that convince you? Or will your conscious allow this to be just another Native life taken by the continuation of the cultural and literal genocidal extinguishment of our peoples, your people, and the world’s peoples.
If you allow the toll road, will your conscious let you sleep peacefully without guilt? Will it be easy to look at yourself in the mirror knowing that you could have saved a man, a tribe, a planet and failed? Will you fail to stand on the side of JUSTICE?
I fear this death of a man, a tribe, and a planet, because it is not our time to die; it is premature. Mother Nature should dictate it, not humankind. I have only begun to live. And so too, has my tribe and my planet.
Have mercy on this man, this tribe and this world. I can see in your eyes that you are good people. I strip my dignity before you and beg you to do what is JUST. Please, do not allow this toll road to be built.
Robert Bracamontes
Visit www.savepanhe.org.
Posted by: Robert Bracamontes | October 04, 2008 at 06:14 PM