Completing Foothill South

Planning Timeline:1981: Foothill Corridor was added to MPAH1986: TCA is formed 1989-1991: EIR prepared and circulated Oct. 1991: F/ETCA Board certifies first project EIR1993: Federal EIS work begins 1994: NEPA 404 MOU signedM h 1999 P d N d t t t dMarch 1999: Purpose and Need statement approvedAug. 1999: Work begins on EIS/SEIR with Collaborative Nov. 1999: Phase I alternatives approved by Collaborative March 2001: EIS/SEIR public scoping meetings heldMarch 2001: EIS/SEIR public scoping meetings heldJune 2001: Notice of preparation circulated May 2004: Draft EIS/SEIR circulated for public reviewAug. 2004: Comment period closes; nearly 7,000 comments receivedAug. 2004: Comment period closes; nearly 7,000 comments received

Dec. 2005: Final EIR and Response to Comments releasedFeb. 2006: Final EIR is certified; the green alignment is selected

2004 EIS/SEIR Alternatives:

Green Alignment:

Traffic Improvement:

NO ACTION Green Alignment

Issues:• Environmental Effects and Mitigation

I S M C d• Impacts on San Mateo Campgrounds

• Restrictions put in place by the Department of NavyRestrictions put in place by the Department of Navy

• Approval of the federal and state regulatory agencies

View from the oceanE i ti C ditiExisting Conditions

With Project

View from the beach trail:Existing Conditions

With Project

View from San Mateo Park:Existing Conditions

With Project

Upcoming Events:

___________________

COASTAL COMMISSION HEARINGFEBRUARY 6, 2008,

____________________

Staff recommends denial of this transportation project, based on the assertion that it:

The Truth is:

Is not the only feasible alternative No other proposed alternative is feasible and provides an appropriate level of traffic relief to meet project need (see pages 9-24 herein)

Is not an allowable use of wetlands Is an incidental public service purpose, and therefore, an allowable use (see page 29 herein)

Results in the extinction of protected species

Will not jeopardize the existence of any species and will not adversely modify any critical habitat (see page 25 herein)(see page 25 herein)

Causes adverse water quality impacts Will improve water quality in the coastal zone by utilizing state of the art water quality system (seeutilizing state of the art water quality system (see page 50 herein)

Staff recommends denial of this transportation project, based on the assertion that it:

The Truth is:

Unreasonably interferes with a state park Will not affect operations or use of the park (see page 37 herein)

Impacts public views Will not adversely impact view by beach and trail users to and along the ocean (see page 37 herein)

Destroys Trestles Will not impact surfing resources at Trestles or other surfbreaks (see page 35 herein)

May harm Native American resources Avoids reburial and ceremonial sites (see pageMay harm Native American resources Avoids reburial and ceremonial sites (see page 43 herein)

Presents no conflict between Coastal Act Can be approved by balancing conflicts between policies which would trigger the balancing provision of the Act

ESHA/wetland policies and the Coastal Act policies promoting public access, public safety, water quality, and habitat enhancement (see pages 47-56 herein)

Write the Coastal Commission today. Ask them to approve Foothill Souththem to approve Foothill South.

ATTEND THE COASTAL COMMISSION HEARING.

9:00 AM9:00 AM

Wednesday, February 6th

Oceanside City Council ChambersOceanside City Council Chambers

300 North Coast Highway, Oceanside