My name is Mark Nielsen. I reside at 31621 Via Quixote and am Co-Chair of Citizens Against Uncontrolled San Juan Expansion (CAUSE). The issue of Home Depot is certainly a complex one, as we try to balance the economic benefits of the project to the City in the long-term versus the impact on the City's character and other businesses and residents of our City (not to mention the impact and economic benefit of alternatives). However, tonight we are focused on one specific aspect, and probably the most significant impact - that of traffic. It is no surprise that traffic and increased congestion is a top issue to all citizens of San Juan Capistrano. And unfortunately, the Traffic Analysis and report before you tonight has a number of flaws that render its conclusions at best, suspect and at worst, plain wrong. Without additional rework, this analysis is not in compliance with CEQA and sets the City up for badly degrading the already intolerable traffic situation with the promise of supposed "after-the-fact" mitigations.

Generally, the analysis is substantially flawed in:
1.  Failing to consider adequate alternatives and weekend impacts
2. Failing to consider accurate information with respect to Stonehill
3. Ignoring the inability to realistically complete many of the mitigations before     completion of the project when the significant impact occurs, or in some cases ever!
4. Ignoring that many mitigations are outside the control of the City or assuming other     future projects  will require the mitigation, though those projects may never materialize.

Under the first item, the Traffic Analysis completely ignores the study period which will show the greatest impact on increased traffic - the weekends. Home Depot itself will acknowledge that weekends comprise its greatest volume, and the impact on SJC residents will also likely be the greatest on those days. Yet the Traffic Analysis only concentrates on commute peak times Monday-Friday, and the impact during the summer. This is a fundamental and fatal flaw of the analysis and must be corrected before passing this report on. Saying we don't have to do a weekend analysis doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Anyone in town knows we don't get traffic backups on Southbound I5 during the week down here, but we certainly do on weekends.

In addition, the only alternatives looked at are quasi-industrial and a retail development of 160,000 square feet. An obvious alternative discussed at great length by many in the City, but ignored in the Traffic Analysis is RV storage, or a combination of a park with RV storage. The number of trips is also unclear under these alternatives - are the 1,850 daily trips for quasi-industrial and 8,720 for retail two-way trips or one-way? If two way, more explanation is required to justify the likelihood that a quasi-industrial use would generate 1,850 round trips when the number of employees onsite would be a fraction of that. Also, why would retail generate 8,720 trips when Home Depot, which is retail, would only generate 5,000 trips?

Regarding the second issue of accurate information on Stonehill, the Traffic Report is plain wrong when it bases its analysis on Stonehill having a speed limit of 50 mph and no street parking along it. The actual posted speed is 40 mph and there is plenty of street parking on both sides of Stonehill well into Dana Point. While the speed limit is 50 mph on the short stretch from the creek to Camino Capistrano, that increase in speed is unrealistic when you are approaching a major intersection. Again, the analysis needs to be based on accurate assumptions to conform to CEQA and to give it any credence.

The final two points can be taken together. The impact of the project is greatest on Stonehill, Camino Capistrano, and the ramps for both Southbound I5 at Camino Capistrano and Northbound I5 at Stonehill. However, a likely practical impact will be yet more traffic on Del Obispo through our town for those wishing to avoid the congestion caused by the Project through at least 2005, by the report's own estimates (CalTrans projected timeline). The I5 Southbound ramp at Camino Capistrano would degrade from LOS "D" to "E" in AM peak, and the current PM peak "F" would be significantly degraded by up to 70X what is considered significant! The mitigation for this gridlock would be left to the improbable hope that CalTrans will actually complete major roadwork that the Traffic Report itself states "The adverse daily impacts of the proposed project would remain significant and unavoidable on Camino Capistrano because this two-lane section currently cannot be improved to its ultimate 4-lane roadway width due to right-of-way constraints and proximity of the OCTA Metrolink Railroad Tracks and the I5 Freeway."

Even if the work miraculously is completed in this timeframe (ignoring past history and the impact of multi-billion dollar State budget shortfalls), the significant impact would exist literally for years before relief came - a clear problem under CEQA. Further, the impact on backing up traffic onto the I5 freeway due to a significant increase in delay times is not addressed directly. This is a common oversight in many Traffic Analysis and is a major issue with respect to the present project. As a side issue, the analysis uses traffic estimates for 2003 as the basis for these off-site improvements which is contrary to the City's own Council policy of requiring them to be based on 2020 projected traffic volumes. Saying a long-term buildout analysis wasn't required has no basis in fact and is contrary to Council policy.

Finally, the re-striping of Stonehill requires another City to make the changes. Dana Point is already on record opposing this project and there is no law I am aware of that will allow SJC to force Dana Point to make these mitigations. Without the Stonehill re-striping, there is no alternative mitigation. This report is sorely deficient under CEQA by not including mitigations that are under control of the City.

In addition, the report fails to take into account that the mitigation of re-striping Stonehill will eliminate the Class II bicycle trail that is incorporated as part of Stonehill. Hardly a result that is in keeping with our desire for more trails.

Bottom line is that serious deficiencies exist in the Traffic Analysis that must be reworked before this Commission should accept the report and pass it on. In particular, we would ask you to make clear that realistic traffic mitigations must be in place before the significant impacts of this project are allowed to further degrade an already intolerable traffic problem. "Build it and hope that the mitigations will follow" is a bad policy and would be a major disservice to this community. I urge you to vote in favor of Alternate Action #3 of the Staff Report and send back this report to be reworked until it is adequate. 11/28/01.

Paid for by Citizens for Mark Nielsen * 27126-B Paseo Espada Suite 725 * SJC CA 92675 * 949.325.0130