My Position on Traffic Issues and Measure Y

By Michael A. "Mike" Philbrick

Where I stand on on these important issues and how I plan to take on the challenge.

Here are some of my thoughts and postitions on the major traffic issues in town. Included are my assessment of the following traffic challenges:

241 Extension

La Pata/Antonio Parkway

Ortega Highway Widening

Ortega/I-5 Interchange

I-5 Freeway

Out-of-town traffic

Del Obispo

San Juan Creek Road Extension

Other Ideas

241 Extension

I support the extension of the 241 tollroad. It makes no sense to have built the road as far as it goes and not finish it. To not finish it would be a joke and a bad one at that. We need it now even without the development that is already entitled. But when we consider the ultimate buildout of the Rancho Mission Viejo property, the extension of the 241 is an absolutely crucial necessity.

But extending the 241 alone is not enough. There's more!

La Pata/Antonio Parkway

Linking La Pata from Antonio Parkway into San Clemente is a crucial improvement to help divert out-of-town traffic around San Juan Capistrano. In recent developments, residents of Talega (San Cleemnte) are fighting the two propsoed alignments for La Pata making it just that much more difficult to complete this vital linkage.

Ortega Highway Widening

I am all for widening Ortega Highway. It will need to be widened all the way from the Hunt Club to wherever it crosses the extension of the 241. I recognize fully the potential noise impacts and loss of cherished vegetation that will result from this widening. But to buy property and live along a State highway, virtually the only east/west link into the City, and suppose that it will never need to be widened is to live in a fantasy world.

I know there are some running for election that say not to widen Ortega because it will just bring more traffic. They say will should constrict linkages into the community by leaving them unwidened and find other ways/new routes that would force out-of-town traffic around San Juan Capistrano. Well, that could be a viable option, IF there were any other potential routes to the north or south that could create new links to the I-5 freeway. Guess what? There aren't any!! Easterly extensions to Avery and/or Junipero Serra will not happen. The routes for those two streets to the east are incumbered by difficult topography and/or existing developemnt that would be prohibitively expensive to purchance for the right-of-way. To invite more traffic to the I-5/Avery interchange is madness! The Avery interchage would need to be blown up and rebuilt to handle the onslaught of traffic.

There are no other viable routes from the east to the I-5 freeway otherthan Ortega. To not widen Ortega is to put one's head in the sand, ignore the problem, and just hope that somehow the traffic will go away. As you well know, not much ever gets solved by putting your head in the sand. Traffic is no different.

Ortega Highway/I-5 interchange

Build it now. I do not care what it blows out. As long as it impacts nothing further west (towards the Mission) than Del Obispo, there should be no reason that we should not support this long overdue improvement. I've never understood why we needed three Chevron stations herein town let alone two on either side of the freeway. We seem to have managed through the loss of the ARCO across from the Mission and the Shell that used to be at the northbound on ramp to I-5 at Ortega so I imagine we'll get along without one (or both) of these. If we lose a fast food restaurant or two, well that might actually help (although I would miss some of their food). Denny's might be gone and that would be regretable but if that's what's needed, what else can be done?

The most significant problem I see is the impact to San Juan Elementary. we need to work to minimize the impact to this campus and to provide added measure to protect the children there from noise and air polluutant impacts. Perhaps new school buildings could be made part of the package.

All of these changes are regretable. Nobody wants to kick businesses out of the way for a road. But we cannot afford to leave ourselves stuck in the 50's. San Juan Capistrano is still San Juan Capistrano, but it is not the San Juan Capistrano of yesterday.

We can welcome this needed interchange improvement and still retain, protect, and enhance the cultural and historic resources of our downtown. We need to do something to handle the traffic at this intechange becaise when folks driving along the I-5 see traffic on both the northbound and southbound off-ramps backing up on to the freeway itself, it sets abad image for the City and people are loathe to get off and visit or shop the next time they might drive through.

I-5 (San Diego)Freeway

Much of the focus is on the 241 extension and the La Pata connection. This ignore the serious need to pay attention to improvements needed for the I-5 freeway. We cannot allow our efforts to promote new roads divert our attention from seeking needed improveents to our existing roads. The completion of the 241 will not solve our problems unless the I-5 is also properly maintained and necessarily widened. Interchanges at Camino Capistrano/La Novia, J Serra, Avery, Crown Valley, and Oso must be enhanced to improve capacity and flow.

Out-of-Town Traffic

It's time to stop whining about out-of-town traffic and start doing something about it. Look, San Juan Capistrano is San Juan Capistrano because of where it is located. It just wouldn't be San Juan Capistrano if it was located somewhere else.

Let's face it, we are located at the hub of three large surrounding communities San Clemente, Dana Point, and Mission Viejo. The only way to change that is to pick San Juan Capistrano up and put it somewhere else. That can't happen and even if it could I don't think anyone would want to do it. So let's accept the fact that we are going to be impacted by out-of-town traffic. What we do not have to accept is how that out-of-town traffic is handled, directed, and channeled.

There are no doubt other towns that are similarly impacted and no doubt other towns that have learned ways to successfully address the problem. There are no doubt traffic enginerring firms that have innovative ideas to help a community like ours address this problem.

The keys as I see it are to promote the 241 extension so that traffic coming in from the east can opt for that road to go north (or south) rather than coming into town to get the I-5. That alone would be a big help. Antonio Parkway has helped to a degree but it could be a much bigger help if it were connected through to San Clemente.

Over on the west side, Stonehill will forever be Dana Point's driveway to the I-5. Get used to it. Caltrans appears to be doing all they can to relieve the pressure and maybe once this current improvement is completed it will get better. The good news is that there isn't much potential for Dana Point to add more traffic to this intersection. Of course an off-ramp at Stonehill would be a great improvement, helping to relieve congestion on the Camino Capistrano exit, but due to constraints, this improvement is unlikely.

Del Obispo

Plans are in the works for a widening to accommodate a continuous fourlane roadway from Alipaz all the way to Del Avion. That will be a big help. Plans are also in the works for improvements to the Del Obispo bridge. I presume this is also a widening project that will hopefully include potential for a dual westbound left turn lane at Alipaz. This would be a tremendous new relief.

San Juan Creek Road Extension

I do not support the extension of San Juan Creek Road to La Pata. While I can see some benefit to it (secondary access point, emergency evacuation route, etc.) the negatives, for me, outwiegh the positives. This is a rural roadway adjacent to many stables, a park, and most importantly an elementary school that is already heavily impacted by traffic. To open up this roadway to through traffic would be an invitation to serious accidents and numerous safety considerations.

Other Ideas

One improvement that would be difficult to accomplish but a tremendous boon to the overall roadway network would be an extension of Del Avion east with a bridge across the creek overto link up with Camino Capistrano to tie into new on and off ramps with the I-5. This would present an alternative to Stonehill and would not force cars to make a right off the southbound off-ramp at Camino Capistrano and go through town to get to Del Obispo just so they can get to Dana Point. This option of course is complicated by a few homes on the west side of the creek, some businesses on the east side of the creek, but mostly by the railroad adjacent to Camino Capistrano. The railroad also is a constraint for widening Camino Capistrano itself from two lanes to four south of the off-ramp.

Measure Y/Golf Course Renovation

I am not a golfer. I hope to be one someday when I have the extra time and money. There can be no doubt that San Juan Hills Golf Course is an asset and a resource for our community.

In concept, I'm generally in favor of the upgrades proposed to San Juan Hills Golf Course. Certainly the parking lot needs improvement and we do need to eliminate the jaywalking problems on San Juan Creek Road. The upgrade of the clubhouse makes a lot of sense. Certainly, having the corner at La Novia and San Juan Creek Road upgraded from weed-choked City property to a well-manicured golf course hole would be an improvement. In addition, the upgrades to the streetscape along San Juan Creek Road (landscaping, trail improvements) are a desirable enhancement.

But there are a lot of issues that have yet to be addressed and until they are addressed and directly dealt with and resolved as part of a formal action by the City Council on the project, Measure Y should be defeated.

Loss of Open Space

For the City Council to promote the acquisition of more open space and ask us the tax payers to pay for it while at the same time they grant a sweetheart deal to a developer that gives away over 10 acres of open space, is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

While this open space may not be accessible to everyone, mostly benefiting the golfers, it is visually accessible to all who drive down San Juan Creek Road. The visual access to that open space is a tangible benefit offering visual relief to the surrounding built environment. To replace it with more residential development would require an enormous effort to offer the City something commensurate in return. Even if replacement open space were offered, the loss of this visual relief would be significant.

Catch Fences/Liability

How will the extended course affect the need for more and/or taller catch fences? Where will those catch fences be located? Will a catch fence, however short it might be, be required all the way down San Juan Creek Road to La Novia and down La Novia to the creek? If not, How will errant balls be contained and prevented from damaging cars? Are the catch fences enough?

My cars have been struck twice by errant golf balls. Over my 11+ years of living here I've probably seen 20 or 30 balls hit over the catch fence onto San Juan Creek Road. A guess what? The course is not liable!!!! Both times I was hit, I was instructed by course management to track down the golfer guilty of the sliced ball. I was unable to do so on one occasion and on the other, the golfer I was able to track down admitted to hitting the ball that hit me but gave me false information so my insurance had to pick up the tab both times. This liability issue and the adequacy of the fence heights need to be addressed.

Existing Clubhouse and Parking Lot

For some reason, the operators insist on retaining the existing clubhouse and parking lot. Why? I've heard they want to create a side business creating a facility for banquets, weddings, and other events not related to the operation of the golf course.

If the new facilities are built on the north side of the street, the existing facilities should come down. Parking lots on both sides of the street will only contribute to the continual problem of jaywalking across San Juan Creek Road. If for whatever reason, these faciltities are retained, the plan must include physical barriers (tall, continuous fencing and/or a planted median with fencing in the middle of San Juan Creek Road).

Trail Improvements

While the offer of trail improvements along San Juan Creek Road is a nice touch (bait), this concept has not even remotely been fully thought out. Here are some questions about the trail:

Where does the trail go? Does it stop at Atria? Does it go past Public Storage and the veterinarian's office? Does it go in front of the Plant Depot? If it goes to the Plant Depot, then where does it go? Does it transition across to the south side of San Juan Creek Road? If so, where does that transition occur? How will the road right-of-way need to be modified to accommodate this trail? If the trail requires new curb and gutters (which it almost certainly will), who pays for that, the City? What if the property owners the trail impacts don't want the trail in front of their business or residences? What trail(s) does it link to? Who will pay for those trails linkages and when will they be built?

If all of these questions can be answered, the question becomes who will pay for all the improvements? Is the golf course offering to pay for all the needed linkages (both off-site and on-site)and the costs of modifying the curbs and gutters or is he just offering to pay for a trail to nowhere, that would end at Atria or at the 10-acre site that would become the 189 senior housing development?

Believe it or not, NONE of these questions has been answered. They are NOT a part of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change that are the subject of Measure Y. According to city staffers, all of these details have yet to be resolved and will not be resolved until such time as the project itself moves forward and that can only happen if Measure Y passes.

Are you willing to risk all these unknonwns, leaving the details to be worked out between the developer and the City Council? I'm not.

I'm sorry but a trail to nowhere and a place to hold the City of San Juan Capistrano city picnic is wholly insufficient compensation for the loss of 10 acres of open space. This deal reeks of favoritism and does little to compensate the commnuity for the loss of 10 acrss of open space.

The property owners have the right to operate the golf course and develop it in compliance with current zoning regulations. If they wish to expand or renovate the facilities, they are welcome to do so in compliance with current standards. Measure Y is not about whether the property owners are allowed to renovate or not. Measure Y is a scheme devised to finance the renovations. Measure Y would finance the renovations through indirect expense to the taxpayers by removing 10 acres of open space from our community, rezoning that 10 acres for housing that would make it worth around $15,000,000, then leaving the developer, and the developer alone to reap the benefit of that windfall profit.

Now, if they took some of that $15,000,000 and went out and bought the City some replacement open space and donated it to the City, then we'd be somewhere.

Some folks have referred to this issue as a matter of property rights. Where property rights are concerned, that is when a property owner develops his property in accordance with the applicable land use regulations in place at the time; I am a staunch advocate for property rights.

However, when a property owner asks that rules be changed (through a general plan amendment or zone change), community needs and expectations must take precedence. When a property owner asks for changes in land use regulations it is no longer a property rights issue. Describing Measure Y as a property rights issue infers that the property owner has an absolute right to obtain the requisite general plan amendment and zone change. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Even if all these issues could be resolved there is still the matter of the added housing and the traffic associated with it. What would they look like? How tall would they be? How close to the roadway would they be? What transporation improvements would be required of the project to handle the added traffic? How does this added housing, located in a flood plain no less, add to the rural charcter and charm of our commnuity?

Certainly, the area would become less rural with the homes being added. Is the City getting enough in return for that loss or is there no way to compensate for that loss? These are all questions you must ask yourself before deciding on Measure Y.

In my estimation, this proposal does not even come close to being a good deal for the City. Between the loss of open space, the gift of $15,000,000 to the golf course to finance their renovation, the red herring of a trail system that really is just a link to nowhere with no guarantee that it will ever link to anything, the added traffic, and the visual relief lost by the presence of more multi-story residential development, I just can't see how the City really gains from this proposal.

don't be fooled. The improvements along both street frontages are requirements, not something the golf course owners are doing out of the goodness of their hearts. The other problem I see is the massive windfall created for the golf course by rezoning the driving range to residential.

I have serious concerns about this aspect of the project, based mostly on concerns over density and height more than on concerns over open space or view corridors as many have voiced. Rezoning of this property will generate huge sums of money for the golf course operators. I realize that this money is needed to finance the renovations to the course and clubhouse but what's in it for the City? Seriously. Why should the City line the pockets of this developer and get nothing (that isn't somehow already required) in return? In cases such as this, where a general plan amendment and zone change are in order, the City needs to get aggressive in evaluating the projects for benefit to the City. If there are none, then the City needs to start negotiating with the applicant to acquire some benefit to the community. Some may call it blackmail. I would just call it leverage. Whatever you call it, it's legal and its done all the time between cities and developers through a mechanism called a development agreement.

The pull-back Plan B option of a park at the corner of La Novia and San Juan Creek is a red herring and a bad idea. Who decides the design of this new park and the improvements included in it? Where does the access go? What is the interface with the adjacent golf course? Is that intersection really a good place for a park? None of these concerns has been fully thought out and I'd guess the City would leave it to the developer to make those decisions. Why? The City should be in the driver's seat on this project. In reality, the City really is in the driver's seat but unfortunately our council has chosen to act as if it isn't.

There is also the aesthetic issue of the catch fences. The existing fences are ineffective (I've been hit by errant balls twice and witnessed several other balls clear the fence) and not all that attractive. This aspect of the project was never discussed so I'll have to guess on how it would have been handled. They would probably need to extend the fence all the way down San Juan Creek Road to La Novia and then down La Novia to the creek. How lovely would that be? Talk about your view killers.