Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-08-07; City Council; 5941; Proposed Revision County Circulation Element SA680-A �I AGENDA BILL NO: CITY OF CARLSBAD ) 411 INITIAL Dept. Hd. -DATE: August 7, 1979 City Atty. DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: City Mgr. PROPOSED REVISION TO COUNTY CIRCULATION ELEMENT REGARDING SA680 STATEMENT OF TIIE 14ATTER: In 1978, the County of San Diego approved an amendment to the Circulation Element of their general plan that downgraded and eliminated a•number of major roads south of Carlsbad. One of the major changes proposed at that time was the deletion of a prime arterial connecting Leucadia Boulevard with Interstate 15 near Rancho Penasquitos. Since there was much -opaosition to this deletion from the City of Carlsbad as well as Rancho Santa Fe and the City of. San Diego, the Board Of Supervisors only downgraded the ddsignation of the road and -instructed their staff to prepare a supplemental environmental impact report and study for the roadway. That study has now been completed and a supplemental environ- mental impact report is being processed by the County. Staff has reviewed the environmental impact report and submitted comments to the County per the attached letter. Staff has two basic concerns with the study that was conducted. First, there are questions regarding some of the traffic projections and how the deletion or downgrading of SA680 might affect adjoining roads in the City of Carlsbad. Second, staff thinks that adequate alternatives were not studied in regards to alignment or connecting points of SA680. The environmental review process ended on July 27, 1979. ` However, further input could be made at the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisor hearing later in August. EXHIBITS -'letter to the Board of Supervisors dated July 18, 1979 Letter to Paul Bussey dated July 23, 1979 Draft environmental impact report - SA680 revision (ON FILE IN CLERK'S RECOMMENDATION OFFICE) If the Council wishes to provide further input to the County on this matter, instruct staff to prepare the necessary documents for transmittal. FORM - PLANNING 79 I AGENDA BILL NO. 5941 Page 2 Council Action: 8-7-79 Council directed that a member of Council and staff appear at the appropriate hearings to express Council's concerns about the matter. d 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008 July 18, 3.979 i v1 f Vtp of earWbab TELEPHONE: (Ira) 729.1181 Board of Supervisors ; County of San Diego 1600 Pacific Highway San Diego, Ca. 92101 Re: Draft EIR for SA-680 Revision Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft environmental impact report for the proposed reclassification of the road SA-680 1 in the County's Circulation Element of their General Plan. The City's Planning and Engineering Department staffs and transportation engineering consultant have reviewed the draft EIR and would ap- preciate a response to the following comments: 1. We believe the directive of the Board of Supervisors, as summarized in the first paragraph of page one of the draft EIR, was not thoroughly carried out in the draft EIR. That is, we feel that all of the potentially feasible alignments for SA- 680 were not adequately addressed in the draft EIR. In fact, all of the alternative alignments that were studied, with the excep- tion of alternative D, appear to be almost identical. They all begin at the same location on Del Dios Highway and end roughly at Olivenhain Road and E1 Camino Real. 2. Section 15143(d) of the CEQA guidelines requires a description of "all reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, and why they were rejected in favor of the ultimate choice." We contend that alternative alignments of an east -west transportation corridor, lying south of Palomar Airport Road and north of the SF-728 alignment, were not studied as re- quired by CEQA. ;e recognize that this omission is probably not pertinent to the very limited project description used in the draft EIR. However, we also recognize that a thorough analy- sis of the basic objective of the project cannot be completed until these alternative alignments are studied. a .j Board of Supervisors July 11, 1979 Page 2 3. Since the easterly extension of Leucadia Blvd. to E1 Camino Real has now been deleted by the Board of Supervisors, it is illogical to align SA 680 with the existing Olivenhain Road. Every effort should be made to align SA 680 with the existing Encinitas Blvd., since the latter is classified as a "Major Road" and has already been construct-d to its ultimate width as far east as Rancho Santa Fe Road. 4. Since Olivenhain Road is part of the alternatives studied, and Olivenhain Road is partially within the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad, we believe we should have received a Notice of Prep- aration for this EIR according to CEQA Guidelines. We never re- ceived ,-sch a notice. 5. The proposed 1995 ADT volumes (Table 2, page 20) appear highly questionable. For example, the 1995 ADT for Del Dios Highway with the SA 680 revision alternative is estimated to be 4,000 vehicles per day. Yet on the Comprehensive Planning Organization's 1978 traffic flow map, the current volumes are already 8,000 vehicles/day: = Therefore, the estimated 10,000 vehicles/day for SA 680 may be very low also. 6. The emhasis to reduce the classification of SA 680 from a prime arterial down to a collector road (84' ROW) instead of down to a major road (102' ROW) does not appear sound for the following reasons: a) Both classifications are for four -lane facilities. b) The safety features associated with major roads (e.g., raised Wedians.witb openings at carefully spaced inter -sections, better access control, wider separation between the two directions of travel) far outweigh the disadvantage of requiring eighteen (18) additional feet of right-of-way. c) A better level of service will be guaranteed by a major road ,than by a collector road, especially if the traffic projections are wrong. d) Since landscaping can be placed in the median and/or the two directions or travel can be elevated, thus minimizing cuter, the major road can be a lot more aesthetic than a collector road. 7. Since no contour raps were provided in the draft EIR, it is impossible to adequately compare the various alternatives. Board of Supervisors July 11, 1979 Page 3 8. While it may be appropriate for the San Dieguito Community Plan to regulate growth impacts within the area by proper land use controls, deleting or downgrading County regionally significant road systems does not appear appropriate. This and past actions of deletion and t downgrading will have serious consequences on the circulation system in the City of Carlsbad as well as other nearby communities, including those in San Dieguito. We hope that these comments will be a benefit in your evaluation of the project. If you have any questions, please contact Mi'ele Zander in tite Planning Department at 729-1181. Sincerely, Paul D. Bussssey City Manager cc: les Evans City Engineer James Hagaman, Planning Director Michael Zander, Associate Planner San Diego County Environmental Review Board Herman Rosanthal, County Department of Transportation Paul Eckert, 5th District Supervisor PDB/MZ/ar i d BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TOON FIiiiuic t District 4 LVCILLE V. MOORE Second District COUNTY F i,r� AN DIEGO ROThdE IK 1fOIFCIL G / CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS s 16pp PACIFIC HNY. • ROOM 3o6 JIM BATES Fourth DlitAct SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 O (71e) 236-2321 PAULECKERT MRS. PORTER D. CREh1ANS CLCRK or THE eoAR^ Of SUPCHYISOPS July 23, 1979 U"ItGI- ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER CLIFFORD W. GRAVES J z Paul D. Bussey, City Manager City of Carlsbad ur 6'f 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mr. Bussey: Thank you for your letter concerning review of the draft environmental impact report for the proposed reclassifi- cation of the road SA-680 in the County's Circulation Element of San Diego General Plan 1990. The matter is being referred to the Department of Planning and Land Use for response to you. Yours very zzuly, PORTER D . CREK1S Clerk of the Board of Supervisors .{—tii,e_L ByZP,n,y —A l 0 Deputy PDC:LP: ncf I i hS, ' •4�j �:G> ':F GI a� DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SA 680 REVISION w�. Department of Planning and Land Use' County of San Diego 1600 Pacific Highway - San Diego, CA Q210r June, 1979 . .> :; a.. i•,w-�...��.': .v•. �i. 1' -- _ y,r�A��� rr" i4,, �.�`�%i , I TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY i LIST OF MAPS USERS GUIDE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT iv CHAPTERS j1. Background 1 2. Description of the Project 3 ' 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Action 4 Alternative A - SA 680 Alternatiye Aiignnents 4 Alternative B - Adopted Circulation Element 4 Alternative C - SA 680 Prime 4 Alternative D - SA 680 Deleted 5 4. Transportation Effects 15 Environmental Setting 15 Significant Environmental Effects of the 16 Proposed Project Effects Not Considered Significant 17 Mitigation Measures Fr,,posed to Minimize 17 the Significant Effects Significant Effects Which Cannot be Avoided 17 if the Proposal is Implemented Effects of Alternative Actions 18 5. Agriculture 24 6. Biology 28 7. Geology 33 8. Arch0ology 36 9. Effects Found Not to be Significant 38 10. The Relationship Between Local Short -Term Uses of 39 Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity. 11. Any Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes 40 Which Would be Involved in the Proposed Action Should it be Implemented 12. The Growth -Inducing Impact of the Proposed Action 41 ' 13. Organizations and Persons Consulted 42 APPENDICES: Appendix A 43 Selected Community Goals and Objectives Appendix B 44 Summary of Alternate Alignments for SA 680 MA C SUMMARY This project is the reclassification of the road SA 680, amending the existing Sheet 4 of the Circulation Element within the San Dleguito Plan area. It would downgrade SA 680 from the presently adopted Prime Arterial 026 foot right of way dedication but maximum construction to collector road standards 0 lanes)) to a Collector Road (four travel lanes) with 84 feet of right'of way dedication. The present SA 680 alignment, as previously adopted and extending from Rancho Santa Fe Road to Del Dios Highway with further extension from SF 728 to 1-15, would be retained. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Comparing the proposed circulation element and the alternatives with the adopted circulation element, the following conclusions can be drawn: ' No significant traffic congestion impacts would result ' from the proposed project or from any of the four alternatives. Significant impacts to agriculture could result from adopting Alternative C because this alternative would increase accessibility to a rural, undeveloped, agricul- tural area. Significant impacts to biologic resources would result from adopting Alternative C because this alternative requires that the road cross the San Dieguito River canyon, a:valuable riparian woodland habitat and scenic area. Significant impacts to geologic/visual resources could result from adopting alternatives A or C because of additional needs for grading, creating higher cut and fill banks. Comparing the proposed circulation element and the alternatives with the environment as it exists today, the following conclusions can be drawn (no road currently exists along the general alignment of SA 660): Significant traffic congestion will occur on Interstate 5, E1 Camino Real, Pacific Coast Highway, and Manchester Avenue. However, this congestion does not result from construction or non -construction of SA 680. Significant agricultural impacts will occur from construction of SA 680 pursuant to the proposed circula- tion element or any of the alternatives except Alternative D (SA 680 deleted). Significant biologic impacts will result from construction of SA 680 pursuant to the proposed circulation element or any of the alternatives except Alternative D . The most significant impacts are those associated with the two river crossings (Escondido Creek and San Dieguito River). Significant geologic/visual impacts will result from construction of SA 680 pursuant to the proposed circulation element or any of the alternatives except Alternative D . Grading up to 2.8•million cubic yards, cut banks to 75 feet in height, and two bridges in scenic areas would be required in the worst case (Alternative C). m Map 6 7 8 9 ' 10 12 13 14 t County 25 26 ;an Dieguito 25 i San Dieguito 30 .j USERS GUIDE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 requires the County of San Diego to prepare Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) or other environmental analysis for any project it intends to carry out or approve. The purpose of an EIR is to inform the public and the decision makers about the nature of the project being considered and the extent and kinds of impacts the project and alternative projects have on the environment if the project is carried out. Environmental Impact Reports must contain discussions of specific topics as outlined in guidelines for the implementation of CEQA prepared by the State Secretaryfor Resources. These guidelines are periodically updated to comply with changes in CEQA and court interpretations. This report follows the most recent guidelines and amendments to CEQA as of March 4, 1978. However, please note that the required sections of the CEQA Guidelines have been re- arranged from their traditional order to simplify understanding. This report is a "focused EIR". In other words, it is concentrated primarily on the significant issues involved with the proposed ( project. It also contains brief statements as to why all the other impacts and effects are not critical enough to require further assessment or where they are covered in previous EIRs. C In addition it is very important to understand that this EIR speaks directly to the "plan -to -plan" comparison. An adopted plan (Circulation Element) presently governs the development of roads in this subject area. If no action is taken the development of roads (subject to the Circulation Element) will continue under the presently adopted policies. The proposed project will be to amend these policies and alignments so that the development will occur according to some different pattern. The project comparison is then the differing results that would occur under the two different sets of potential guidelines. This is discussed further in the project description. Also, where appropriate, this EIR identifies "plan to ground" impacts. These are impacts observed by comparing construction of a road to the environment as it exists today. Although this "plan to ground" comparison is not specifically required by CEQA, it can be very helpful in analyzing alternatives and making the best possible policy decision. iv The first chapter provides background. The second chapter describes the proposed project, and the third chapter describes the alternatives to the proposed project that will be considered in this EIR. The fourth chapter is a full discussion of transportation effects using each of the following headings as required by CEQA: Description of Environmental Setting, Significant Environmental Effects of the Proposed Plan., Effects Not Considered Significant, Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize the Significant Effects, and a•y Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided If The Plan is Implemented. Chapters 5 through 9 discuss effects other, than transportation. The discussion of impacts to specific resources is followed by general discussions of: The Relationship Between Short-term Uses of Mca's Environmental and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity. Any Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Mould be Involved in the Proposed Action Should it be implemented. Growth Inducing Impact of the Proposed Action. This document, entitled Draft Environmental Impact Report will be made available for review by the public and public agencie- for 45 days to critique the EIR and gather additional information not covered here. The draft EIR will be available at the Department of Planning and Land Use, County Administration Center; Environmental Analysis Division, DPLU; and major County libraries. An EIR titled "San Dieguito Circulation Element Draft Environmental Impact Report," A!jgust 1978, is referenced in this EIR and is also availab;e for review at the Department of Planning and Land Use. This draft EIR makes reference to the San Dieguito Community plan. The plan describes and locates the land use categories for the San Dieguito area. ,It was adopted December 31, 1974, and revised August 25, 1977. Copies of the community plan are available at the Department of Planning and Land Use (DPLU). The Environmental Review Board (ERB),.probably on July 12, 1979 (contact County DPLU, 236-4083 for exact time and date) will hear further public input and consider all written comments to date on the draft EIR to make recommendations about the extent and nature of the environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Planning Cortmission will consider the final EIR in making recommendations to the County Board of Supervisors who certify the document as complete and in compliance with CEQA and must consider it in approving or disapproving the project. Public input is encouraged v at both these hearings. The San Dieguito Circulation Element forms a part of the General Plan document required by State Law. The plan guides development of roads through the year 1995. This Circulation Element revision will amend a portion of the Circulation Element of the County's General Plan which is a mandatory guide for the placement of roads. The Circulation Element is a policy guide for roadbuilding in the San Dieguito Planning Area. r 1 t i vi d CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND The San Dieguito Community Plan Circulation Element, as shown on Map 2, was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on January 3, 1979. In addition, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to "study potential alignments for-SA,680 as a Collector from Del Dios Highway to. Leucadia Boulevard and present recommendations no later than GPA 79-02" and to "study an alignment for extension of SA 680 as a Collector from 1=15 to connect with SF 728." A number of alternative alignments within the SA 660 corridor were analyzed from an engineering, environmental, and planning perspec- tive. The analysis also included a review of the traffic impacts using the January 3, 1979 adopted circulation element as the basis tom{ for comparison. This EIR focuses primariiy on traffic issues P.;;ociated with the proposed project and alternatives. Computer analyses of the adopted' circulation element and the various alternatives utilized 1995 land use and transit assumptions consistent with previous analysis completed for the San Dieguito Circulation Element Environmental Impact Report. In addition, this EIR addresses impacts related to agriculture biology, geology, archaeology, air quality, energy and noise. CEQA requires the impacts be assessed by comparing the proposed circulation element to the adopted circulation element. Using this circulation elemenL "plan to plan" comparison, no significant impacts are expected as a result of the reclassifica- tion of SA 680 to lower standards. However, inasmuch as no road currently exists at all along this alignment, this EIR presents, for information, the most significant impacts associated with construction of a road. These kinds of impacts (comparing construc- tion according to the plan with the existing environment) are termed "plan to ground" impacts. If no action is taken, the adopted plan will control future road improvements in the area. The proposed project could amend sheet 4 of the circulation element and result in 1 altered road development plans. Much of the data used in this EIR was .aken from the "San Dieguito Circulation Element Draft Environmental Impact Report" (August, 1978) which is available for review at the Department of Planning and Land Use. Cal d I C CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTIOPI OF THE PROJECT 1-1 For purposes of this focused supplemental Environmental Impact Report, the term "proposed project" refers to the reclassification of SA 680 to a collector road (four travel lanes) extending east from Rancho Santa Fe Road to Del Dios Highway and from SF 728 to the San Diego city limits and Interstate 15. The proposed project would change the presently adopted prime arterial (126 feet of right of way) with four lanes of travel to a Collector Road (84 feet of right of way) with four lanes of travel along the approved alignment for SA 680. The proposed circulation element is identified on Map 3 , page 8 , of this EIR. Appendix B contains a summary report of detailed analysis done by the Department,of Transportation for the approved alignment and various alternates. (Sheet 4 of the Circulation Element is avail- able for review at the Department of Planning and Land Use and the Department of Transportation). The SA 680 alignment previously adopted (pre January 3, 1979) as - a prime arterial utilized Rancho Santa Fe Road and Leucadia Boulevard for access to Interstate 5. On January ;, 1979, the Board of Super- visors, in adopting the San Dieguito Circulation Element (Sheet 4). deleted the extension of Leucadia Boulevard and reclassified a portion of Rancho Santa Fe Road as a Light Collector. The Proposed Project reflects these actions by terminating SA 680 at Rancho Santa Fe Road. ? Tables 1 and 2, pages lb S 20 compare the traffic volumes for various circulation element roads which could be impacted by the adoption of the Proposed Project or one of the proposed alternatives. 4 Traffic projections of 10,000 ADT for SA 680 in the Proposed Project are within capacity for a Collector Road. I CHAPTF^ 3: ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Four alternatives were considered and analyzed in addition to the proposed project. ALTERNATIVE A - SA 680 ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS Alternative A proposes three different alignments for SA 680, as shown on Maps 4, 5, and 6. Further alignment detail is available for review at the Department of Planning and Land Use. These poten- tially different alignments would not substantially alter the intent, location, and right of.way requirements described in the "Proposed Project." SA 680 would again extend from Rancho Santa Fe Road to Del Dios Highway and from SF 728 to 1-15 with an 84-foot Collector Road requirement for right of way dedication. Appendix B summarizes' a detailed route location study completed by the Department of Transportation,for Alternative A. ALTERNATIVE B - ADOPTED CIRUCLATION ELEMENT (January 3, 1979) The adopted Circulation Element would reamin the road development plan for SA 680 and the San Dieguito area if the proposed project is not adopted; hence, the impact of the adopted Circulation Ele- ment, as detailed in Map 7, will be considered here as "no project.', Alternative B varies from the proposed project by having a right of way requirement for a prime arterial (126 feet), but would still provide four lanes for travel. The SA 630 alignment, however, would not be changed. ALTERNATIVE C - SA 680 PRIME ARTERIAL Prior to the January 3 adoption of the San Dieguito Circulation Element, SA 680 was dzoicted as a 126 foot prime arterial from 1-5 to 1-15. SA 680, as a prime arterial, would extend from Inter- state 5 to Interstate 15 along an alignment approved by the Depart- ment of Transportation which utilizes portions of existing .1 Leucadia Boulevard, Olivenhain Road, and Rancho Santa Fe Road C for eventual development as a six -lane regional facility. (see Appendix B). Alternate C proposes the designation of SA 680 as this prime arterial, as shown in Map 8, page 13• ALTERNATIVE D - SA 680 DELETED The California Environmental Quality Act requires consideration of an alternative which reduces any environmentally adverse impacts to an insignificant level. Alternative D would delete SA 680 from Leucadia to Del Dios Highway from the Circulation Element, as shown in Map 9, page Ill. s r, d DEL MAR —N• Hap I . SAN DIEGUITO REGIONAL CINITY MAP 'Mr 9••r: ILI irm0o s �I.b � i 1 1• _ f' N ! L\ SAN M r J�+ \ lesn:ondQtne p • ,;,,;,Jy�,yk.r- - • ., y�prir.Foxn ,� V +, f Ih Mont Crcve `y 4 ��laJ•7 j a � IEGO Del Dios . 4 _ fj' .. IDNO �+yw Imo_ } tiY: w rr ;ut� Leacadia 1 i i Encinitas ••.,, �'' 6 , Cacditf by the Sea �� ,s an WIT s Solana Beach. ._._ . •A1 nrus.unos u MIU MESA I ENCINITAS Map 2 SAN DIEGUITO ADOPTED CIRCULATION ELEMENT wearsi�'en Freeways laaataxxg PrimeArteriels- -----�-� h1ajor Roads -.• Collector Roads -- -- Light Collectors i I j III 1-1 ---A d I Z CHAPTER k: TRANSPORTATION EFFECTS DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Land Use The San Dieguito Community Plan designates land uses adjacent to SA 680 for the year 1995. (Copies of the Plan are available from the Department of Planning and Land Use). The main land use pro- posals in this vicinity are characterized as follows: 1. Development of vacant or rural portions of the plan in estate lots with a minimum size of two acres. This i affects approximately the eastern half of the planning k area. d 2. Development of vacant or rural portions of the plan in very low to low density urban residential use. This affects approximately twelve square miles of land in various locations in the western half of the planning area. Some areas affected include Olivenhain, eastern Leucadia, and the unincorporated area north of the 1 Batiquitos Lagoon. The Regional Growth Management Plan (RGM) for San W ego County is consistent with the San Dieguito Community Plan in most respects. The Regional Growth Management Plan, however, lowers the proposed maximum density, in the Olivenhain area from 1.0-2.9 dwelling units per acre to 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres. i t Road Network The San Dieguito Community Planning area is currently provided with a major road network facilitating travel from north to south. These major routes are Interstate 5, Pacific Coast Highway, and El Camino k Real which traverse the length of the planning area. f East -west travel in San Dieguito is accommodated by local, two-lane roads. These roads include extensions of Encinitas Boulevard, Lomas Santa Fe Drive and Via de is Valle through the unincorporated .j i community of Rancho Santa Fe. These roads connect in Rancho Santa Fe at Del Dios Highway which then provides access to the City of Escondido. San Dieguito area residents generated approximately 170,000 daily vehicle trips in 1977. Over .35% of the work related trips were made to and from employment centers south of the plan area. SA 680, in the adopted Circulation Element, is planned to provide access between Del Dios Highway and the community of Leucadia. SA 680 would connect circulation element routes and serve the work and shopping related trips generated by residents of Leucadia, Olivenhain, Del Dios, and Rancho Tanta Fe. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJErT In analyzing the proposed project and the various alternatives, significant environmental impacts were considered as any plan charge which would result in the level of service of a circulation element route going from acceptable to unacceptable standards. Given the limits to transportation modeling and long range travel demand forecasting, projection of significant environmental impacts from traffic congestion was limited to areas where projected 1995 traffic volumes indicate service levels A through D would degrade to severe congestion with levels of service equal to either E or F, . as described below: TABLE 1 LEVELS OF SERVICE Service Level Description A Free flow of traffic possible with low volumes and low denisty. Speed is controlled by posted limits, driver desire and physical roadway conditions. B Stable traffic flow with speed being somewhat impacted by congestion; reasonable freedom to maneuver within lanes. C Stable flow but speed and maneuverability reduced by higher traffic volumes. D Approaching unstable flow with tolerable operating conditions being maintained but considerably affected by traffic volumes. Little freedom to maneuver and driver's comfort and convenience is low. Service of Level E F TABLE 1 (continued) LEVELS OF SERVICE* Description Lower operating speeds than in Level D; traffic volumes at or near capacity. Unstable flow with frequent momentary stoppages. Forced traffic flow; stoppages for both short and long periods may occur. Speeds reduced consider- ably due to congestion. Amending the San Dieguito Circulation Element with the adoption of the proposed project will not require any additional roads to operate at service levels E or F through the life of the Community Plan. No traffic increase is generated by reducing the right of way required for dedication -from 126 feet, to 84 feet. Projected traffic volumes and corresponding levels of service are detailed In Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5 and pages 20, 21, 22, and 23, for those routes which could be impacted. 1995 traffic projections of 10,000 trips/day for SA 680 can be accommodated by a four lane Collector Road. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSAL IS IMPLEMENTED None. _ MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED TO MINIMIZE THE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS None. EFFECTS NOT CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT The Proposed Project contains no provisions for alleviating antici- pated congestion for Interstate 5, El Camino Real, Pacific Coast Highway, and Manchester Avenue. As described within the Environ- mental Impact Report for the San Dieguito Circulation Eiemiant (August 1978), these routes will experience significant congestion by 1995 regardless of the status of SA 680. The reclassified right- of-way requirements in the Proposed Project do not impact these congested routes. *Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 1965. Highway Research Board Special Report No. 87; National Academy of Sciences; National Research Council EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS ALTERNATIVE A - SA 680 ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS The alternative alignments identified in Maps 4, 5, and 6 for SA 680 do not affect the 1995 traffic demand levels forecast along this route (ref. Tables 2 and 3). Driving times and distance are com- parable with each alternative. (see Summary, Appendix 0) ALTERNATIVE B - ADOPTED CIRCULATION ELEMENT Alternative B represents the "no project" alternative and would not change the adopted Circulation Element as shown on Map 7 elence, no impacts can be expected. ALTERNATIVE C - SA 680 PRIME ARTERIAL SA 680 was initially considered as a regional route which extended from Interstate 5 in San Dieguito to Interstate 15 in Poway. Alter- native C proposed the reclassification of SA 680 as this prime arterial as shown on Map 8, page 13. The Environmental Impact Report for the San Diegulto Circulation Element considered the potential impacts associated with SA 680 as a regional route. The traffic forecasts previously used for analysis of SA 680 as a prime arterial were based on the San Dieguito road network as deline- ated by a circulation element adopted in 1972. This network of regional arterials included an SA 680 interchange with SA 460 which was intended to travel north from SA 680 to State Highway 76 in Oceanside. This route is no longer identified as a prime arterial in Sheet 4 of khe adopted circulation element for San Dieguito. ( The traffic volumes along SA 680 as shown in Table 2 are less than !j those previously forecast. This reduction reflects the deleting of SA 460 as a regional facility. The regional significance of SA 680 further dimishes with this deleted arterial. Table 2 summarizes those circulation element roads which would be impacted within San Dieguito. Table 3 notes the impacts of SA 680 on the regional network. In no case, however, will a route be significantly impacted. _J q ALTERNA N VE D - SA 680 DELETED The Proposed Project identifies SA 680 as a collector road with local significance. As mentioned, SA 680 would serve to provide access to the east at Del Dios Highway and to the west at Rancho Santa Fe Road and eventually E1 Camino Real. The area served by SA 680 provides little commerical and/or employment opportunity. SA 680 would be primarily used for work and shopping related trips. Alternative D proposes deletion of SA 680 as shown on Map 9. Tables 2 and 3, pages 20 and 21 summarize those roads which would be Impacted by this deletion. Atthotah other routes would be used for those work and shopping related trips, no impacts associated with deleting SA 680 would necessitate a road operating at conditions described by levels of service E or F as described in Table 1. i i rABLE 2 1995 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT's in 000's) Impacted Internal Roads Alternatives Proposed i Project A B _ C D No No Pacific Highway (SA 101) 37 Change Change 37 37 Interstate 5 150 " at 150 150 El Camino Real OF 1411) 52 47 55 ) Rancho Santa Fe Rd. (N. of Olivenhain) 13 " " 21 13 1 Rancho Santa Fe Rd. (S. of Olivenhain) 6 8 7 SA 68o 10 " " 24 N/A SF 728 15 15 13 z El Camino Real (Gtwn S-9 E S-6) 6 " " 6 5 La Costa Avenue (SA 630) 8 " " 6 12 Elfin Forest Rd. (SC 380) 3 9 9 Harmony Grove Rd. (SC 1370) 4 " 4 - 4 Leucadia Blvd. 12 " " 25 12 Encinitas Blvd. (SF 1410) 19 14 19 Via de la Valle (SF 728). 34 34 34 Lomas Santa Fe Drive (SF 1409) 25 " " U 11 Manchester Avenue 53 to 49 52 Manchester Avenue (SA 670) 7 " " 7 7 El Camino del Norte 5 6 6 La Granada (S-9) 9 " 9 9 Del Dios Highway '+ " " 8 5 t S-6 7 6 6 S-8 8 �� �� 7 8 t { r 20 TABLE 3 1995 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT's in 000's) Impacted Regional Routes Proposed Alternatives Project A B C D No No Palomar Airport Road 38 Change Change 33 40 State Highway 78 77 64 77 3 Interstate 15 i 190 " 186 188 SR 125, SC 1732 86 ti 90 87 i Interstate 805 t 175 165 175 1 a . t 1` TABLE 4 1995 PROJECTED SERVICE LEVELS Impacted Internal Roads Proposed Alternatives Project A B C D Pacific Highway (SA 101) E E E E E Interstate 5 D D D D D t # El Camino Real (SF 1411) E E E E � E Rancho Santa Fe Rd. (N. of Olivenha;n) B B B C B Rancho Santa Fe Rd. (S. of Olivenhaln) C C C C C ; SA 680 B B B B NIA SF 728 B B B B B E1 Camino Real (Btwn. S-9 & S-6) C C C C C La Costa Avenue (SA 630) B B 6 B C Elfin Forest Rd. (SC 380) B B B C C Harmony Grove Rd. (SC 1370) B B B B ' B Leucadia Blvd. B B B B B F i Encinitas Blvd. (SF 1410) B B B B 8 Via de la Valle (SF 728) D D D D D i Lomas Santa Fe Drive (SF 1409) C C C C C Manchester Avenue F F F F F i Manchester Avenue (SA 670) C C C C C E1 Camino del Norte I C C C C C La Granada (S-9) C C C C C Del Dios Highway B C C D B S-6 C C C C C S-S C C C C C iI { 22 TABLE 5 1995 PROJECTED SERVICE LEVELS Impacted Internal Roads Proposed Alternatives Project A B C D Palomar Airport Road D D D D D State Highway 78 D D D D D Interstate 15 D D D D D Interstate 805 D D D D D 1-0 ^; i . 0 CHAPTER 5: AGRICULTURF. i j DESCRIPTION OF THE. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 7 Production jWithin San Dieguito Community Plan area approximately 3775 acres (7% of total plan area) are in agricultural production (see ;yap 10) either as the primary land use or as secondary use. The major crops include avocados ! and citrus (1825 ac), flowers and nursery plants (515 ac), tomatoes and { vegetables (800 ac). Together these crops gross over $18 million annually or about 5% of the County's annual agricultural total. - CI imate �,• The mild "constant" temperatures plus high humidities of this area provide optimum growing conditions for nursery, flower, vegetable, and tomato pro- duction. Costs for greenhouse air conditioning and heating ale decreased, plus the early season for vegetables, particularly tomatoes, gives San Diego County a marketing edge over other regions. Avocado and citrus trees enjoy the warmer temperatures, cloudless days, and "frost free" slopes offered by the Coastal Area climate found in the central and eastern por- tions of the plan area (see Map 10). Soils Review of the Soil Survey of San Diego County indicates about 35% (19,655 acres) of the San Dieguito Community Plan area is rated good or fair for the County's five major crops (avocadoes, citrus, flowers and nursery, tomatoes and vegetables). Generally these soils are located in the western, central, and southern zortions of the plan area, along with a large section of the northeastern corner. { Presently almost all of the 1977 existing agriculture is on good or fair soils. However, approximately 45% (8,813 acres) of these soils are desig- nated for urban land -se while about 19'_ (3700 acres) are agriculturally utilized. The remalni^g acreages of good or fair soils are primarily undeveloped or in rural residential use (see Map 11). r1l) 801 LS 0R FAIR N rna h SA� 4�OIEG Map 11 0 ^'. Soils Good or Fair CommunPlan SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. �t Because this project simply reduces the right of way dedication for SA 680 it would not significantly affect agriculture when comparing the proposed Circulation Element to the adopted Circulation Element. The same is true for Alternative A. Alternative B (no project) would result in no change from presently adopted policy and hence would have no impact (plan -to -plan). Alternative D deletes SA 680 altogether, would result in a more rural setting and would not significantly affect agriculture. Alternative C represents an increase in the road construction standards for SA 680 from a collector (4 lanes) to a prime arterial (6 lanes). It also makes SA 680 a through road from 1-5 to 1-15. Alternative C could increase accessibility to the agricultural areas in the eastern portion of San Dieguito over and above that which would be provided by the proposed Circulation Element. This increased accessibility could increase development pressure, increase land values, and adversely impact agriculture. Inasmuch as no road currently exists along the general alignment of SA 680, construction of any -road could increase accessibility to these areas over and above current accessibility, thereby increasing development pressure, increasing land values, and adversely impacting agriculture. These "plan -to -ground" adverse effects to agriculture are considered to be significant for the proposed project and for all alternatives except Alternative D (SA 680 deleted). Alternative D appears most desirable from the standpoint of agriculture. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSAL IS IMPLEMENTED There are no significant "plan -to -plan" effects associated with the proposed project. Alternative C could have significant plan -to -plan effects. i The "plan -to -ground" impacts to agriculture are potentially signifi- cant and cannot be avoided if SA 680 is constructed. MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED TO MINIMIZE THE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS No mitigation is required (plan-Lo-plan) for the proposed project and Alternatives A, B, and D. No mitigation is available for the plan -to -plan effects associated with Alternative C. No mitigation is available for the plan -to -ground effects to agriculture. EFFECTS NOT CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT The plan -to -plan effects on agriculture are not significant for the proposed project and for Alternatives A, B, and D. CHAPTER 6: BIOLOGY DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The proposed route of SA 680 and its alternatives traverse areas of Coastal sage scrub, Mixed chaparral, Chamise chaparral and the peren- nial flowing Escondido Creek canyon. in addition, Alternative C would cross the San Dieguito River. The major biological resources associated with this route are the Coastal mixed chaparral in the western portion and the perennial streams and associated Riparian woodlands in Escondido Creek and the San Dieguito River. Riparian (streamside) woodland areas are very rare in San Diego County, comprising less than 1% of the land area. Because of their rarity and habitat diversity, these woodland areas are extremely important biologically. They also have high aesthetic values. The Coastal sage and chaparral habitats, although not rare per se, contain many rare and endangered ;-lants. A generalized vegetation map of San Dieguito is included as Map 12 Biologically sensitive areas are shown on Map 13. Additional dis- cussion of biological resources can be found in the San Dieguito Circulation Element Draft EIR (August 1978). SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Because this project simply reduces the right-of-way dedication for SA 680, it v.,ould not significantly affect biology when comparing the proposed Circulation Element to the adopted Circulation Element. The same is true for Alternative A. Alternative B (no project) would result in no change from presently adopted policy and hence, would have no significant impact plan to plan. Alternative D de- letes SA 680 altogether and therefore would not have significant impacts to biology. -A N Batiquitos Lagoon Map 12 Generalized Vegetation Map of San Dieguito Ri=Riparian Woodland Ow-dak Woodland ChmMixed Chaparral Cc=Chamise Chaparral Cs -Coastal Sage_Scrub G=Grassland Ag=Agriculture U■Urban and Agriculture Eu-Eucalyptus Biologically Sensitive Areas in San Dieguitc l■ areas with sensitive plants. 2- areas influenced by lagoons and estuaries 3a areas with exemplary vegetation AA �0M: 'U9T� CCMIA�znPqC-VV Plan d Alternative C represents an increase in the road construction stand- ards for SA 680 from a collector (it lanes) to a prime arterial (6 lanes). This could increase impacts to rare plant species along the entire length of the road, and increase adverse impacts to the riparian woodland habitat where SA 680 would have to cross Escondido Creek. In addition, because Alternative C adds a length across the San Dleguito River Canyon downstream of Lake Hodges, this Alterna- tive would cause significant adverse affects to the riparian wood- land and wildlife habitat there which would not occ,-- under any of the other alternatives. In as much as no road currently exists along the general alignment of SA 680, construction of any road would cause significant impacts to biologic resources compared to the situation as it is today with no road. In particular, all alternatives except Alternative D re- quire that a bridge or other type of crossing be constructed over Escondido Creek, a perennial stream with riparian oak woodland. In addition, Alternative C requires a crossing of the San Dieguito River canyon with its associated riparian woodland wildlife habitats. These "plan -to -ground" adverse effects to biology are considered to be significant for all alternatives except Alternative B (SA 680 deleted). Alternative D appears most desirable from the standpoint of biology. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WHICH CAN NOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSAL IS w IMPLEMENTED There are no significant "plan -to -plan" effects associated with the proposed project. Alternative C would have significant plan -to -plan effect at the point of the San Dieguito River crossing. The "plan -to -ground" impacts to biology are potentially significant and probably cannot be avoided if SA 680 is constructed. MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED TO MINIMIZE THE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS No mitigation is required plan -to -plan) for the proposed project and Alternative A, B, and D. No mitigation is available for the plan effects associated with Alternative C, although these effects can be minimized by detailed project level analysis of specific alignments and, in particular, the location and construction details of the San Dieguito River crossing. �1 No mitigation is available for the plan -to -ground effects to biology if SA 680 is constructed. However, these effects could be minimized by detailed project level analysis of specific road alignment and, In particular, the specific location and construction detail of the river crossing of Escondido Creek and San Dieguito River. EFFECTS NOT CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT The plan -to -plan effects on biology are not significant for the proposed project and for Alternatives A, 8, and D. 4 i a i f i f s k �R CHAPTER 7: GEOLOGY DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The western two-thirds of the San Dieguito Planning Area is under- lain by a series of relatively flat sedimentary rocks - sandstone, siltstone, and elaystone. These easily eroded sediments have been levelled by wave action and subsequently dissected by stream erosion. The resulting topography is a series of broad terraces within the first two miles of the coast, with rolling hills further inland. 'Both the terraces and hills are cut by the valleys and tributaries of Escondido Creek and the San Dieguito River. The eastern third of the area is underlain by the Santiago Peak metavolcanics and associated granitic rocks. These rocks, being more resistant to erosion, form low mountains. 1 Major factors of geologic sensitivity in the San Dieguito area -are landslide prone formations, steep slopes, the floodplain and scenic slope and bluff formations. Significant adverse effects to geology for circulation proposals occur when excessive grading for new or upgraded roads drastically alters sandstone cliffs, scenic slopes, or results in unsightly cut or fill banks. Landslide prone forma- tions can be mitigated by engineering techniques and are not considered significant. N. Although SA 680 does not exist at present, it is shown on the adopted circulation element. Referring to Appendix B, "Sunmary of Alternative Alignments for SA 680", the approved alignment generally runs through undeveloped hilly terrain. When constructed along this approved alignment, there will be approximately 1,045,000 cubic yards of cut and 840,000 cubic yards of fill (1,885,000 cubic yards total) with cut banks in four areas 30 to 55 feet high and fill banks in three areas 20 to 35 feet Nigh. There would be a 400 foot long bridge over Escondido Creek. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Because this project simply reduces the right-of-way dedication for ^�2 I SA 680, it would not significantly affect geology or visual resources when comparing the proposed Circulation Element to the adopted Circulation Element. Alternative A consists of three different alignments. Alternative A -a would result in 2,177,000 cubic yards of total grading (cut plus fill) including three areas with cut banks 40 to 60 feet high and one fill bank 60 feet high. The bridge would continue to be 400 feet long over Escondido Creek. Alternative A-b would result in 2,876,000 cubic yards of total grading (cut plus fill) including four areas with cuts 45 to 55 feet high and one fill bank 60 feet high. A bridge would be 500 feet long for this Alternative. Alterna- tive A-c would result in total grading of 2 524,000 cubic yards (cut plus fill) including four areas with cuts 45 to 75 feet high and four areas with fill 40 to 50 feet high. The bridge would be 400 feet long for this Alternative. Comparing these alternatives to the adopted Circulation Element, all have adverse impacts. The signifi- cance of this impact is probably marginal for Alternative A -a but is probably significant for Alternative A-b and A-c. j Alternative B (no project) would result in no change fro,n presently adopted policy and hence would have no impact plan-tc-olan. Alternative C represents an increase in the road construction ; standards for SA 680 from a collector (4 lanes) to a prime arterial ; (6 lanes). Although no computations have been made for the required" 1. grading and the heights of cut and fill banks, it may reasonably -be F expected that the greater width of a prime arterial in conjunction ; with the larger turn radiuses required will result in significantly more grading and significantly more and higher cut and fill banks than would the adopted Circulation Element. In addition, Alternative C will require a second bridge associated with the crossing of the San Dieguito River canyon, a very scenic area. Alternative C, there- fore, could be expected to have significant geologic and visual impacts plan -to -plan. Alternative D deletes SA 680 altogether, and therefore would reduce impacts to geologic and visual resources and so would not have a significant impact plan -to -plan. Inasmuch as no road currently exists along the general alignment of SA 680, construction of any road would create significantly more grading and visual i-pacts than currently exist. These "plan to - ground" adverse effects to geologic and visual resources are considered to be significant for the proposed project and for all alternatives except alternative D (SA 680 deleted). Alternative D aYaears most desirable from the standpoint of geologic and visual resources. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSAL IS IMPLEMENTED The significant "plan -to -plan" and "plan -to -ground" effects to geologic and visual resources identified above cannot be avoided if SA 680 is constructed. MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED TO MINIMIZE THE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS No mitigation is required (plan -to -plan) for the proposed project or for Alternatives B or D. No mitigation is available for the plan -to -plan effects associated with Alternative A or Alternative C. No mitigation is available for the plan -to -ground effects associated with Alternatives A, B, or C. However, for the proposed project, as identified in Appendix D, turr� radius standards should be reduced from 1400 feet to 1000 feet and speeds from 50 miles per hour to 40 miles per hour and this would reduce the total amount of grading, the height of cut and fill bank, and also reduce cos-- (the bridge over Escondido Creek would still need to be constructed, however). EFFECTS NO CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT The plan -to -plan effects on geologic and visual resources are not significant for the proposed project and for Alternatives A -a, B, t. . and D. , I� t CHnPTER 8: ARCHAEOLOGY DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The San Dieguito area is one of the most intensely concentrated areas of known archeological sites in San Diego County. Due to the nature of this project and its time constraints, an extensive archeological investigation was not undertaken or deemed necessary at this stage. No attempt has been made to evaluate any of these known sites or to estimate the percentage of sites which still remain to be discovered. In accordance with the County of San Diego Archeological/Historical Report Procedures, a detaiied archeological survey of each route will have to be conducted prior to any construction. THE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Because this project simply reduces the right-of-way dedication for SA 680, it would not significantly affect archaeology when comparing I the proposed Circulation Element to the adopted Circulation Element. 1 Because the alignments identified within Alternative A are no longer than the alignment for the proposed Circulation Element, there is a potential for more archaeological impacts associated with Alternative A. Alternative B (no project) would result in no change from presently adopted policy and would have no impact plan -to -plan. Alternative C consists of a road which is both longer and wider than the adopted Circulation Element and so there could be more archaeological impacts. Alternative D deletes SA 680 altogether and therefore would not have significant archeological impacts. Inasmuch as no road currently exists along the general alignment of SA 680, construction of any road could adversely impact archaeological resources. These "plan -to -ground" adverse effects are potentially significant for the proposed project and for all alternatives except Alternative D (SA 680 deleted). However, as stated below the signifi- cant effects can be-itigated. Alternative B appears most desirable from the standpoint of archaeology, A SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSAL IS IMPLEMENTED There are no significant effects which cannot be avoided. MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED TO MINIMIZE THE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS No mitigation is required (plan -to -plan) for the proposed project and for Alternatives B and D. Mitigation for significant plan -to -plan or plan -to -ground effect can be accomplished by detailed archaeological surveys of each route prior to construction in accordance with County EIR guidelines. Based upon the findings of these surveys, appropriate mitigation measures such as salvage, excavation, or minor realignment can be undertaken. EFFECTS NOT CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT The plan -to -plan effects on archaeology are not significant for the proposed project and for Alternatives B and D. i nN1 J CHAPTER 9: EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT AIR QUALITY The proposed project would not produce any substantial change in emissions over the adopted plan nor any substantial relocation and thus would not produce a significant air quality impact. Alter- natives A, B, C, and D likewise would not produce any substantial modification of emissions and thus do not produce a significant air quality impact. i ENERGY The proposed project and all of the alternatives do not impact total vehicle miles traveled sufficiently to create a significant Impact. NOISE The proposed project and Alterra=fives A, B, and C will have similar noise impacts because the average daily traffic volumes are similar. Alternative D will have no noise impact because there will not be a road and traffic on the other plan roads will not increase signi- ficantly. .. kP ' •f CHAPTER 10: THE RELATIONSHIP BETVEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAWS ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Construction of SA 680 would represent a long-term comnitment. The impacts described in this EIR would be long-term impacts. The proposed project how- ever, by reducing the right-of-way projection f,)r SA 680, could preclude future options to develop SA 680 as a prime arterial. In the long-term this could have adverse effect to transportation and beneficial effects to agriculture,, biology, and geology, i i f • , i t '4 4 i e G I i "9 i M "I-, CHAPTER 11: ANY IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES 11HICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED The "plan to plan" impacts identified in this EIR are reversible in that 4 the plan could again be changed prior to construction without accruing } any of the identified impacts. The "plan to ground" impacts which have } been identified would not be reversible once SA 680 was constructed ex- cept at prohibitively high cost. 0 4 4) .j A CHAPTER 12; THE GROWTH-111DUCIHG IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED'ACTION Because of the overall reduction in the ultimate capacity of the road system, the project will not be growth inducing to the San Dieguito Community Plan area as a whole (comparing plan to plan). Alternative B (no project) is, by definition, not growth inducing, however, would substantially improve access to the areas of Rancho Santa Fe, Del Dios, Leucadia, and Olivenhain. Improved access with a high-speed, regional highway would pressure these communities to develop at a faster growth rate than anticipated, Impetus would be provided for amendments to the Land Use Element of the San Dieguito Community Plan and the County Growth Management Plan. Inasmuch as no road currently exists along the general alignment of SA 680, construction of any road could Increase accessibility to the eastern portions of San Dieguito Community Planning area over and aboye current accessibility. ;1 As described above for the "plan to plan" effects of Alternative B, all alternatives except Alternative D could have significant "plan to ground" growth inducing impacts, r1 CHAPTER 13 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED COUNTY OF SAN D±EGO Department of Planring and Land Use Environmental Planring Lois Miller Tom Oberbauer Mike Sloop Transportation Planning Don Howells Dennis Struecker Clerical Support Anna Pecus Aletha Gadow Laveta Wordell Department of Transportation Gary Andrews Ken Erickson Frank Julian CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF SAN DIEGO NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ORGANIZATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Caltrans 4.. (project Dlanner) APPENDIX A Selected Community Goals and Objectives The San Dieguito area is one of the most attractive in the County with its beaches, lagoons, and rolling hills. It has also become an area of rapid growth and development. One of the objectives of the San Dieguito Commnunity Plan is to plan and direct growth in such a way that negative impacts on San Dieguito amenities are minimized. Adoption of the Circulation Element on January 3, 1979 by the Board of Supervisors involved compromises and trade offs between accom- modating projected traffic, preserving community identity, and pro- tecting the environmental quality of the area. Circulation goals adopted within the San r zguito Community Plan were evaluated and are summarized as follows: Promote a balanced transportation system, including roads, riding and hiking trails, bicycle paths, and future mass transit services which will serve the general convenience of the citizens and enhance the beauty and quality of life in San Dieguito. (San Dieguito Community Plan) Promote maximum utilization of existing freeways and prime arterials as an alternative to new freeway construction. (San Dieguito Community Plan) Locate major roads and prime arterials where they will bypass rather than divide residential neighborhoods. (San Dieguito Community Plan) - Construct roads follow2:,q the natural contours to mini- mize cuts and fills; avoia grid street patterns. (San Dieguito Community Plan) Route major thoroughfares and plan road construction schedules so that development pressure on undeveloped areas is minimized. (San Dieguito Community Plan) Enc-jurage the reevaluation of all roads in San Dieguito, particularly those in the rural areas and encourage the retention of only those which are necessary for low density rural usage and which will not lead to sca.tered urban development. (San Dieguito Community Plan) Z —AP1'EI1D1X B Summary of Alternate Alignments for SA 680 All studies begin at Olivenhain Rancho Santa Fe Road and end at Del Dios Highway. Alternates A and B are basically the same align- ments with a slight variation. The "A" and "B" alignments follow major ownership boundaries where terrain permits. Alternate "C" was recommended by the Rancho Santa Fe Association and is an engineering study of their proposal. The "Approved Alignment" represents the Department of Transportation's current approved route location study and specific plan corridor. Use of Existing Road Corridors Generally, all the routes are through undeveloped hilly terrain. However, the "Approved Alignment" has 5,000 feet that follows exist- ing Rancho Santa Fe Road. Alternate "C" has 2,000 feet that follows existing Aliso Canyon Road. Neighborhood Impact Since three alternates are generally through undeveloped terrain, there is negligible neighborhood impact. The "Approved Alignment", however, follows existing Rancho Santa Fe Roaa and turns eastward near 13th Street and intersects Lone Jack Road. Some existing homes on large lots are in this vicinity. (tone are in the right-of-way corridor. A 76 lot subdivision is being developed around the SA 680 corridor near Lone Jack Road. At the eastern end of the project, where SA 680 intercepts Aliso Canyon Road, there are a few homes built on lots created by Map 7059. All the alternates follow the same alignment in this area. Physical Features All alignments are generally in hilly terrain. The "Approved Alignment" has the flatest grade overall with Alternate "A", Alter- nate "C" and Alternate "B" listed in the order of increasing steep- ness. Alternate "C" has the most extreme cuts and fills - 75 Foot maximum cut. Alternate "A" and "B" are about the same and have less severe cuts - 60 feet and 55 feat respectively. The "Approved Alignment" has the least extreme cuts and fills - 55 feet maximum cut. All alignments except the "Approved Alignment" have minimum horizon- tal curve radius of 1000 feet. The "Approved Alignment" has a mini- mum 1400 foot radius. All alignments except the "Approved Alignment" have minimum design �- speeds of 40 miles per hour which reflects the collector road design standards limited by vertical curve sight distance. The "Approved Alignment" has 50 mile per hour design speed. Note, however, that the "Approved Alignment" study was completed before the Board of Supervisors directed this study of potential alignments. If the "Approved Alignment" was redesigned with the same parameters as the other alternates, i.e. 1,000 foot radius horizontal curves and 40 mile per hour design speed for vertical curves, the graded slopes and total excavation would be reduced, thus reducing the total con- struction cost. Regional Beneflt The "Approved Alignment" and Alternate "A" are the shortest routes - 5.6/5.8 miles respectively, and, therefore, reflect the lowest financial and environmental impact on the region. The "Approved Alignment" also provides a more realistic design speed for a route serving regional traffic. Alternate "C" is the longest - 6.6 miles. The Alternate "C" alignment is more circuitous than the others. It swings 4,000 feet northerly of Alternate "A" and "B" a.id then turns southerly to join Alternates "A" and "B" at Rancho Santa re Road. This additional length would increase long-term energy use and cause added expense to the driving public. j Environmental Effect { None of the alignments have an obvious severe environmental impact through the undeveloped areas. A more precise environmental review is necessary to completely assess the effect. The Department of Planning and Land Use is currently doing this assessment. The "Approved Alignment" will have a greater effect on the populous since a one -mile segment goes through a populated area. A corridor has, however, been reservedfor it in areas where development is taking place. Cost Cost estimates are based on --- (graded roadway, shoulder surfacing width, design speed, 1979 dollars, etc. Note again that the "Approved i Alignment" costs are not comparable because of design speed used.) Alternate "A" $6,337,500.00 Al ternate "B" 7,019,000.00 Alternate "C" 7,016,000.00 "Approved Alignment" 6,253,000.00 Conclusions and Recommendations Alternates "A" and the "Approved Alignment" are the least expensive proposals ($6,337,500.00 and $6,253,000.00 respectively.) Since the "Approved Alignment" goes through one mile of developed area with small lots, the actual right of way cost to be considered for their alignment may be higher than estimates. Alternates "A" and the "Approved Alignment" are similar in costs and physical features. Alternate "A" crosses large real estate parcels and is distant from existing developments, but will impact property which has not been directly impacted by this route previously. The "Approved Alignment" has an advantage in continuity of planning. Property owners have relied on this alignment for many years, and several developments have committed right of way to serve it. j f, f �S 1 1 i t ' f i 1 i i 1 fl. . L.. V ..1 .. V.— Project Report: SA 680 (Approved Alignment) SA 680 is shown on the Circulation Elennnt of the San Diego County General Plan dated January 1979 with right-of-way protection for Prime Arterial and construction for collector standards. On January 3, 1979, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to study potential alignments for an SA 680 collector from Del Dios Highway to Leucadia Boulevard and to present recommendations no later than GPA 79-02. The "Approved Alignment" was originally studied in 1967. Approx- imately one-fourth of this alignment was adopted as a Specific Plan January 10, 1969 by the Board of Supervisors. The remaining portion is shown on an approved 200 scale route locations study. Portions of the right of way have been dedicated and improved along this alignment. On Map 9051, SA 680 was constructed as a 60 foot road with offers of dedication for a 126 foot road. Approximately 1,500 feet west of this subdivision, the County made a hardship purchase of a ,,o:tion of a lot in the SA 680 corridor. The acquisi- tion was by deed recording number 75-003824. Beginning at Station 166+75, the intersection with Rancho Santa Fe Road, the alignment runs south-eastward, crossing Escondido Creek at Station 326+00, and terminates at Station 462+00, the inter- 4 1« section with Del Dios Highway, a distance of 5.59 miles. A large portion of this alignment follows existing Rancho Santa Fe Road (5,000 feet long) and a smaller portion (1,000 feet) follows Aliso Canyon Road. The terrain is hilly. 22% of the alignment has grades ranging from 7.6% to 6%. 62% has grades of 4% or less. Seven drainage structures are required In fill sections at various locations along the alignment, including a bridge over Escondido Creek. The minimum horizontal curve radius is 1,400 feet. Elevations range from 102 to 462 feet. Resulting sight distance along a series of vertical curves give a minimum design speed of 50 miles per hour. There are four areas with cuts 30 feet to 55 feet and three areas with fills between 20 feet and 35 feet. The total excavation is 1,045,000 cubic yards and 840,000 cubic yards of embankment. The total construction cost including a 400 foot long bridge, engineering and right of way is $6,253,000. I 11 ' APPENDIX B , Project Report: SA 680 (Alternate "A") SA 680 is shown on the Circulation Element of the San Diego County General Plan dated January 1979 with right of way protection for Prime Arterial and construction for collector standards. On January 3, 1979, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to study potential alignments for an SA 680 collector from Del Dios Highway to Leucadia Boulevard and to present recommendations no later than GPA 79-02. Beginning at Station 10+00, the intersection with Rancho Santa Fe Road, the alignment runs eastward and then southeastward, crossing Escondido Creek at Station 196+00, and traversing a distance of 5.03 miles. The study ends at Station 317+90, the intersection with Del Dios Highway. The alignment study generally follcws ownership boundaries where terrain permits and is on the east -west leg of Fortuna Ranch Road. The terrain is hilly. 31% of the alignment has maximum arade of 8%. 27% of the alignment has grades between 5% and 7%. The remaining 42% has grades of 4% or less. Seven major drainage structures are required to fill sections along the alignment including a bridge over Escondido Creek. The minimum horizontal curve radius is 1,000 feet. Elevations range from 144 to 461 feet. Resulting sight distance along a series of vertical curves gives a minimum design speed of 40 miles per hour. There are three areas with cuts of 40 feet to 60 feet and one fill section 60 feet deep. The total excavation on this alignment is 1,277,000 cubic yards and 900,000 cubic yards of embankment. The total construction cost including a 400 foot long bridge, engineer- ing and right-of-way is $6,337,500. s I f! Q C. d I •, APPENDIX D "B") Project Report: SA 680 (Alternate SA 680 is shown on the Circulation Element of the San Diego County General Plan dated January 1979 with right-of-way protection for Prime Arterial and construction for collector standards. On January 3, 1979, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to study potential alignments for an SA 680 collector from Del Dios Highway to Leucadia Boulevard and to present recommendations no later than GPA 79-02. Beginning at Station 10+00, the intersection with Rancho Santa Fe Road, the alignment runs eastward and southeastward, crossing Escondido Creek at Station 173+50 and traversing a distance of 5.98 miles, terminating'at Station 317+90, the intersection with Del ' Dios Highway. The alignment study generally follows ownership boundaries where terrain permits and is on the existing east -west leg of Aliso Canyon Road (2,500 feet). The stationing of this alternate includes an equation to Alternate "A" since this alignment is a ,variation of Alternate "A". The terrain is hilly. 51% of the aiignment has maximum grade of 8%,•12; of the alignment has 5% grades, and 37% has grades of 4.1% or less. Eight major drainage structures are required in fill sections along the alignment including a bridge over Escondido Creek. • 4 The minimum horizontal curve radius is 1,000 feet. Elevations range from 114 feet to 410 feet. Resulting sight distance along a series of vertical curves gives a design speed of 40 miles per hour. There are four areas with cuts 45 feet to 55 feet and one fill section 60 feet deep. The total excavation on this alignment is 1,544,000 cubic yards add 1,332,000 cubic yards of embankment. The total construction cost including a 500 foot long bridge, engin- eering and right-of-way is $7,0i9,000. ii f ) APPENDIX B Project Report: SA 680 (Alternate "C") SA 680 is shown on the Circulation Element of the San Diego County General Plan dated January 1979 with right-of-way protection for Prime Arterial and construction for collector standards. On January 3, 1979, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to study potential alignments for an SA 680 collector from Del Dios Highway to Leucadia Boulevard and to present recommendations no later than GPA 79-02. Alternate "C" was recommended for study by the Rancho Santa Fe Associ- ation. Beginning at Station 10+00, the intersection with Rancho Santa Fe Road, the alignment runs northeastward and then southeastward, cross- ing Escondido Creek at Station 229+70 and traversing a distance of 6.61 miles, to terminate at Station 358+75, the intersection with Del Dios Highway. A portion of the alignment (2,000 feet) follows the east -west portion of Aliso Canyon Road. The terrain is hilly. 13% of the alignment has maximum grades of 8%. 49% of the alignment has the grades be- tween 7% and 5%• The remaining 38% has grades less than 4.5%. Seven drainage structures are required in fill sections along the alignment including a bridge over Escondido Creek. The minimum horizontal curve radius is 1,000 feet. Elevations range from 117 feet to 575 feet. Resulting sight distance along a series of vertical curves gives a minimum design speed of 40 miles per hour. There are four areas with cuts 45 feet to 75 feet and four areas with fills between 40 feet and 60 feet. The total excavation on this alignment is 1,518,000 cubic yards and 1,006,000 cubic yards of embankment. The total construction cost Including a 400 foot long bridge, engin- eering and right-of-:vay is $7,016,000. M. t9 d CAPAINIC .D:=L- DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY APPROVED ALIGNMENT FOR SA 680 c t BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1979.1980 A. C. "Bus" Smith, President Sue Colbourne, Vice•Presidcnt David 0. Dewey Donald C. Sherman Marcia Van Liew Paul Wassmansdorf Richard H. Wehrreyer Warren S. Benson Manager OVER FIFTY YEARS �r COMMUNITY SERVICE 1^ T JURY 'C II Johns, President in W. 'Lipse, Vicc•Pres'.dent J+2 n J. Mulligan, Secretary " td D. Booth ;;� l��. Ci r•; n�aJ sephT. Fuller ale (w1)„i Doug Carey 19 vyS Buildin Commissioner a/ Rancho Santa Fe .Association Post Office Box A IN REPLY REFER TO: Rancho Santa Fe, California 92067 (71411 756.1175 5518 — 103 August 17, 1979 Mr. Paul Russey City Manager. Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 Dear Paul, The verdict is in! The Judge ruled in favor of the Rancho Santa Fe Association in its suit against the County of San Diego, on the EIR, f the Traffic Circula- tion Plan, specifically, to SA I am attaching a copy of the Memorandum of intended Dec- ision by Judge welch, for your information. We do not know what the County will do next, although the newspaper indicates the County has asked the Judge to re- consider. From a legal point of view, I do not know what that involves, however, we are anticipationg that the County will have tc take some positive action on obtaining addition- al input and, or, re-evaluate the data that they prepared before. This decision will give all of us an opportunity to provide additional input to the County. I will keep you advised of the status. Si c cly, larren S. Benson Manager I Enclosure A non -stock, non-profit, HorneownersAssoclation. Incorpom-d under the laws of the State of California, July 1.1. 1927 J 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CAZ.IFORhIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO , 11 RA111,010 SANTA FE .NsSOC:EATION, ) 12 Petitioner, ) Case No. 430458 13 V. ) 'MrMORANDUM OF i 14 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY ) INTENDED DECISxON 15 OF SAN DIEGO,16 ) Respondent. ) 17 18 The Environmental impact Report (EIR) discusses four alterna- � 19 Live plans for future road construction in the San Dieouito area. 20 The Board of Supervisors rejected all four plans and adopted a plan 21. that includes Elements not discussed in the EIR. In this respect 22 ' and others, the Board did not proceed as required by law* and some 23- of the Board's findings are not supported by substantial evidence. 24 Therefore, the peremptory writ of mandate must be granted (Public 25 Resources Code Section 21168.5) . t 26 The adopted plan reserves a six -lane corridor for SA 680 from t f d .�. .• ... �' .:•...C"...'•,'a:q:. .':�:..•.;,•,r,,,;,'�•'':: :'•:�•;..: •.. Y,'t «:.'M •,.,tea f�,• ,../:. •ih:'.�.� "�•� S .. 4 ` ^:•l.,.:. OG�. '".F4s ! SCCrridor - :..•' t. Del aosi itiyhwu;{: a tWCP .ane r t Leecadiu UOUIO•J"41 b 2 is then interrupted from Del Dios to sr 728 at which point 5A• 68Q , cats ets a two-lane road and continues to the San Diego City t 3 reapg , ,4 limftc.' nowhere is.this unusual confiyuratioi► .or' its ptasn�bla b . environmental consequences discussed in the 1EXR. There is no ftisaus-- 1 •isnb{lity of pouring six lanes into tWO or not 6 sionabout the a3v l Dios to Sr 728. In fact, 7 reserving a connecting corridor from Det ined. Instead, the Board directe' 8 the precide route has not been determ pot alignment of this 9 its staff to study the e route (Ex. procedure is contrary to the reruircments of the California ' 10 This s 21000 et €e9- 11 Envixonmsntai Qua Act (CSQA' public Resources' Code „ ' gated thereunder (see esp. Title 1.4 , 12 and the regulations promul 13 S15011.tiifl3 - 14 - CE6A requires that all significant adverse ervircnmental t "s�eCy zc ecenomxc, 15 effects in a pro5ect be mitigated unless social, _ or other considerations make infeasible the ni 16 tigat�on measures •` lied). The EXR identified certain roads 17 (S210allcj, emphasis supp ience serious congestion and these were identified as 18 that tai?.l exper ft ffects. The Board, in its 19 20 21 significant adverse en.virbnmental e resolution(Ex. 2) , acknowledged this impact but found mi'ciga'tion „ use 'of °'specific economic, social, and other "infeasible bt- 22 ronsiderations." nut, the specific considerations were not descx3be� This does noL• conform with CEQA's requirements (see Regulations 23 24 r;S).5088, 3.5089) . 25 d's finding that — Lt)his project will have no • I 26 • The Hoax significant impacts on the environment compared to t':e existing 0 i,..Y'.• 'r P'�=i.^J• �i+'' • ..��'f' - •Y•1./•a't�'f J•. .j �' •+.C.if ..L •ti.. .. • .'j i�.'r•: 1. circulation dement" is not vupportcd by th...:vidence. .'-To the '2 cantrary, the ERB observed that: the proposed plan, compared to the existing i972 plan, would have a significant unmitigable effect an ;,4 transportation (Ex. 1, p. 25). The Board's finding that congestion '5 on El Camino Real cannot be mitigated is not supported by substantial 6 -evidence. The proposed plan shows ten lanos of traffic, nix from 7 SA 650 and four from SF 728 pouring into El Camino Iteal , a two-lane I1 8 road (Ex. W). On its face, this is absurd. The ERB advised. corridor ;S protectiob for El Camino Real as a prime arterial from SF 728 to ` 10 Manchester, in mitigation (Ex. 1, p. 35). 11 The EXR is defective in certain respects. -The traffic. flow • t 12 over SF 728 was calculated as if there was a direct connection to I 13 1-5 over Via de la Valle. The plan, however, contemplates that 14 traffic will flow from SF 728 to E1 Camino Real and then north or F 15 soutil to crossroads that lead to I-5. Accurate information that - f 16 will provide a reliable traffic count requires measurement of traffxr; i 17 over the proposed route. An analysis of traffic congestion on r_egio: . 18-- roads (e:•a., S.H. 78 and Palomar Airport Road) has been made fo;. onlzi 19 two of the four alternative plans, neither of which were similar to 20 the adopted plan. And finally, the increased traffic on certain• 21 key east -west local roads, notably S-6 and S-8, was not clearly p 22 explained. Assessment of impacts of the project on the Iregi.onal 23 'networK is necessary (Rea. 515142). A substantial increase in traff 24 on local and regional roads will have a significant effect on the i 25environment and should be mitigated -if possible '(Appendix � to f 26 Regulations). . F ' -•3- i j ,•t'^ ;, 1• u, LL ��'.•'r ram' ,..�.•:.. •f•• K••�+••�L ��:. r`r...M.. t�'..,' •.r. u ge o t e uper or Court —. �10 ,17 - 13 14 ' 17 b '