The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2002-10-08; City Council; 16923 part 5 of 6; Carlsbad OaksOFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF VISTA, CALIFORNIA J. WAYNE DERNETZ, City Attorney MARTIN A. GROVER, Assistant City Attorney Jonathan B. Stone, Assistant City Attorney 600 Eucaly tus Avenue Vista, Caliha 92084 Direct Dial: (760) 639-6119 Facsimile: (760) 639-6120 October 3,2002 Hon. Mayor and Council Members City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008-1949 Re: Carlsbad Oaks Dear Mayor and Council Members: This letter (along with other submissions) supports Vista's request for traffic mitigation at two intersections in Vista (Faraday/Melrose and Sycarnore/Melrose) that will be significantly impacted by the Carlsbad Oaks development. I THE EIR PROPOSES TO DENY MITIGATION TO THE REGION'S MOST SEVERELY IMPACTED INTERSECTIONS Carlsbad Oaks is not located in Vista, but Vista's intersections will experience impacts that exceed those in Carlsbad. In fact, 44% of all traffic to or from Carlsbad Oaks will pass through a single intersection in Vista - Faraday Road and Melrose Drive.' Likewise, the intersection at Sycamore Avenue and Melrose Drive will carry 24% of the development's traffic.* Yet the draft EIR requires traffic mitigation measures only for traffic impacts at Carlsbad's inter~ections.~ I Draft Environmental Impact Report, Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan, p. 5-2-37. * Id. In contrast, the most heavily impacted intersections in Carlsbad are El Fuerte Street and Palomar Airport Road (which carries 35% of the project's traffic) and Faraday Avenue and El Camino Real (which will carry 21% of the project's traffic). Id. ' The draft EIR requires the developer to construct street improvements in Carlsbad for purposes of traffic mitigation or to make fair share contributions toward that construction. . Hon. Mayor and Council Members October 3,2002 Page 2 This inequitable practice is highlighted by the following chart which compares project-induced delays - prior to mitigation -- at intersections in Vista and Carlsbad! COMPARISON OF-C DELAY AT INTERSECTIONS IN VlSTARECOVlNG NO MITIGATION WITH INTERSECTIONS IN CARLSBAD RECEIVING MITIG4TION (PRE.MITIGATION PROJECT-RELATED DaAYflN SECONDS) The above-identified intersections in Carlsbad will receive mitigation although they experience project-induced delays - prior to mitigation -of only 1.5 to 2.6 seconds? Simultaneously, the EIR requires no mitigation for intersections in Vista that experience project-induced delays of between 55 and 61 seconds. Thus, the EIR denies mitigation for Vista’s intersections although they will experience delays that are 20 times longer than intersections in Carlsbad receiving mitigation.’ The delays presented are an average of the morning and evening peak period delays as set forth in EIR, Table 5.2-9. A larger version of the chart is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. See, proposed mitigation measures T1, T3, T4, and T5 for the four identified intersections in Carlsbad. EIR, p 5.2-17 and 5.2-18. See, comments in EIR about intersections in Vista (intersections 18 and 19). EIR, p. 5.2-14, 5.2-15, and 5.2-18. See also, Resolution 5244 of the Carlsbad Planning Commission, dated August 21,2002, pages, 16-28. ’ Admittedly, Palomar Airport Road and El Fuerte Street (intersection 47) in Carlsbad will experience average delays of 72.2 seconds which will be eliminated due to the proposed Hon. Mayor and Council Members October 3,2002 Page 3 The logic underlying the draft EIR withholds mitigation in the immediate vicinity of the project while providing mitigation at great distances from the project. Thus, the draft EIR would provide mitigation at three intersections that are between 1.7 and 2.2 miles from the project.8 Simultaneously, the draft EIR does not require mitigation at Faraday and Melrose - in Vista -which is only 505 feetg from the project and will carry 44% of the project‘s traffic. II CARLSBAD OAKS LITERALLY CONVERTS UNDEVELOPED ROLLING HILLS INTO A LARGE-SCALE DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL FUNNEL INTENSE TRAFFIC INTO VISTA’S ADJACENT INTERSECTION The traffic impacts in Vista are pronounced because the proposed site for Carlsbad Oaks is presently an expanse of undeveloped rolling hills, as seen in photographs 1A and 1 B, found in Exhibit 1 .’’ This undeveloped expanse -which produces no traffic -will be converted into a large-scale industrial development consisting of 1.9 million square feet. The development‘s traffic circulation will empty almost half of its traffic onto Faraday Road in Vista. See, photograph IC. After traveling 500 feet from the project boundary, Faraday Road joins Melrose (as seen in photographs 1 D, 1 E, and 1 F). Although the intersection of Faraday and Melrose is sizeable, the project-related traffic will drop its service level to the lowest possible rating: “F.” The project will increase delays at this intersection by over a minute. mitigation measures. See, EIR, Table 5.2-10. Yet, as indicated above, the other four intersections in Carlsbad receive mitigation although they experience comparatively small delays. See, Exhibit 3, an excerpt from the Thomas Brothers Map for San Diego County, pages 1147 and 1148 (center portion). The map locates intersections 21,22 and 28 in Carlsbad (which will will receive mitigation under the draft EIR) and intersection 19 (Faraday and Melrose) which will receive no mitigation under the draft EIR. The map has a scale of an inch for every 2,400 feet (indicated at page xii, included), and was reproduced without enlargement or reduction. The distance between these intersections and the project (on a straight line basis) is: (1) 9,100 feet or 1.7 miles for intersection 21 (3.8 inches); 12,000 feet or 2.25 miles for intersection 22 (five inches); and 12,000 feet or 2.25 miles for intersection 28 (five inches). As indicated in footnote eight, the distance between intersection 19 and the project is 505 feet. See, City of Vista Street Improvement Plan, Drawing No. 3206, Sheet 9A of 21, dated March 26, 1992. All photographs of the Faraday and Melrose intersection are contained in Exhibit B. The location of those photographs (and the direction of the shots) are identified in Map 1, which is also part of Exhibit 1. Hon. Mayor and Council Members October 3,2002 Page 4 Twenty four percent of the project‘s traffic will continue north on Melrose Drive until it reaches the intersection with Sycamore Avenue, as shown in photographs 2A, 2B, and 2C, found in Exhibit 2.” Delays at this intersection, due to the project, will be extended by over 50 seconds. 111 CONCLUSION The mitigation strategy in the draft EIR provides no mitigation for intersections that suffer the most severe impacts. Meanwhile, mitigation resources are directed to intersections in Carlsbad that experience, on a comparative basis, virtually no impacts. This mitigation strategy does not advance the goals of good planning and does not further the objectives of CEQA. Vista respectfully requests that the City of Carlsbad require mitigation for intersections in Vista that will suffer significant project-related traffic impacts. Sincerely, Jonathan B. Stone, Assistant City Attorney cc: Raymond R. Patchett, City Manager (with exhibits) Ron Ball, Carlsbad City Attorney (with exhibits) Ron Rouse (with exhibits) The location of those photographs (and the direction of the shots) are identified in Map 2, which is also part of Exhibit 2. Hon. Mayor and Council Members October 3,2002 Page 5 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit I Map I, of Faraday Road and Melrose Drive Photographs ?A through 1G Exhibit 2 Map 2, of Sycamore Avenue and Melrose Drive Photographs 2A through 2C Exhibit 3 Thomas Brother Map Showing Locations of Select Intersections Exhibit 4 Chart - Intersection Cornparison/Project Induced Delay MAP 1 INTERSECTION OF FARADAY ROAD AND MELROSE DRIVE CITY OF VISTA BOUNDARY AND PROJECT BOUNDARY - Location picture was taken - Direction picture was taken a . .., .. I I I INTERSECTION OF SYCAMORE AVENUE AND MELROSE DRIVE il - Location picture was taken - - Direction picture was taken 7 .. . i PRE-MITIGATED PROJECT-RELATED DELAYAN SECONDS 2 0 N w 0 0 P VI 0 0 0 -4 0 EXHIBIT 4- J. WAYNE DERNETZ, City Attorney MARTIN A. GROVER, Assistant City Attorney Jonathan B. Stone, Assistant City Attorney OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF VISTA, CALIFORNIA 600 Eucaly tus Avenue Vista, CaliErnia 92084 Direct Dial: (760) 639-6119 Facsimile: (760) 639-6120 October 3, 2002 Hon. Mayor and Council Members City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008-1949 Re: Carlsbad Oaks Dear Mayor and Council Members: On August 21, 2002, the Carlsbad Planning Commission adopted Resolution 5244 (“Commission Resolution”). That resolution recommends that the City Council of Carlsbad certify the environmental impact report for the North Carlsbad Oaks Specific Plan (“EIR). It is possible that the Commission Resolution was based on certain factual misunderstandings. This letter provides additional information so that the Carlsbad City Council may make a fully informed decision. I CARLSBAD’S STAFF CLAIMS THAT CARLSBAD CANNOT REQUIRE PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS IN VISTA FOR PURPOSES OF MITIGATION, BUT THE COMMISSION’S OWN RESOLUTION SPEAKS TO THE CONTRARY The Carlsbad staff contends that Carlsbad is unable to require the project applicant to mitigate impacts in Vista.’ Yet, the Commission Resolution belies this position. Pursuant to that resolution, the applicant is required to construct sound walls on residential property in Vista unless the owners of those properties refuse the offer.’. Thus, at one point Carlsbad recognizes its obligation to mitigate impacts in Vista (through requiring the construction of sound walls in Vista), and at the same time Carlsbad contends that it is legally unable to provide mitigation in the territory of Vista for purposes of traffic. Vista respectfully suggests that this position is inconsistent. Rather, Carlsbad can require the applicant to make an offer to Vista for purposes of ’ See, Exhibit 1, Response Letter of August 1,2002, prepared by Carlsbad Associated Planner, Anne Hysong, replying to comments of the City of Vista and other agencies regarding the draft EIR, p. 33-34. 2 Commission Resolution, p. 34. The residences between Carlsbad Oaks and Melrose Drive are located exclusively in Vista. Draft EIR, part 5.1. Mayor and Council Members Carlsbad City Council October 3,2002 Page 2 traffic mitigation, just as Carlsbad has require residents for purposes of sound mitigation. d the applicar It to make an offer to Vi: II THE COMMISSION RESOLUTION MISTAKENLY ASSUMES THAT VISTA LACKS A PROGRAM INTO WHICH FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTIONS CAN BE MADE The Commission Resolution states that “Vista has indicated that there is currently no specific improvement program in place to fund, design, and construct improvements” which would mitigate project-related impacts in Vista.3 The resolution continues, “because there is no specific program,” the impacts are “~navoidable.”~ This factual supposition is false. The Vista City Council has an approved Capital Improvement Program which includes intersection improvements that largely duplicate those identified in the EIR and which will mitigate or substantially avoid the project- related traffic impacts at the intersections of Faraday and Melrose and Sycamore and Melrose. That program was adopted by resolution 2002-225.5 The Commission was advised in writing of this program in advance of its meeting.6 The Commission was again advised of the program at its meeting of August 21 through the oral testimony of the Vista City Planner, Patrick Richardson, and myself.’ It is inexplicable why the Commission Resolution would state that “Vista has indicated that there is currently no ...p rogram” for these improvements when Vista has repeatedly advised Carlsbad of the opposite.’ Therefore, there is no factual basis for Carlsbad to withhold mitigati~n.~ Commission Resolution, p. 16. Id. See, Exhibit 2, Resolution 2002-225. See, Exhibit 3, correspondence from Jonathan Stone, Assistant City Attorney, to Mr. Michael Holtzmiller, Secretary to the Planning Commission, dated August 20,2002. . ’ See, Exhibit 4, Transcript of Proceedings of the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission, August 21, 2002 (“Transcript of Commission Proceedings”), p. 4 lines 19-24 (testimony of Vista City Planner, Patrick Richardson), and p. 14, lines 1-3 (testimony of Vista Assistant City Attorney, Jonathan Stone). * In fact, Carlsbad was advised on May 30,2002 that the improvements were to be added to Vista’s capital improvement program. See, Exhibit 5. In addition, Carlsbad received advanced notice that Vista was about to adopt the program through correspondence dated August 1, 2002, (attached as Exhibit 6) from Jonathan Stone, Assistant City Attorney, to Lorraine Wood, City Clerk, advising the City of Carlsbad that Vista had scheduled a meeting to adopt the Mayor and Council Members Carlsbad City Council October 3, 2002 Page 3 111 CONTRARY TO CARLSBAD’S ASSERTION, OTHER AGENCIES PROVIDE CROSSJURISDICTIONAL MITIGATION On August 21, the developer‘s attorney, Ron Rouse, urged the Commission to require no mitigation in Vista for traffic impacts that would be caused by his client‘s project. He assured the Commission that in twenty-nine years of legal practice” he had never heard of one jurisdiction offering traffic mitigation to its neighbor.” He advised the Commission that his knowledge included his experience representing developers in numerous jurisdictions, including the City of San Diego, Escondido, Chula Vista, Poway, Santee, Vista, and the County of San Diego.” He acknowledged only one exception to this barrier to mitigation. According to Mr Rouse, cross-jurisdictional mitigation is permitted in a single and limited situation -when a lead agency and its neighbor jointly own a facility that crosses their borders.13 Accordingly, Mr. Rouse concluded that Vista sought a windfall at the developer’s expense. He concluded that the actual cost of mitigation should rightfully be paid by Vista‘s taxpayers or property owner^.'^ Yet, Mr. Rouse’s factual claims prove false. In fact, each of the jurisdictions named by Mr. Rouse have participated in cross-jurisdictional traffic mitigation. The table and associated exhibits document this practice. program. Further, Vista believes that mitigation can be effected - even when no formal program exists - through conditions which require an applicant to execute a mitigation agreement, offer to provide fair share contributions, offer to construct improvements, or through other arrangements. lo See, Exhibit 4, Transcript of Commission Proceedings, p. 33, lines 8-12. ‘I See, Exhibit 4, Transcript of Commission Proceedings, p. 33. lines 23-25. ’* See, Exhibit 4, Transcript of Commission Proceedings, p. 33, lines 10-12. The communities referenced by Mr. Rouse (and previously identified by Mr. Stone) include the cities of “San Diego, Chula Vista, Escondido, Poway, Santee ... and the County of San Diego.” p. 15, lines 6-8. l3 “The only cross-jurisdictional mitigation is where there is really a facility that is shared by the two cities. Exhibit 4, Transcript of Commission Proceedings, p. 33, lines 13-15. l4 See, Exhibit 4, Transcript of Commission Proceedings, p. 31, lines 11-22, Mayor and Council Members Carlsbad City Council October 3,2002 Page 4 4gency 'roviding Zross- lurisdictional. rraftlc Mitigation 3ty of San liego - scondido Agency Receiving Mitigation Poway Unincorp. County + San Marcos JrojecUEIR ilancho Zncantada 'recise Plan Escondido Research and Technology Center Location of Required Extra- territorial Street Improvement Pornerado Road and Stonernill Drive and Scripps Poway Parkway and Pornerado Road (MM 4.6- (MM 4.6-5) 4) Fair Share Contribution to Del Rios Highway Via Rancho Parkway (County) Signalize Burnharn DrivelEast Mission Road (San Marcos) Widen Nordhal Road between SR 78 west- bound ramps and East Mission Road (San Marcos) Excerpt from EIR Providing Cross- Jurisdictional Mitigation and Location Map 7 8 Mayor and Council Members Carlsbad City Council October 3,2002 Page 5 Santee 2ounty of San liego ~ ~~ II Cajon 2ounty of San liego Unincorp. County of San Diego Chula Vista Unincorp. Sounty 3ty of San liego Fanita Ranch Daley Rock Quarry iome Depot 1s Ranch Signalize SR- 52 Ramps at Mast Boulevard (MM 5 and 6); make Fair share contribution for construction of 1,300 feet of eastbound lane on State Route 52 along Mast Boulevard (MM, Segment D) 3,000 feet of Otay Lakes Road in Chula Vista (MM 4.3.3(1a)) plus a Maintenance hgreement Nith Chula Vista (MM 1.3.3(a)). Sonstruction of :urn pocket dong Auroa 4venue (MM 4.2-la). Carmel Valley ioad (MM 4.5- a), (MM 4.5-7) 9 10 Mayor and Council Members Carlsbad City Council October 3,2002 Page 6 IV CONTRARY TO MR. ROUSE'S TESTIMONY, HIS FORMER CLIENT MADE MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO FUND EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE HE NOW DECLARES TO BE UNAUTHORIZED Mr. Rouse also disputed Vista's a~sertion'~ that Vista used fair share contributions to mitigate extra-jurisdictional traffic impacts in the unincorporated County as part of the North County Square project in Vista. To support his claim, he advised the Commission that ''I was also the land use counsel on the North County Square Project .... I'm very proud of that one."16 He insisted that the project did not involve "sending money to the county" for street improvements as Vista had claimed. Rather, he advised the Commission that the mitigation measure was the "building of a facility ... that was needed." This "facility" was required because the "road impacts" from the project went to a "county island" which was a "quarter of a mile or half mile" from the project." Yet, Mr. Rouse's former client made the very fair share contributions that Mr. Rouse now characterizes as unauthorized. Indeed, the EIR for the North County Square project concluded that the development would produce significant traffic impacts in the nearby territory of the unincorporated county.'8 To mitigate those impacts, the EIR required that "the applicant shall guarantee, to the satisfaction of the City Manager [of Vista], the contribution of its proportionate fair share towards the costs of planned improvement South Santa Fe Avenue/Sycamore Avenue within the jurisdiction of the County."" Ultimately, the developer made a fair share contribution of over $300,000 toward this improvement in the County. Is See, Exhibit 4, Transcript of Commission Proceedings, p. 14. lines 19-24. See, Exhibit 4, Transcript of Commission Proceedings, p. 34, lines 1-3. I' See, Exhibit 4, Transcript of Commission Proceedings, p. 34, lines 4-1 1. '' See, Exhibit 13, North County Square EIR, p. 4.D-24 through 4.D-32. l9 See, Exhibit, 13, North County Square EIR, p. 4.D-66, condition D-5. Mayor and Council Members Carlsbad City Council October 3, 2002 Page 7 V CONTRARY TO CARLSBAD’S CLAIM, VISTA HAS AND CONTINUES TO REQUIRE APPLICANTS TO PROVIDE FOR CROSS-JURISDICTIONAL MITIGATION Carlsbad’s staff states that Vista “historically has not assumed responsibility” to mitigate extra-territorial traffic “impacts of development in Vista”.*’ Yet, the opposite is true. As required by CEQA, Vista has mitigated all significant cross-jurisdictional traffic impacts that have been identified in Vista’s environmental review documents. No contrary examples exist, and none have been identified by Carlsbad’s staff. This practice includes the North County Square project and continues to date. Recently, Vista circulated a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the possible development of a Home Depot near Vista’s border with Carlsbad. That document provided that the developer would make a fair share contribution to Carlsbad to mitigated significant project-induced impacts. Specifically, the Mitigated Negative Declaration provided: “The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair share of funding toward future intersection improvements at the intersections of S. MelroselPalomar Airport Road in order to provide an adequate level of service at-this intersection, as determined by the City of Carlsbad. The fair share contribution shall be based on the project‘s contribution to traffic at this intersection....”*‘ The record indicates that Vista has adopted mitigation measures to respond to all significant project-related traffic impacts that are projected to occur (pursuant to environmental review documents) in neighboring jurisdictions. 2o See, Exhibit 1, Response Letter of August 1,2002, prepared by Carlsbad Associated Planner, Anne Hysong, replying to comments of the City of Vista and other agencies regarding the draft EIR, p. 33. 2’ See, Exhibit 14, Mitigated Negative Declaration for Home Depot, p. 40. At present it is uncertain whether the proposed Home Depot project will be developed. It has been determined that an EIR should be prepared rather than the original Mitigated Negative Declaration. If the EIR is subsequently completed and circulated, it remains speculative whether the project will receive discretionary approvals from the City of Vista. Mayor and Council Members Carlsbad City Council October 3,2002 Page 8 VI CONCLUSION Vista hopes that this letter and the associated exhibits assists the City Council in making an informed decision regarding the EIR for Carlsbad Oaks and the ability of Carlsbad to require the project applicant to mitigate impacts in both Carlsbad and Vista. We appreciate and value your consideration of this information. Sincerely, ~J~&4~+-?~ onathan B. Stone, Assistant City Attorney cc: Raymond R. Patchett, City Manager (with exhibits) Ron Ball, Carlsbad City Attorney (with exhibits) Ron Rouse (with exhibits) Mayor and Council Members Carlsbad City Council October 3, 2002 Page 9 Exhibit I Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7A 78 Exhibit 8A 88 Exhibit 9A 9B Exhibit IOA IOB Exhibit 1 ?A IIB Exhibit 12A 12B Exhibit 13A 13B LIST OF EXHIBITS Response Letter of August I, 2002, prepared by Carlsbad Associated Planner, Anne Hysong, replying to comments of the City of Vista and other agencies regarding the draft EIR. Vista City Council Resolution 2002-225 Letter of Vista Assistant City Attorney, Jonathan Stone, to Carlsbad Secretary to the Planning Commission, Michael Holtzmiller, dated August 20, 2002 Transcript of Proceedings of the Carlsbad Planning Commission, August 21,2002 Letter of Vista Assistant City Attorney, Jonathan Stone, to Carlsbad Associate Planner, Anne Hysong, dated May 30, 2002. Letter of Vista Assistant City Attorney, Jonathan Stone, to Carlsbad City Clerk, Lorraine Wood, dated August I, 2002. Rancho Encantada EIR (excerpt) Map Identifying Location of Cross-Jurisdictional Improvements Escondido Research and Technology Center EIR (excerpt) Map Identifying Location of Cross-Jurisdictional Improvements Finita Ranch EIR (excerpt) Map Identifying Location of Cross-Jurisdictional Improvements Daley Rock Quarry EIR (excerpt) Map Identifying Location of Cross-Jurisdictional Improvements Home Depot/€/ Cajon EIR (excerpt) Map Identifying Location of Cross-Jurisdictional Improvements 4s Ranch EIR (excerpt) Map Identifying Location of Cross-Jurisdictional Improvements North County Square EIR (excerpt) Resolution Approving EIR and Mitigation Measures Exhibit 14 Mitigated Negative Declaration for Home Depot (excerpt) " City of Carlsbad August 1,2002 Dear. Mr. Stone: In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a), the City of Carlsbad is transmitting responses to your comments on the Draft EIR for the proposed Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan project. Thank you for your interest in the project. You will receive a notice of public hearing prior to the Planning Commission hearing that is tentatively scheduled for August 21, 2002. Sincerely, A- M2-h- ANNE HYSONG Associate Planner Attachment COMMENT LETTER CV City of Vista May 29,2002 Response to Comment CV 1 Please refer to responses to comments CV 2 through CV 16 for a detailed response to each of the comments. Response to Comment CV 2 The traffic report prepared in conjunction with the EIR used the SANDAG CitydCounty 2020 regional model for tr&c analysis. This model was updated to include all approved andor pending projects in the City of Carlsbad and it’s neighboring cities, including the City of Vista. In addition, planned roadway network improvements were identified by City of Carlsbad and the neighboring communities for the years 2005,2010 and 2020. The City of Vista has used Series 8 regional forecast as a comparison throughout this comment letter. The comparison of the two reports is almost impossible. As an example, the Series 8 model underestimated some areas, had erroneous access nodes and left land uses out in others. In the Series 8 model, the Carlsbad Oaks North project was shown as open space. The change from the existing condition reflects an incomplete roadway network. The 2005 analysis includes Melrose Drive as well as a portion of Faraday Avenue. Both of these roadways provide an instant relief to the existing system. The existing traffic patterns will change when the new network and roadways are completed. The traffic model that is utilized in the traffic analysis provided in the Carlsbad Oaks North EIR incorporated a select zone analysis. The select zone analysis used computer generated “attractors” (schools, shopping centers, freeways, and work centers) in combination with “generators” (housing, apartments, recreation, shopping centers) and developed a model of traffic patterns throughout the County. Unlike previous traffic analysis methodologies that involved some level of subjective estimation of the traffic percentages or project distribution and an effort to proportion growth using the same pattern year after year, the select zone analysis is widely accepted in the traffic engineering industry as a more accurate prediction of gowth and traffic patterns. Because these two methodologies are so different, it is not possible to provide a usehl comparison of an old view and a newer traffic model. The roadway network improvements assumed in the 2005 model result in changes to traf€ic flow patterns &om the existing conditions. Four of the five intersections identified by City of Vista are at fieeway ramps at SR-78. Traffic patterns through keeway interchanges cannot be based solely on the land uses surrounding the interchanges. Freeways are directly affected by changes to the roadway network. The threshold for impacts to fieewaydramps are much higher (it., requires more trips) than is for other surface street intersections, Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan EIR Fina/ EIR -Responses to Comments 21 Cify of Carlsbad A ugusr 2002 By 2005, the traffic model assumes that San Marcos Boulevard is improved to five lanes from the existing four lanes, increasing capacity. Rancho Santa Fe Road is improved from four to sir; lanes. which is also an increase in capacity. The improvements identified will provide additional capacity, and may result in a shift in trafic volumes at the freeway ramps identified by the City of Vista. Improvements are also included in the traffic study that return the intersection kern deficient operations to acceptable operations under existing conditions. It is unclear as to whether or not these improvements are taken into consideration in the City’s analysis of unacceptable conditions at Sycamore under 2005 conditions. It is also unclear from the City’s comment what analysis of the freeway ramps the City of Vista’s analysis is based on, which would reiult in the five percent increase in fraffic volumes at the ramps. Improvements have been identified in the trafiic report to mitigate the deficient conditions within the City of Vista. As Carlsbad does not have jurisdiction outside of the City limits, the City of Carlsbad is not able to enforce any mitigation measures imposed on the project outside of the City. Response to Comment CV 3 The four identified roadways are showing signs of an existing failure. The City of Vista has recently approved projects with impacts on these roadways and has not provided mitigation to support the existing development. For example, the City of Vista approved a commercial center located at the northwest comer of Business Park Drive and Palomar Airport Road. This project has been constructed and is operational. The traffic generated by this project directly impacts the intersection of Melrose Drive and Palomar Airport Road and the intersection of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road (both located in the City of Carlsbad); however, the City of Vista did not participate in funding improvements to the intersections impacted in the City of Carlsbad. Comment noted. Response to Comment CV 4 The statement that the improvements to the intersections are only caused by Carlsbad development is factually wrong. The failure occurs at many of the intersections today and the traffic analysis indicates a cumulative impact at these intersections. As an example, if the project was not approved and constructed, regional growth, particularly in Vista would show failures to continue to appear. There are several projects planned in the City of Carlsbad and the City of Vista that will effect bffic operations at the intersections identified by the City of Vista. During 2020 build out, with all other projects in place these four intersections are forecast to operate deficiently. The point in time when these intersections operate deficiently will depend upon the order in which the projects are developed. Based on the traffic study guidelines the “with” and ‘%5thout” project scenarios were analyzed assuming the Carlsbad Oaks North project was the last to be developed. Final EIR - Responses to Comments Carlsbad Oab North Specific Plan EIR 28 City of Carlsbad August 2002 Response to Comment CV 5 The City of Carlsbad met on numerous occasions with City of Vista staff to discuss programs and alternatives. At the last meeting the staff of each City discussed having each City mitigate its own traffic impacts and not crossing jurisdictional boundaries. The cost of Melrose Drive improvements in Carlsbad and the Faraday Roadway improvements are estimated in the several millions of dollars that the City of Carlsbad and this project is prepared to absorb. These improvements more than offset the impacts in the City of Vista. See also response to comment VCA 3. The City of Vista has approved major projects on or near the same four intersections without looking at build-out needs or traffic forecasting. The intersections of S. Melrose / Park Center as well as S. Melrose / Sycamore A& are part of large developments without build out or permanent improvements planned. The Home Depot Project is an application that is on file at the City of Vista and is currently being studied by 'the City of Vista for development (an EIR is under preparation). Acquisition of Right of Way is not an obligation that can be passed to another Jurisdiction. Eminent Domain and Condemnation is governed by regulations that the City of Carlsbad will not assume within the City of Vista. The Home Depot project attempted to use the series 8 traffic model and met opposition based on the inherent flaw of an outdated Model. The statement that the Home Depot improvements would not have been required is unfounded, the Mitigated Negative Declaration was never circulated. The decision to process an EIR along with an updated traffic model was made by the City of Vista last year. At the time the traffic model for the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan project was prepared, the Home Depot project was included in the traffic model, as an approved project, for inclusion in the City of Carlsbad Sub-Area model. Although the project is not currently approved, it is a pending project under analysis and will have an impact on the intersection within the project study area. Therefore, it is critical that this project be considered in the analysis. It is reasonable to assume that any improvements along the project kontage for the Home Depot project would be the responsibility of that project if the project is approved. If the project does not move forward, then the project trips associated with that larid use will not be realized. Therefore, the traffic conditions forecast are conservative and the improvements identified may not be needed. Previous studies of the Home Depot project were based on model data stemming from land use data that was over eight (8) years old. This included open space for the proposed Carlsbad Oaks project area. Therefore, the analysis conducted for this study did not reflect the most recent land use data available. ' Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan EIR Final EIR -Responses to Comments 29 City of Carlsbad August 2002 . Response to Comment CV 6 The improvements identified in the traffic study mitigate the identified deficient conditions. As stated. the City of Carlsbad does not have jurisdiction over the improvements outside of City limits. Other feasible intersection improvements may be available to mitigate the identified deficient conditions. Response to Comment CV 7 The improvements identified in the traffic study mitigate the identified deficient conditions. As stated, the City of Carlsbad does not have jurisdiction over the improvements outside of City limits. Other feasible intersection improvements may be available to mitigate the identified deficient conditions. Response to Comment CV 8 The improvements identified in the traffic study mitigate the identified deficient conditions. As stated, the City of Carlsbad does not have jurisdiction over the improvements outside of City limits. Other feasible intersection improvements may be available to mitigate the identified deficient conditions. Response to Comment CV 9 The improvements identified in the traf€ic study mitigate the identified deficient conditions. As stated, the City of Carlsbad does not have jurisdiction over the improvements outside of City limits. Other feasible intersection improvements maybe available to mitigate the identified deficient conditions. With respect to the statement by the commentor that, “In lieu of installation of the physical improvements.. .. Vista is ‘willing to accept a fair share contribution”, the cost estimate stated by the commentor includes right of way acquisition as well as costs unsupported by any public document. The percentages identified by the commentor are unfounded. If this project is paying 16.05%, Vista has not identified the source of the other 83.95% of the funding (e.g., by which document or established program). The calculations appear to include cumulative base plus project. The actual 2005 AM/F” peak volumes on the requested legs of the intersection (of the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan project alone) equal 0 for southbound and 161117 for northbound. None of these ratios develop percentages that Vista has recommended. (8 of the 12 movements are 0 volume). The statement that Carlsbad asked for a fair share contribution from the Home Depot Project is not accurate given the City’s recent thread of discussion about each City being responsible for its own impacts. Response to Comment CV 10 Comment noted. Response to Comment CV 11 Carlsbad Oakr North Specific Plan EIR Final EIR -Responses to Comments 30 City of Carlsbad August 2002 Comment noted. The addition of Faraday and Melrose will improve traffic operations along a:,crnative routes such as El Camino Real, Business Park, and Palomar Airport Road. The extension of Melrose Drive and Faraday will result in an increase in traffic along these roadways, as would be expected when an existing dead-end roadway is connected. The roadway capacity provided by these two roadways is necessary for the circulation system in North San Diego County. The existing roadway network without improvements such as the extension of Melrose. will not be able to handle the future forecast volumes without these improvements. The tTaffic along Melrose Drive in particular is associated with a shift from other regional roadways and is not directly related to the proposed project. Response to Comment CV 12 The se,ments of Melrose Drive referenced by the commentor have not been constructed. Tables 5.4-1 and 5.4-5 of the EIR have been revised to indicate that the segments do not currently exist, and therefore there is no corresponding traffic generated noise. Response to Comment CV 13 The following text has been added to page 5.4-1 1 of the EIR: While the City of Vista General Plan Noise Element identifies target noise levels for land use categories, the Noise Element refers to the City of Vista Noise Control Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 8.32) for the enforceable noise standards. Municipal Code Chapter 8.32 legally sets exterior property line noise limits for various land uses in terms of I-hour Leq value (Leq(h)), unless a variance has been applied for (citing mitigation circumstances) and granted. As specified therein, residential areas are restricted in the amount of noise that can legally be generated at the property line to 50 dBA between 7r00 AM and IOtOO PM and 45 dBA between 1O:OO PM and 7.00 AM. For commercial uses, applicable exterior property line noise limits are 60 dBA between 7t00 AM and 1O:OO PM and 55 dBA between 1O:OO PM and 7:OO AM. Moreover, in the event that the alleged oflensive noise contains music or speech conveying informational content, the I- hour Leq limit is reduced by 5 dB. The Noise standards set forth in the City of Vista’s Municipal Code address the noise that a particular use can generate. The provisions of Vista’s Municipal Code do not apply to the proposed project as it is located within the City of Carlsbad. The Specific Plan contains performance standards that include “ . . . between the hours of 6:OO pm and 7:OO am, uses on lots 8, 13, and 17 shall not produce noise in excess of 60 Ldn as measure at the property line and 55 Ldn if the noise repetitive in nature.’’ These standards would ensure no significant stationary noise impact would result to adjacent residences. Response to Comment CV 14 Page 5.4-11 of the EIR incorrectly stated the construction noise level standard. The City acknowledges that the intent of the standard is not to allow construction noise to continuously exceed 75dBA up to eight hours a day, rather that the construction noise threshold is a 75 decibel average over an eight-hour period. Page 5.4-11 of the EIR has been revised as follows: Carlsbad Oak North Specific Plan EIR Final EIR -Responses to Comments 31 Ciry of Carlsbod A ugust 2002 . The City of Vista permits construction related noise provided the noise level at the property line does not exceed 75 dBA averaged over an eight-hourperiod. Typical construction equipment noise level data is provided in the EIR (see Table 5.4-2) and noise levels from blasting and rock crushing have been identified. As identified in the EIR, the average noise level at 50 feet from earthmoving equipment ranges between 79 and ES dBA. The construction noise level will exceed 75 dB at certain times during the course of the day; however, because typical grading activities involve moving around throughout the site, it is expected that, when average over an eight hour period, noise levels will not exceed the threshold of 75 dBA. Response to Comment CV 15 Page 5.4-17 of the EIR incorrectly states that the City of Vista Noise Ordinance considers a 3dBA increase in roadway noise levels as potentially significant. The 3 dBA increase is in reference to the Thresholds of Significance utilized for the evaluation of roadway noise impacts, and as identified on page 5.4-10 of the EIR. Page 5.4-10 of the EIR has been revised as follows: As identified in the Thresholds of Significance, 3 C?? &%&&$&e 'I -a 3 dBA increase in roadway noise levels is considered potentially si_mificant. Response to Comment CV 16 Comment noted. COMMENT LETTER VCA City Attorney, City of Vista May 30,2002 Response to Comment VCA 1 Comment noted. Please refer to the detailed responses provided in responses to comments VCA 2 through VCA E and CV 1 through CV 16. Response to Comment VCA 2 The EIR does not recommend against implementing the intersection improvements identified in the EIR. The EIR concludes that the impact is significant and unavoidable because the ultimate responsibility of implementing specific intersection improvements, dedication of right-of-way, and intersection configuration is outside the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad, and is the responsibility of the City of Vista. The City of Vista has indicated that there is currently no specific improvement program in place to ensure the improvement to the intersection. The City of Carlsbad cannot enforce mitigation measures for intersections in other cities. Because there is Carlsbad Oah North Specific Plan EIR 32 Final EIR -Responses ro Comments Ciry of Carlsbad August 2002 no assurance that the improvements will be implemented, the EIR concludes the impact will be significant and unavoidable. Response to Comment VCA 3 It is unclear to the City of Carlsbad that such a funding mechanism is currently in place to accept fair share contributions for any of the identified locations. However, the City of Vista Plttomey’s Office suggests that the “developer” should be required to mitigate its cumulative impact for its contribution to regional traffic in the City of Vista. The City of Vista historically has not assumed responsibility to mitigate impacts of development in Vista, nor in the surrounding cities, such as Carlsbad. Further, the commentor does not acknowledge the reality that the EIR addresses multiple, regionally significant circulation improvements (Faraday extension and El Fuerte) and not just private development. Traffic tends to go two ways: people leave their homes to work, shop or recreate - then return. Much of the traffic traveling Faraday into Vista in fact will be people residing in Vista returning home and much of it will not be generated by the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan private development. The Faraday connection is a regional element. Under the City Attorney’s Office analysis, it would be just as appropriate for the City of Vista to contributekhare the cost of constructing Faraday as the residential and industrial development already in place in Vista impacts Carlsbad roads and already necessitates additional linkages, such as Faraday. The larger issue is multi-jurisdictional planning and contribution. Vista does not have jurisdiction in Carlsbad any more than Carlsbad has jurisdiction in Vista to impose monetary contribution conditions. CEQA recognizes this governmental reality in that PRC 5 21081(a)(2) expressly recognizes that one agency cannot be required (or expected) to compel mitigation outside its jurisdiction when “changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency”. Response to Comment VCA 4 The City of Vista Attorney’s Office appears to misunderstand the nature of the GPA and SPA process for the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan. Currently, as is, the existing Carlsbad General Plan land use designations and zoning of the property would allow much greater development on the Techbuilt property and the extensions of Faraday and El Fuerte without a General Plan amendment. The approval of the General Plan Amendment request will reduce the area designated for industrial development and conform those plans to the project as proposed. The proposed General Plan Amendment and rezone is to expand the permanent open space. The City of Vista is requesting Carlsbad to act extra-territorially; something State law does not authorize and CEQA clearly recognizes. Response to Comment VCA 5 Neither the Erhrlich case nor the Scrutton case cited by the City of Vista Attorney’s Office involved extra-territorial mitigation measures. In each instance, the conditions/exactions authorized were limited to the agency’s own territory and jurisdiction and do not, directly or indirectly, authorize extra-territorial governance. As stated in the response to comment VCA 4, the level of private development is already authorized by zoning and general plans which themselves underwent CEQA compliance at the levels and densities proposed here. No density Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan EIR 33 Final EIR - Responses to Comments City of Carlsbad August 2002 increase is being requested and all mitigation measures within Carlsbad’s legal jurisdiction are being incorporated. Response to Comment VCA 6 As previously stated, PRC 5 21081(a)(2) recognizes a “lead agency’s” inability to compel activities outside its jurisdiction; clearly not sanctioned by CEQA, State law or the State constitution. The issue here is not the identification of extra-territorial impacts and mitigations, but rather the absence of jurisdiction in compelling their inclusion. In that regard, the reference to Guidelines ?j 15126.4 is entirely misplaced. A Guideline cannot grant jurisdiction or the authority to govern where none exists. Guideline 5 15126.4 merely authorizes permit conditions, agreements or other techniques as examples of methods to assure that legally authorized mitigations are enforced, so that legally authorized mitigations are documented and enforceable. The Erhrlich standard is a two level-’requirement: (1) the subject matter must be within the legitimate purposes, (Le., jurisdiction) of the governmental agency and (2) the extent of the regulation must be “roughly proportional” to the project impacts. Here, the first test is not satisfiable. Response to Comment VCA 7 Simply stated, a mitigation measure could be written, it would just be illegal and unenforceable, amounting to “contract zoning”. Fundamentally, CEQA is not a restructuring of the limited right of any governmental unit to “govern” outside its jurisdictional limits, nor does CEQA grant any extra-territorial authority. Response to Comment VCA 8 Comment noted. COMMENT LETTER EN County of San Diego Public Works May 22,2002 Response to Comment EN 1 The McClellan Palomar Airport Manager was sent the Notice of Completion for the Carlsbad Oaks North EIR on April 12, 2002 notifying him of the availability of the Draft EJR for review and that the public review period would end on May 30, 2002. In response to the County’s request for a time extension, the City granted a two-week extension to give San Diego County Airports adequate opportunity to review and comment on the EJR. Carhbnd Oaks North Specific Plan EIR Final EIR -Responses to Comments 34 City of Carlsbad August 2002 . RESOLUTION NO. 2002-225 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISTA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CAPTIAL 2006 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEARS 2001-02 THROUGH 2005- WHEREAS, the City Council, on October 23, 2001, approved a Five Year Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2001-02 through 2005-06 ("CIP); and WHEREAS, subsequent to Vista's approval of the CIP, the City of Carlsbad completed a Draft Environmental Impatt Report ("DEIR) analyzing the environmental impacts resulting from a proposed development ("Carlsbad Oaks") consisting of 1.9 million square feet of buildings on about 650 acres of land; and WHEREAS, a traffic study ("Traffic Study"), included as Appendix B to the DEIR, has determined that Carlsbad Oaks will produce significant traffic impacts in the City of Vista at two intersections ("Two Intersections") designated in the DEIR as intersection Nos. 18 and 19 which are located respectively at (a) Sycamore Avenue and Melrose Drive; and (b) Park Center Drive and Melrose Drive; and WHEREAS, the Traffic Study and DElR conclude that the significant impacts at the Two Intersections can be mitigated through widening certain streets to include left and right turn lanes ("Street Improvements"); and .- i WHEREAS, the DElR projected that intersection 19 -without Carlsbad Oaks -- would continue operating at acceptable levels through 2020 and that there would be no need for mitigation or Street Improvements at that intersection except for Carlsbad Oaks; and WHEREAS, the DElR concludes that Carlsbad Oaks substantially contributes to the traffic at intersection 18 and the need for Street improvements by increasing the projected peak hour delay ai that intersection by 87 seconds; and WHEREAS, the City has caused the preparation of engineer cost estimates for the Street Improvements and wishes to formalize a program that will allow for the future construction of the Street Improvements; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to process an amendment to the CIP ("CIP Amendment") to include the Street Improvements, as particularly described in the amendment; and WHEREAS, adequate funding for the Street Improvements will be available only through combining fair share contributions for impacts resulting from Carlsbad Oaks and other funds available to the City (including fees, grant funds, and other revenues), and ", WHEREAS, this program shall occur in accordance with the applicable provisions of law, including "rough proportionality" requirements, provided that fair share contributions are ;~ : : ,:I ' contracts approved by the City Manager and the requirements of applicable Federal and State I . +; .j received in connection with Carlsbad Oaks; and & RESOLUTION NO. 2002-225 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISTA PAGE NO. 2 WHEREAS, any funds contributed toward the Street Improvements shall be spent onjy on the construction of those improvements and shall be held in a separate account (except for purposes of investment); and WHEREAS, a party responsible for making contributions to the Street Improvements may construct all or part of the Street Improvements rather than making a monetary contribution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. The above recitals are true and correct. 2. The Street Improvements, for purposes of Government Code §65402(a), constitute a street widening. 3. In accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section §65402(a), the City Council determines that the review of the Street Improvements by the Planning Commission shall not be required. 4. The CIP Amendment is hereby approved. 5. The City Manager, in accordance with the direction of this resolution, shall implement a program for construction of the Street Improvements upon receipt of fair share contributions. 6. The program shall permit Vista to receive fair share contributions toward the construction of the Street Improvements when an environmental review determines that a project (whether within Vista or outside of Vista) will produce significant traffic impacts in Vista that can be mitigated by the Street Improvements. 7. The City, in operating the program for Street Improvements, shall comply with all reporting requirements imposed by law, if any, and shall comply with all applicable laws relating to the use, collection, expenditure, and'return of funds collected through " the program. 8. The City Manager is hereby authorized to implement this program by executing any contract for the contribution or construction by a developer of the Street Improvements containing standard provisions and provisions reasonably requested by the contributing party to protect their lawful Interests, including contracts associated with the mitigation of impacts resulting from Carlsbad Oaks. 9. Based on all relevant factors, the Street Improvements can be constructed within a reasonable time if fair share contributions are received in connection with Carlsbad Oaks. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-225 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISTA PAGE NO. 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the City Counc following vote: il held on August 13,2002 by the AYES: CAMPO, GROhXE, RITTER, MAYOR ESTES NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: Wayne Dernetz, City Attorney Jo Seibert, City Clerk By: ' LW &fl'x%L. By: a & i 5- L e J. WAYNE DERNETZ, City Attorney MARTIN A. GROVER, Assistant City Attorney Jonathan B. Stone, Assistant City Attorney OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF VISTA, CALIFORNIA 600 Eucaly tus Avenue Vista, Cali8rnia 92084 Direct Dial: (760 639 6119 Facsimile: (7601 63916120 August 20,2002 BY FAX : 760-602-8559 & US MAIL Mr. Michael Holzmiller, Secretary of the Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008-1949 Re: Carlsbad Oaks Dear Mr. Holzmiller: Vista repeats its request for mitigation of traffic impacts projected to occur in Vista due to the Carlsbad Oaks project. This mitigation can be achieved in many ways, including through imposing conditions on the project. For instance, conditions could require the applicant to do one of the following: (1) construct street improvements in Vista prior to receiving a grading permit, occupancy permit or other authorization; (2) make full or fair share contributions toward those improvements prior to proceeding with the project; (3) enter into a mitigation agreement with Vista to facilitate the street improvements; or (4) extend an offer to Vista to fully or partly fund or construct the improvements. This type of mitigation is commonly required by jurisdictions throughout San Diego County (including Vista) to respond to cross-jurisdictional traffic impacts. The City of Vista is prepared to assure that any mitigation measures approved by Carlsbad will achieve the desired result. In fact, the Vista City Council, on August 13, unanimously adopted a resolution to amend its Capital Improvement Program and lend support to Carlsbad in its efforts to mitigate project-related traffic impacts. The Capital Improvement Program now includes improvements at the following intersections in Vista: (1) S. Melrose Drive at Park Center Drive and Faraday Road; and (2) S. Melrose Drive and Sycamore Avenue. The resolution is attached, with new pages describing these intersection improvements. Mr. Holzmiller City of Carlsbad Page 2 Please include this letter and its attachment in the record relating to any hearing regarding the certification of the EIR for Carlsbad Oaks. You may call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jonathan B. Stone, Assistant City Attorney enclosure cc: Ms. Sandra Holder, Director of Community Development Ms. Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Atto.rney Ms. Anne Hysong, Associate Planner RESOLUTION NO. 2002-225 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISTA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CAPTIAL 2006 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEARS 2001-02 THROUGH 2005- j WHEREAS, the City Council, on October 23, 2001, approved a Five Year Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2001-02 through 2005-06 ("CIP"); and WHEREAS, subsequent to Vista's approval of the CIP, the City of Carlsbad completed a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR) analyzing the environmental impacts resulting from a proposed development ("Carlsbad Oaks") consisting of 1.9 million square feet of buildings on about 650 acres of land; and WHEREAS, a traffic study ("Traffic Study"), included as Appendix B to the DEIR, has determined that Carlsbad Oaks will produce significant traffic impacts in the City of Vista at two intersections ('Two Intersections") designated in the DElR as intersection Nos. 18 and 19 which are located respectively at (a) Sycamore Avenue and Melrose Drive; and (b) Park Center Drive and Melrose Drive; and WHEREAS, the Traffic Study and DElR conclude that the significant impacts at the Two Intersections can be mitigated through widening certain streets to include left and right turn lanes ("Street Improvements"); and .- ! WHEREAS, the DElR projected that intersection 19 -without Carlsbad Oaks -- would continue operating at acceptable levels through 2020 and that there would be no need for mitigation or Street Improvements at that intersection except for Carlsbad Oaks; and WHEREAS, the DElR concludes that Carlsbad Oaks substantially contributes to the traffic at intersection 18 and the need for Street Improvements by increasing the projected peak hour delay at that intersection by 87 seconds; and WHEREAS, the City has caused the preparation of engineer cost estimates for the Street Improvements and wishes to formalize a program that will allow for the future construction of the Street Improvements; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to process an amendment to the CIP ("CIP Amendment") to include the Street Improvements, as particularly described in the amendment; and WHEREAS, adequate funding for the Street Improvements will be available only through combining.fair share contributions for impacts resulting from Carlsbad Oaks and other funds available to the City (including fees, grant funds, and other revenues), and WHEREAS, this program shall occur in accordance with the applicable provisions of contracts approved by the City Manager and the requirements of applicable Federal and State law, including "rough proportionality" requirements, provided that fair share contributions are received in connection with Carlsbad Oaks; and RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 225 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISTA PAGE NO. 2 WHEREAS, any funds contributed toward the Street Improvements shall be spent only on the construction of those improvements and shall be held in a separate account (except for purposes of investment); and WHEREAS, a party responsible for making contributions to the Street Improvements may construct all or part of the Street Improvements rather than making a monetary contribution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. The above recitals are true and correct. 2. The Street Improvements, for purposes of Government Code §65402(a), constitute a street widening. 3. In accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section §65402(a), the City Council determines that the review of the Street Improvements by the Planning Commission shall not be required. 4. The CIP Amendment is hereby approved 5. The City Manager, in accordance with the direction of this resolution, shall implement a program for construction of the Street Improvements upon receipt of fair share contributions. 6. The program shall permit Vista to receive fair share contributions toward the construction of the Street Improvements when an environmental review determines that a project (whether within Vista or outside of Vista) will produce significant traffic impacts in Vista that can be mitigated by the Street Improvements. 7. The City, in operating the program for Street Improvements, shall comply with all reporting requirements imposed by law, if any, and shall comply with all applicable laws relating to the use, collection, expenditure, and 'return of funds collected through j the program. 8. The City Manager is hereby authorized to implement this program by executing any contract for the contribution or construction by a developer of the Street Improvements containing standard provisions and provisions reasonably requested associated with the mitigation of impacts resulting from Carlsbad Oaks. by the contributing party to protect their lawful Interests, including contracts 9. Based on all relevant factors, the Street Improvements can be constructed within a reasonable time if fair share contributions are received in connection with Carlsbad Oaks. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-225 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISTA PAGE NO. 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the City Council held on August 13,2002 by the following vote: AYES: CAMPO, GROhXE, RITTER, MAYOR ESTES NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE /&4<7 IN W. E ES, Jr., Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: . ATTEST: Wayne Dernetz, City Attorney Jo Seibert, City Clerk 5 3 7 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 21, 2002 AUDIOTAPE TRANSCRIPTION OF PROCEEDINGS PAGE EXCERPT OF PRESENTATION BY PATRICK RICHARDSON 1 EXCERPT OF PRESENTATION BY JON STONE, ESQ. 11 EXCERPT OF PRESENTATION BY RON ROUSE, ESQ 25 Transcribed by: Mary C. Hoffman & Associates Certified Shorthand Reporters 1130 Sunset Drive Vista, California 92083 Telephone 760.758.8651 Facsimile 760.724.8095 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (start of excerpt transcription) *x* CHAIRPERSON TRIGAS: We can yield to the next speaker while you're working on this. Would that work? Okay. Thank you. Patrick Richardson. MR. RICHARDSON: Good evening. My name is Patrick Richardson. I'm the City Planner with the City of Vista. The City of Vista is concerned about the traffic impacts on the Carlsbad Oaks project within our City. We have actively participated in the environmental review process for this project. Prior to the issuance of the draft EIR, a Vista representative met with Carlsbad representatives to review traffic impacts and associated mitigation measures for the proposed project. Following the issuance of the draft EIR for public comments, we provided written comments by letter dated May 29, 2002 on the analysis of the project's significant traffic impacts at four intersections within the City of Vista, including the recommendations not to require mitigation for those impacts because the mitigation is outside the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The final EIR was issued and included the recommendation not to require mitigation for traffic impacts within the City of Vista. Mr. Connelly and my Staff provided a detailed letter dated August 14, 2002 correcting and providing clarification of information included in the final EIR responses to comment. I'm here tonight to request that the Planning Commission require the project applicant to provide mitigation for traffic impacts of the Carlsbad Oak project for two of the four intersections within the city that will be adversely impacted by the proposed project . The intersections for which mitigation is requested are Faraday RoadIPark Center Drive at South Melrose Drive and Sycamore Avenue and South Melrose Drive. It should be noted that the Faraday Road at South Melrose Drive intersection is a primary entrance to the project and will accommodate 44 percent of the traffic from the proposed project. Thus, it is only equitable to require that this applicant is to provide necessary improvements at these intersections. Improvements needed at this intersection to mitigate the impacts of the Carlsbad Oak project 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 include an additional dedicated left-turn lane from eastbound Faraday Road to South Melrose Drive and a dedicated right-turn lane from southbound Melrose Drive to Faraday Road. With regards to the South Melrose Drive and Sycamore Avenue intersection, the City of Vista is requesting that the applicant be required to construct an additional left-turn lane on southbound South Melrose Drive at Sycamore Avenue, and to construct an additional dedicated right-turn lane, and to restripe the outside lane to allow a split throughfright-turn movement at the northbound South Melrose drive approach to Sycamore Avenue. Alternately, the City of Vista is requesting that the applicant be required to make a fair-share contribution for the construction of the required improvements to Sycamore Avenue and South Melrose Drive. For your information, the improvements to both the intersections that I have referenced were recently included in the City of Vista's Capital Improvement Program to provide a mechanism to insure implementation and improvements consistent with the timing of the Carlsbad Oaks project. Thank you tonight for the opportunity to bring 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 these important traffic mitigation issues that were not adequately addressed in your Environmental Impact Report to your attention. CHAIRPERSON TRIGAS: I believe we have a couple of questions here. Commissioner Baker. COMMISSIONER BAKER: Mr. Richardson, in your experience as a planner with the City of Vista, have there been any occasions where cities have asked their neighbors to mitigate impacts? For example, when Vista's Business Park was developed, were they asked to mitigate the impacts that we feel, for example, at Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real? MR. RICHARDSON: When the Business Park EIR was prepared in 1992, the document was circulated €or public review. I am not aware of any request from surrounding jurisdictions regarding mitigation, but we can follow-up on that. CHAIRPERSON TRIGAS: But has it been the policy of your city to require mitigation from surrounding other cities, San Marcos, €or example, that might be impacting you? Oceanside? Other cities? MR. RICHARDSON: I think that the -- the better 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 answer to that question would be: On projects that are being proposed in the City of Vista, we have indicated to our project applicants that if there are impacts that, from the proposed projects in the City of Vista, that will enter -- that will impact surrounding jurisdictions, that they must be prepared to either mitigate the impacts, whether they be in the City of Vista or outside the City of Vista, or to pay a fair-share contribution. COMMISSIONER BAKER: But how can a jurisdiction require an applicant to mitigate something that's not within their realm to mitigate? In other words, it's not in their jurisdiction, so how can they require that? MR. RICHARDSON: I believe that the -- as long as the impacts are identified and analyzed as part of the Environmental Impact Report, and they are directly related to the project, the proposed project, that those mitigation requirements can be imposed on the project, whether they're in the jurisdiction, such as the City of Vista, or a surrounding jurisdiction. CHAIRPERSON TRIGAS: This is something, therefore, that you have done before in the past where you've offered cities surrounding where you know that Vista has impacted, you have offered to mitigate your 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 impact; is that what you're telling us? MR. RICHARDSON: I can't speak with any direct knowledge of past projects where the city has provided mitigation. But I am aware of current projects which we are currently processing where we are requiring the applicants to provide mitigation outside the city's boundaries. CHAIRPERSON TRIGAS: SO Home Ec-- -- Home Depot will be mitigating in Carlsbad; is that what you're saying? MR. RICHARDSON: We are going through an Environmental Impact Report process right now, and we have preliminarily identified some impacts off-site in the City of Carlsbad. And we have been in discussions with Carlsbad Staff, as well as the project applicant, to indicate that they should be prepared to provide either direct mitigation or fair-share contribution for improvements outside the boundaries of the city. . ~ ~~~ ~~ .. ~ CHAIRPERSON TRIGAS: I'm a little confused. I assumed that in the City Council or the City when they look at the Capital Improvements Program they are looking at approving projects that they are funding. And from what I just heard, you were approving projects that you expected outside to be funded; is that correct? 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. RICHARDSON: Well, we have identified that there -- in that particular vicinity of the City of Vista, that there are, well, a combination of capital projects that need to be undertaken as well as private development that's anticipated, not only in the City of Vista but the City of Carlsbad, as well. And so we're programming and planning for those improvements for the future . CHAIRPERSON TRIGAS: That are in the City of Carlsbad? MR. RICHARDSON: Mainly in the City of Vista. CHAIRPERSON TRIGAS: Okay. That would be impacted from the City of Carlsbad, is that what you're saying? MR. RICHARDSON: That would be impacted by the projects in the City of -- not only the City of Carlsbad, but it could be the City of Oceanside or the City of San Marcos. CHAIRPERSON TRIGAS: And are you working some sort of a formula out? MR. RICHARDSON: What we are suggesting is that the methodology for the fair-share contribution be negotiated between the two cities as well as the applicant. All we're asking for is that there is an 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 acknowledgment that there be some type of fair-share contribution if there are project impacts from the proposed project. What that ultimate fair-share contribution would be would be part of that negotiation. quest perha .i .P CHAIRPERSON TRIGAS: Is there any other ons? Commissioner Heineman? COMMISSIONER HEINEMAN: Mr. Richardson, I think s you've opened up a real opportunity for the City of Carlsbad. We have a number of streets that are impacted by regional traffic. And I guess it's not too late to go and see if we can't get Vista and Oceanside and San Marcos to help us. Is that what you're suggesting? MR. RICHARDSON: No. What we're asking -- what we're talking about is project-specific impacts for proposed projects. Obviously, there are projects that have been developed in both cities, as well as San Marcos and Oceanside, that have adverse impacts on all of our communities. However, we're talking about direct project impacts for a project that's being proposed. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We do have another speaker from the City of Vista that will provide some additional information on cooperative -- cooperation agreements between various cities for cross-jurisdictional projects and how those can be mitigated. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON TRIGAS: I don't know that -- I appreciate that. And we'll certainly be glad to listen. But I'm not quite sure that this is exactly the purview or the place to talk about cooperative arrangements right now on -- when we're -- but, certainly listen. But, I'm curious. I see that the letter that was addressed was August 14th. Is that the first time you heard of this project and its impact? MR. RICHARDSON: No. We've been involved in discussions with Staff since the -- initially, when the draft Environmental Impact Report was released for public circulation. CHAIRPERSON TRIGAS: And this is the first time, though, that you've notified Carlsbad or have you had an official notification? MR. RICHARDSON: No. We notified the City of Carlsbad. We responded to the draft Environmental 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Impact Report. CHAIRPERSON TRIGAS: Uh-huh. MR. RICHARDSON: A letter was dated August 14th. We received a response to comment. And we felt that those responses to comment were not adequately -- did not adequately address the letters -- or the issues that were raised in the August 14th letter. And we subsequently wrote the second letter, just -- which is procedural through -- CHAIRPERSON TRIGAS: Right. MR. RICHARDSON: -- the SEQA process. CHAIRPERSON TRIGAS: So the first letter was August 14th? MR. RICHARDSON: The first letter was basically a response to your -- the circulation for your draft Environmental Impact Report. CHAIRPERSON TRIGAS: Okay. Thank you. MR. RICHARDSON: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON TRIGAS: Thank you so much. Why don't we do the -- I'm assuming that -- 'cause I received this, that you had -- you requested an order. And then we'll go back to -- (inaudible) -- yes. Here we go. Okay. Mr. Stone. Yes, please. MR. STONE: Thank you. My name is Jon Stone. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I'm the Assistant City Attorney for the City of Vista. And as a preliminary matter, I'd like to state very clearly that there is a policy in Vista to require, as part of the SEQA process, mitigation of traffic impacts that occur outside of its jurisdictional boundaries. And I'll get into that a little bit more. Also, it's not true that the first letter we wrote was on August 14th. Prior to even the circulation of the publication of the EIR, we were in discussions with the planners of Carlsbad and we were discussing this issue and mitigation of these impacts. So, from the very start, we have been pursuing this issue. That being said, the City of Vista doesn't have a position as to whether or not the Carlsbad Oaks project should be approved. That's certainly up to this body and the City Council. Rather, the City of Vista merely is requesting that if it is approved, that measures be included so that the traffic impacts occurring as a result of the project that are significant at the intersections of Faraday and Melrose and Sycamore and Melrose be mitigated. That's the simple request and the only request. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 According to the EIR, those two intersections, which are gateway intersections for the project, will be degraded to a level of service of 'IF" as a result of the project. That condition isn't good for the development. It's not good for Carlsbad. It's not good for Vista. It's not good for the region. Fortunately, the EIR identified street improvements that can be made to these intersections which will cause the traffic-related impacts resulting from the project at those intersections to be reduced to a level below significant. And that condition and that result would be good for all involved. Yet, these conditions have not been included as part of the project, to date. The reason, we understood, was, or at least now the legal reason for that, was that the Staff felt that -- of Carlsbad -- felt that they could not legally request the developer to make a fair-share contribution to Vista for construction of these improvements unless there was a program in place in Vista that would be equipped to accept these contributions and then convert them into the street improvements that would effect the mitigation. And that was actually communicated in writing to Vista. That was what precipitated the letter of August 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14th and the actions that preceded that. And that's where the City of Vista adopted a program designed to accommodate this legal need. So, at this point there's no legal barrier to effectuating the mitigation of the traffic-related impacts associated with this project. The mitigation that Vista seeks is similar to the mitigation that Vista has provided in the past and that it intends to provide. Prior to this EIR, the City of Vista circulated a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Home Depot project in Vista. And that Mitigated Negative Declaration identified that the project in Vista was going to produce significant impacts in the City of Carlsbad. And it called out for a mitigation measure which would require the developer of Home Depot to make a fair-share contribution to Carlsbad for the purposes of constructing street improvements within Carlsbad. Prior to that, the City of Vista required the developer of the North County Square Project to contribute $300,000 to the County so that the County could construct street improvements in the unincorporated territory of the County to mitigate the traffic impacts resulting from the project in Vista. So Vista has done this. It intends to do it. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 It will continue to do it. This cross-jurisdictional mitigation isn't unusual. It occurs throughout the county. The City of .ies San Diego does it; Chula Vista -- and these are part that have participated in this type of cross-jurisdictional mitigation: San Diego, Chula Vista, Escondido, El Cajon, Poway, Santee, as I said before, Vista, and the County of San Diego. I have documentation for all of that. CHAIRPERSON TRIGAS: Your time is -- MR. STONE: Oh. I see. CHAIRPERSON TRIGAS: Can you finish up? MR. STONE: Certainly. Fortunately, this project now is in a position where it can mitigate the significant traffic-related impacts at the gateway intersections to this project. It's good for the project. It's legally required. An we think it is sound planning and in the regional interests. We would request that the mitigation measures be included. CHAIRPERSON TRIGAS: Thank YOU. Is there any questions? Yes, Commissioner Whitton. COMMISSIONER WHITTON: I think I'm not doing 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this right. Am I hearing you right, that the -- Vista has recently decided that this is a proper course of action as a result of the Home Depot and some other things going in there? This plan has been around and in process since 1997 and all of sudden we're -- we're talking about mitigating a road in Vista? MR. STONE: This is a new policy. I -- I think that, prior to determining what type of mitigation is required under SEQA, there has to be the analysis. And that analysis came out in April. And then we -- we commented, I think, in June. And so -- and we made the comments within the review period. So this is actually -- there was no opportunity for us to comment until the SEQA document, the Environmental Impact Report, was prepared and provided to us. COMMISSIONER WHITTON: SO now we're reaching back and saying we should do this? But I'm hearing the developer say that he was over to Vista to talk to you folks. The plans were being developed all the time where there could have been intercommunication with the City of Carlsbad, and we wait now until the EIR is out and -- MR. STONE: I think this is -- this is -- the 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 r process is actually created and contemplated by the California Environmental Quality Act. I really -- I wasn't at that particular hearing where the late Mayor made the comment that's been attributed to her. However, apparently, there was a concern. The concern that was expressed was that there might be conflicts between the residential use and this future industrial use. It really didn't relate to traffic, that interchange that occurred, you know, the exchange that occurred, years ago. And to determine what type of mitigation measures are appropriate and will solve a traffic impact requires an analysis. And if you look at the EIR, it actually calls out for left-turn lanes or right-turn lanes to cure the traffic problems. That can't occur -- we had no way of knowing that there would be -- what level of project -- of traffic would be generated by this project until the project was proposed and analyzed. We know that almost one out of every two vehicles coming to or leaving this project is going to go through the intersection of Faraday and Melrose. Essentially, this project is appropriating or converting this intersection into a gateway. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 r- You have to recognize that about one-half mile of the project is literally bounding, touching, the boundaries of Vista. And under the logic of not mitigating outside the City of Carlsbad, it's literally creating a situation where there's no obligation on the part of the developer to mitigate one inch beyond the boundaries of this project to the east. And this is a half-mile project with 1.9 million square feet of development fronting on the City of Vista. There is no buffer between Vista consisting of a nature preserve or anything like that, yet the majority of the project has that buffer around in the Carlsbad area. Like I said, we're not objecting to the project. This is simply, you know, it is a matter for Carlsbad. But the traffic impacts and making sure that the traffic flowing into this project is mitigated is a concern of Vista's. It's appropriately a part of the project. And, otherwise, what we're doing here is simply freeing a developer of the obligation to mitigate traffic impacts directly resulting from that project and burdening the taxpayers with degraded traffic or requiring the taxpayers to assume a burden that should be properly borne by the developer. This is -- the whole purpose of SEQA is to look 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 at the interests of all Californians. That's the language of the statute, actually. And it requires that an agency, a lead agency, take that into account and mitigate where possible even if it requires mitigation outside of its territory. CHAIRPERSON TRIGAS: I'd like to ask a question on this. Usually, on what you're talking about, isn't this something you plan ahead for future projects? Cities get together, form JPAs, organize, work through, and not come the night of a project approval to say, guess what, we feel there's a problem here? Isn't this a JPA issue or some other sitting-down, let's talk about a long-term process? MR. STONE: There are many different procedures that can effectively address regional needs. And, certainly, JPAs is a process. And maybe that's something that could be suggested, and maybe there should be a JPA. But that's not a common process. That's not a common way to deal with these cross-jurisdictional impacts. All the examples I gave you, San Diego, Chula Vista, Escondido, El Cajon, Santee, Poway, and so on, all those, that type of cross-jurisdictional mitigation all occurred without any type of JPA arrangement at all. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON TRIGAS: And it was done the night of or, you know, the time that the project was up for approval? Or was it something that was maybe thought of ahead of time where Staff got together and said, you know, we have a long-term concern and let's sit down and talk about our long-term needs? MR. STONE: There are two ways that it occurred in those circumstances. Sometimes, in the scoping process for the EIR, or the discussion, there was an agreement or recognition that there would be a need for cross-jurisdictional mitigation. That was an issue that was raised by Vista. We made that request. And the Planning Staff, I think, was reluctant to, or maybe it looked and thought -- said there's no program, I -- but, basically, they said it would be taken under consideration. And we didn't know that it had been rejected until April when we got the -- the EIR. And then we commented. We commented. The other type of situation is that there's nothing worked out during the scoping process or in advance of the EIR. This is very common. And it's subsequently negotiated or it occurs because there's a demand or a request for the mitigation. I've been calling people all across the state on this. And I've been talking to, you know, 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 environmental planners with cities all across the state and the attorneys that represent them. And nobody's heard of there being a program in place in an adjacent city to accommodate for mitigation and then there not to be a requirement to fulfill that mitigation through that program. Nobody's heard of this occurring. And -- but just to let you know, in my conversations, for instance, a Costco or a Home Depot was going into one city in the LA region and there was initially a demand for $6 million of traffic mitigation for that one project. And it resulted in 2 million. The numbers~ we're~ t-al-ki-ng- about h~ere are -- are slight in comparison to these types of numbers that I just referred to. But I -- I don't think that there's been any failure on the part of Vista to be up front or to communicate fully. And it's not uncommon for issues to arise as part of the EIR. I think what's unusual is that for an EIR not to call out mitigation when it's so clearly a result of the project . CHAIRPERSON TRIGAS: Well, thank YOU. Is there any other questions? Okay. Thank you. 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Frank. Commissioner Whitton. COMMISSIONER WHITTON: I can't help but feel that your presentation tonight is trying to make some things retroactive or suggest that some things become retroactive and some of these things have recently been recognized. I feel that the developer has been in this for a long time. And now to come in and suggest to him that he needs to put money up front to fund some of these things, when this planning process has been going on for a long time, and there seems to be somewhat a lack of communication here and -- it seems like -- (inaudible.) MR. STONE: Maybe the best response -- COMMISSIONER WHITTON: I think it's best to leave it up to the city to decide. MR. STONE: Maybe the best response would be to inquire of the Staff whether there's been a failure on the part of the Vista to communicate, whether Vista's been unable to -- whether there's been opportunities. I think that Vista's been forthright in this. And it's not unusual -- this is the proper forum. This is the certification of the EIR. The project's identified the mitigation measure. We couldn't possibly have anticipated that the mitigation measure 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would be identified but not incorporated. You see, this is the issue. And this issue did not arise until April. It arose in April when there was an EIR that was circulated with a mitigation measure but it wasn't included as a requirement of the project . CHAIRPERSON TRIGAS: Okay. I -- yes, Commissioner? I think -- I think we're -- would you like to cont- -- COMMISSIONER DOMINGUEZ: I just feel compelled to address something that -- CHAIRPERSON TRIGAS: (Inaudible). COMMISSIONER DOMINGUEZ: I just don't feel that this is the appropriate venue -- CHAIRPERSON TRIGAS: No. COMMISSIONER DOMINGUEZ: -- for US to even discuss this. We must be mindful of the fact that is an advisory body, and that probably the discussion smacks of intergovernmental agreements and some heavy legal stuff that really should be addressed at the City Council, and since we're only recommending to the Council that -- the certification of the EIR, that perhaps this discussion should take place at the City Council level. MR. STONE: If I could just clarify one point 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 very, very briefly. What we would request is that, if you think that it's a good idea to mitigate impacts such as this -- and like I said, Vista does this. It's proposing to do this with Home Depot. It's done this with the North County Square. Many agencies do this. We think it's in the regional interest. If -- if this is a good idea or you think it warrants exploration, we would merely request that you ask the Staff to look into this and explore how other agencies are doing it in this EIR process and to see whether it would work in this circumstance. And I think that would be helpful information on the part of Carlsbad to have. CHAIRPERSON TRIGAS: Okay. Thank you for your input. MR. STONE: Thank you. (End of excerpt transcription.) *** 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Start of excerpt transcription) *** MR. ROUSE: Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Tchang has metamorphosized into me, so you get Ron Rouse with Luce, Forward. I've been privileged to be the real estate development counsel for the owners and the family members for a number of years, including being involved back in the '80s when they originally did Carlsbad Oak East and West. CHAIRPERSON TRIGAS: Can we have your address before you get started? MR. ROUSE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON TRIGAS: Thank you. MR. ROUSE: It's 7330 Alta Vista, Carlsbad, 92009. I want to make a couple of points and we'll try to organize it into, sort of, three themes. First, the first theme is, trying to bring us back to what this project is and what it's being required to do by way of mitigation. What it is is the last large piece of industrial property in this city that provides jobs, job opportunities, revenues, and will also be a critical component in completing the integrated circulation 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 element for not just your city, not just our city, but the entire region. And I submit to you, for at least 15 or 20 years, Faraday Avenue, Melrose, Palomar Airport, Rancho Santa Fe Road and all of those other streets that we find us in our city talking about a lot, have been on the other circulation element of the City of Vista and our other surrounding neighborhoods. So this isn't a new one. The fact that Faraday exists at the border of our city already is evidence that the City of Vista for a long time has planned to have Faraday connect. The fact that Melrose extends to their city limit within their city is evidence of the long-standing intent and desire on their part to connect up the circulation system. The project itself, despite starting out wit 414 acres, is still privately owned. It's not other people's property yet. I'm not invited into their home. They shouldn't assume that the 414 acres is their property. But they're -- the owners of this 414-acre property are going to put a site, 219 acres of their own property, into a permanent, biologically driven habitat preservation program. And the wildlife 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 agencies in this city will determine the amount of the permanent endowment based on the biological mitigation plan, that the last say of which will be the City of Carlsbad and our wildlife agencies, Fish and Wildlife and Fish and Game. It will then be conveyed in fee, that 219 acres, the title, to a recognized, nonprofit, environmental protection organization, with a permanent endowment, so that they are required by law and required by the Fish and Game easement that will go along with it to, in fact, manage all of that property for its biological purposes; far better than the property sitting with no management and with no mitigation. But in addition to putting aside over half of their property, which is approximately the same size as the Los Monos Preserve, about the same total acreage, this project's also being asked to set aside 171 off-site acres of biological habitat. Nobody seems to mention that. When you add the 219 and the 171 off-site, I believe, if my math didn't slip between there and here, that's 295 -- excuse me, 395 -- it did slip -- 395 acres of permanent, managed and functioning wildlife habitat in exchange for allowing a net 120 acres of employment land to be developed in this city; in 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 exchange for allowing the opportunity to create jobs with perhaps 1.9 million square feet of industrial; in addition, the obligation's imposed on this property to fund a major regional road. It's not just needed by this project; it's needed by our entire region. So I just didn't want you to lose sight of that. That's theme one, really, what this project brings to bear. Number two, to preserve Calavera. I don't disagree with where their heart's at and where their souls may be at. I'm going to suggest to you that 90 percent of the audio or video time you saw is taken in the preserved areas of the subject property. All of the streams are being preserved. And the other element is that there is no development whatsoever associated with the project of Agua Hedionda Creek. The only crossing of Agua Hedionda Creek, the only disturbance, is the off-site sewer. And remember the off-site sewer 'cause it will come in with theme three, as that relates to Vista, in a minute. So the only impacts to La Mirada Creek, other than enhancement and restoration and reconstruction and a permanent endowment, is we need the circulation element Faraday Road to cross it in two places. That's 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the reality. The road has been aligned, has been focused and studied throughout the EIR to locate it in the least damaging area. Much was made about 2.18 acres of wetlands impact. Yes, that's the physical footprint of the impact. But think of all the preservation and enhancement and restoration that's going on. Yes, we impact 1.1 acres of oak woodland or oak riparian habitat. I think the number was a maximum of 19 trees might be affected. Hopefully, it will be less. Some of those can be transplanted; some of 'em may not. But that's not the mitigation. We talk about the immediacy of that, that there may be an impact up to 19 oaks. Number one, that still leaves 667 oaks on these people's property that are going to be preserved permanently. 686 less 19. Number two, we're going to be planting, €or every -- all those 19, whether they're lost or not, we're going to be planting another ten oaks. Now, sure, they aren't as big as the existing ones. But 50 years from now, I'm going to submit to you, that some of those existing ones wouldn't be here. And if we didn't plant ten more now for every one we disturb now, then our children and our grandchildren wouldn't have a live oak forest perhaps, if the mitigation and the 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 monitoring and the preservation wasn't there. So, in essence, what the biologists and environmentalists, I think that have the future interest other than their own current interest, is looking to how you can enhance what we have available to enhance. So, that's theme two. Theme three, I, you know, struggled whether to stay away from it or not, but I can't. The cooperation from Vista. Mr. Tchang told you that he personally went in 1990 or '91, I've forgotten, when the City of Vista was changing the zoning on the residential property adjacent to the subject property, immediately on the side, when they were changing it from industrial and commercial to residential, he went and addressed the Council in Vista and told them of his concern because his family owned the adjacent, long-standing commercial/industrial property. I guess it's cooperation when they have their backyards set back up against the city limits with no buffer, yet they knew there was going to be commercial/industrial in the future. They have no buffer from the wildlife that is now so important to 'em. They have no buffer from Faraday Avenue that the 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 City of Vista has put in right next to their homes. Then we also have to talk about, I don't know, there's 6- or 700 acres, plus or minus a hundred, give me a little leeway, of existing commercial/industrial development in the City of Vista that borders San Marcos and the City of Carlsbad. They've built out, if you will, more than three times, make that more than four times what this project will possibly bring in terms of new development. They have, I don't know how many, acres left to develop. And yet, all of a sudden, where they have designed intersections in the middle of their industrial and commercial area that's -- that feeds right out into the surrounding cities, all of a sudden they see the opportunity or perhaps an opportunity for somebody else to pay for their surface street improvements when they themselves either have underplanned it or have failed to impose on their own developers, on their own property owners, perhaps on their own city taxpayers, the responsibility to design their internal surface road system to accommodate the very regional traffic they've planned for. Melrose goes to the border of the City of Carlsbad. Faraday goes to the border of the City of Carlsbad. 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 If they haven't been foresighted enough to plan for the consequences of insisting and asking, as we all know they have, for those connections to be made, then I think that's a shortcoming on theirs and they ought not to expect the surrounding city. I do want to make a legal point and I'll make it quickly because nobody likes to hear a lawyer talk about the law. The California Environmental Quality Act has three possible findings that are authorized and can be made when you -- when an EIR shows that there might be a significant impact. The first finding is the identified mitigation and you impose it and therefore reduce the impact below a level of significance. The second authorized finding is exactly what's in play here. When the mitigation is in another jurisdiction, i.e., those intersections, it's the responsibility and it's the responsibility of those jurisdictions, i.e., in their city, they're the ones that are responsible for effecting the mitigation. That's not an excuse for mitigation. That's a recognition in the California Environmental Quality Act that cities and other lead agencies have jurisdictional boundaries. 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 They have a situation where they can't require any of their citizens, nor do they have any rights to go up to L.A. to mitigate power issues, to go to Arizona to mitigate water issues, or to their neighboring cities. It's a recognition that the California Environmental Quality Act has in place. It's why it's there and it's why it's appropriate here. Now, Mr. Stone, I don't know -- I guess this is my 29th year of doing land use work and development in this county. I've been involved in every single city on major master planned communities that he has mentioned with the exception of El Cajon. The only cross-jurisdictional mitigation is where there is really a facility that is shared by the two cities. For example, in Villages of La Costa there was a shared intersection with the City of Encinitas, being El Camino Real and Olivenhain. And the two cities, well before any EIR, had gotten together to coordinate how they were going to jointly develop a shared physical facility. That's not what we have here. Encinitas doesn't ask the City of Carlsbad to mitigate intersections in their city. And I have, in my experience, have not seen that same request made. 33 r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I was also the land use counsel on the North County Square Project that Mr. Stone mentioned. I'm very proud of that one, too. The different circumstance was there was a county island. The road impacts basically went to this county island. There was, I forget now how many quarters of a mile or half mile or whatever, and it was necessary to build that through. It was a physical building of a facility, basically, that was needed. It wasn't just sending money to the county to be used elsewhere. That's my recollection. And I'd be glad to follow-up with Mr. Stone. Finally, on that area of cooperation, when I had a discussion with Mr. Stone last week, at the end of the discussion he said, well, if this wasn't -- I'm going to paraphrase. I'm not quoting him. Essentially, if -- if City of Carlsbad didn't see it the way that his city saw it, that they might not be cooperative in allowing the connection of Faraday, 'cause apparently there's a two, or three, or four, or five-foot gap between the ending of the existing improvements in Faraday and the technical city boundary. And I asked him, well, I'd heard that, for 34 * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 years, that Vista's been pushing on Carlsbad to connect Melrose. I said, well, but they're part of the same network. That's how it's all going to work together. It's the eastfwest parallel to Palomar Airport Road, and it's the north/south parallel to Rancho Santa Fe Road and El Camino Real. It's all going to work together. And he -- I'm not sure I got a response to that, not that he ignored me, I just really don't remember what it was. We had a thorough discussion. I absolutely disagree with his interpretation of CEQA. I think it's right in the act itself. And I think this is a situation where it's inappropriate and, quite frankly, beyond your scope of authority to compel that in another city. That's why that finding is there. So I apologize for taking more time. I wanted to develop those three themes in bringing it -- wrapping it all back up. This is a project that has been six or seven years in the planning with this city. It's been up and down with the wildlife agencies as part of your Habitat Mitigation Plan. The Carlsbad's Habit Mitigation Plan is the 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 prime sub-area plan within the regional MHCP. And it has the authority and it has the approval from, initially, from the wildlife agencies. It's consistent with the MHCP. It provides the corridors. It provides the linkages. And out of 414 acres, they're going to develop -- they're going to impact about 165; they're going to develop, get to use privately, about 120; and they put aside 395 acres of permanently funded habitat and mitigation in the City of Carlsbad for the benefit of the future. So, with that, I would hope you'd vote in favor of the project and recommend to the City Council they approve it, as well. CHAIRPERSON TRIGAS: Thank you. Thank you. (End of excerpt transcription.) *** 36 r - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I, Mary C. Hoffman, CSR No. 5011, Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the county of San Diego, State of California, do hereby certify that the foregoing audiotape transcription contains a true record of the proceedings to the best of my ability using the audiotape provided. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand on this 28th day of September, 2002. " e,* Mary C. Hoffman, CSR No. 5011 37 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF VISTA, CALIFORNIA J. WAYNE DERNETZ, City Attorney MARTIN A. GROVER, Assistant City Attorney Jonathan B. Stone, Assistant City Attorney 600 Eucaly tur Avenue Vista, Caliha 92084 Direct Dial: 760) 639-6119 Facsimile: ($60) 639-6120 May 30,2002 VIA FAX: (760) 602-8559 AND MAIL Anne Hysong, Associate Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Ms. Hysong: This letter comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEW’) prepared for the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan (“Project”), and supplements the comments made in a letter of Vista’s Principal Planner, John Conley, dated May 29, 2002 (“Conley Letter”). According to the DEIR, the Project, as proposed, will cause significant traffic impacts at four variety” physical improvements to the impacted intersections (“IntersectionImprovements”) that are intersections in Vista. These impacts can be eliminated or substantially reduced with “garden required mitigation measures for the Project. Apparently, the DEE mistakenly concludes that identified in the DEIR. Yet, the DEIRrecommends against including Intersection Improvements as Intersection Improvements are infeasible. The opposite is true, and Carisbad -- before approving the Development - must approve available mitigatlon measures to eliminate these impacts. The required mitigation can be accomplished easily through amitigation agreement between the developer and Vista that would require the developer to construct or fairly contribute to the IntersectionImprovements. The agreement would be limited to the impacted intersections identified in the DEIR and would consist only of the Intersection Improvements (or slightly modified improvements) that will successfully mitigate the identified Project-related Impacts in Vista. property, approving a specific plan for the Project, or approving the requested amendment to the This contract, for instance, could be required as a precondition to rezoning developer’s city’s general plan. Since the 1960’s, the California Courts have upheld a municipality’s right and safety and welfare. Scrutton v. County ofSacramento (1969) 215 Cal.App.2d 412. ability to condition zoning on the execution of an agreement requlred to protect the public health This mitigation strategy was reaffirmed in a recent opinion of the California Su reme Erhlich v. Culver City.’ In that case, the California Supreme Court upheld the im osition ofa one; time and ad-hoc mitigation measure on an applicant as a precondition to a speci P IC plan and ’ (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854, Anne Hysong, Associate Planner City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, CA 92008 1635 Faraday Avenue Page 2 rezoning - the very approvals sought in this instance by the developer. The State’s high court only required that the burdens imposed on the developer have a nexus to the Floper’s project and satisfy the rough proportionality standards announced by the courts. This technique is contemplated and sanctioned by CEQA. Under the CEQA Guidelines a lead agency, such as Carlsbad, may authorize mitigation measures consisting.of“agreements or other legally binding instruments.” 14 CCR §15126.4(a)(2). The Guidelines, of course, require the agreement to satisfy the “nexus” and “rough proportionality” requirements of Ehrlich and other cases. Yet, these, and all other legal requirements, are more than satisfied by the analysis of the DEIR (which establishes the nexus between the Project and Intersection Improvements), the Conley mitigation agreement between City and Developer. Letter (which establishes the rough proportionality), and the terms that would be included in the Under these circumstances, Vista is uncertain why the DEIR concludes that it is infeasible to include a mitigation measure which would read largely as follows: “Developer shall avoid significant traffic impacts in the City of Vista by installin8traffic improvements designed toreduceproject-relatedtrafficimpacts below significance as identified m the EIR, or shall execute a mitigation agreement with the City of Vista through which the developer contnbutes toward such traffic improvements based on the rough proportionality standards of Ehrlich v. City of Culver City.” * In addition, a proposed subdivision must be denied or include mitigation measures if: (1) the site to be subdivided is “not physically suitable for the proposed density of development;” or (2) the “proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environment damage.” Gov’t. Code §66474(d) and (e). In this instance, the DEIR concludes that the density of development will result in significant environmental and traffic impacts in Vista. Thus, the subdivision must include available and reasonable conditions, such as the Intersection Improvements, before it is approved. Certainly, the Subdivision Map Act provides Carlsbad with still another lawful opportunity to condition the Project on the execution of a mitigation agreement between City and the developer. See also, Carlsbad Municipal Code, §§20.12.090-091 and Chapter 20.12 which authorize the imposition of “conditions” on a tentative map to obtain contribution toward traffic improvements or to otherwise promote the public, health, welfare, and safety; Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 19.04 and 19.04.1 80. Additionally, Vista has commenced the process to amend its Capital Improvement Program to include the Intersection Improvements. This amendment is not. a legal prerequisite to the execution of a mitigation agreement or the requirement of such an agreement as a mitigation measure. Anne Hysong, Associate Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Page 3 in which to respond to the significant project-related impacts that will occur in Vista. We welcome Vista trusts that Carlsbad, upon reviewing this letter, will agree that there are feasible ways an opportunity to discuss the subject so that this important project may proceed with the minimum work together. I can be reached at (760) 639-6123. of environmental harm. We thank you for considering this letter and welcome the opportunity to Sincerely, Jonathan B. Stone Assistant City Attorney cc: Ron Ball, City Attorney, Carlsbad J. WAYNEDERNETZ City Attorney MARTIN A. GROYER, Assistant City Attorney OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF VISTA, CALIFORNIA 600 Eucaly tus Avenue Vista, California 92084 Direct Dial: (760) 639-6119 Facsimile: (760) 639-6120 Jonathan B. Stone, Assistant City Attorney August 1, 2002 (760) 720-9461 FAX & US MAIL Lorraine Wood, City Clerk City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008-1 949 Re: Amendment to Vista CIP/ Carlsbad Oaks Dear Ms. Wood: The City of Vista, in accordance with Government Code §66002(b), provides notice to the City of Carlsbad of a public hearing to consider an amendment to Vista’s Five Year Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2001-02 through 2005-06 (“Vista CIP”). The amendment, if approved, would expand the list of capital projects in the Vista CIP to include intersection improvements at the following intersections in Vista: (1) S. Melrose Drive at Park Center Drive and Faraday Road; (2) S. Melrose Drive and Sycamore Avenue; and (3) State Route 78, Eastbound Ramps at Sycamore Avenue (collectively, “Three Intersections”). The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan (“DEIR) determined that the Three Intersections would suffer significant traffic impacts due to the Carlsbad Oaks project. That DEIR identified improvements (“Identified Mitigation Measures”) to the Three Intersections which would mitigate the project-related impacts to below the level of significance. The amendment to the Vista CIP, if approved, will add the Identified Mitigation Measures to the Vista CIP, with certain minor changes described in Vista’s response to the DEIR, prepared by John Conley and dated May 29, 2002. Ms. Lorraine Woods Amendment to Vista CIPICarlsbad Oaks August 1, 2002 Page 2 The public hearing to consider the proposed amendment will be held at 4 p.m. on August 13, 2002 at the Council Chambers of Vista City Hall, 600 Eucalyptus Avenue, Vista California, 92084. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jonathan B. Stone, Assistant City Attorney cc: Raymond Patchett, City Manager Ronald Ball, City Attorney Anne Hysong, Associate Planner Land Development Review Division (619) 446-5460 LDR NO. 99-1094 SCH No. 2oooO11053 SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS to the CITY OF SAN DIEGO PROGRESS GUIDE AM, GENERAL PLAN (GPA), PRECISE PLAN, REZONE (RZ), VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS o, PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) PERMITS, and RESOURCE PR0l"ION ORDINANCE (RPO) PERMTi'S to amend the existing Progress Guide and General Plan to rezone lands from E-3-1 (formerly M1-A) and El-2-1 (formerly M2-A) to "1-1 (formerly A-1-10), and adopt aPrecise Plan for the approximately 2,658-acre Beeler Canyon Future Urbanizing Area (FUA). Separate VTM, PRD, and RPO Permits are proposed for the development of the following parcels: Montecito Subdivision (LDR No. 99-0295), and Sycamore Estates (LDR No. 99-0899). The Montecito Subdivision proposes to grade 3.16 million cubic yards of earth on 153 acres and subdivide a 278-acre site into 317 lots to construct 277 single-family residences; create 36 open space lots totaling 125 acres; and preserve ai existing residence on a 1.7-acre lot. The Sycamore Estates project proposes to grade 14.9 million cubic yards of earth on 590 acres and subdivide a 2.132-acre site into 631 lots to construct 557 single-family residences; construct 106 multi-family units on an 9.9-acre parcel; create two lots totaling 13.9 acres to allow for future institutional uses; construct a 4-acre neighborhood park and 12-acre elementary school site; and create 11 open space lots totaling 1,498.6 acres. The project also proposes a Multiple Habitat Planning Area &IHPA) Boundary Adjustment that would remove 35.6 acres of existing MHPA lands and add 383.9 acres of non-MHPA lands to the MHPA (a 348.3-acre net addition to the MHPA). The 2,658-acre precise plan area is located east of Pomerado Road, west of the Sycamore Canyon County Open Space Preserve, south of Beeler Canyon Road, and north of MCAS Miramar (Portion of the SE '/4 of the SE x, Section 26, and Portion of Section 25, Township 14 South, Range 2 West, and Section 19,20,21,22,28,29 and 30, Township 14 South, Range 1 West, Poway Quadrangle, San Bernadino Base Meridian). Applicants: Mchtillin Homes 11 & Pacific Land &Investment Company, LLC. Since circulation of the Draft Envi weport (h3EB) and in resoonse to corn Potential impacts to sensitive animal and plant species (Willowy monardella, California gnatcatcher, San Diego homed lizard, Orange-throated whiptail, Western red diamond rattlesnake, Coastal cactus wren, Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, Northern harrier, Golden eagle and Cooper’s hawk) would be avoided through the project’s conformance with the MSCP Subarea Plan and the City’s Biology GuideIines, which require habitat-based mitigation through the preservation of the Multiple Habitat Planning Area (MHPA) preserve, species- specific grading restrictions during the breeding season of sensitive species, and irrigation restrictions in the watershed of the Willowy monardella. To avoid the potential for indirect impacts to wetland habitat adjacent to future construction, the project would be required to provide and fence a minimum 25-foot development and construction buffer around all wetlands. Cumulative impacts due to the loss of raptor foraging habitat would be partially mitigated through the habitat-based mitigation discussed above, but not to below a level of significance. Mitigation for impacts associated with the gravity sewer design option, if selected, would be mitigated in accordance with City of Poway standards. The project’s potentially significant impacts associated with the site’s geotechnical conditions would be mitigated by requiring that a geotechnical consultant observe grading and earthwork procedures to make recommendations, as necessary. In addition, potential soil erosion impacts would be fully mitigated by requiring that a mitigation monitor oversee grading and earthwork activities to ensure that proper erosion control measures, as identified on each sub-project’s grading plans and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), are adhered to during construction. ty (direct and cumulativel: Potentially significant direct impacts to water quality would be mitigated by implementing the project-specific Best Management Practices (BIG’S) identified in the HydrologyrWater Quality section of the EIR (Section 4.5) and by preparing and implementing a City-approved SWPP during construction. BMPs would include erosion and sediment controls during construction, and detention and filtration of site runoff prior to discharging into Beeler Creek. No mitigation is available at the project level to mitigate cumulative water quality impacts. ect and cumulative): Sigificant direct and cumulative impacts to circulation in the project area would be partially mitigated by assuring the construction of the roadway improvements identified in the Transportation Section (4.6) of the EIR prior to recordation of the first final map. Roadway improvements would occur on Pomerado Road, Stonemill Drive, L?“ Scripps Poway Parkway, the northbound 1-15 off-ramp at Pomerado Road, -the southbound auxiliarv lane on 1-15 frprraMira Mesa Blvd. to Mlramar Way, Spring Canyon Road, Spruce Run Drive, Semillon Boulevard Sunset Ridge Drive, Blue Cypress and Scripps Creek Drive. All impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance except for direct and cumulative impacts to the level of service on Pomerado Road. Noise (direct): The Montecito sub-project would mitigate potentially si-gificant interior and exterior noise impacts for those homes that would be built within 200 feet of the centerline of 8 Executive Summary This drainage area diversion is not considered a sigificant impact because it would not result in significant impacts to existing sensitive biological resources. A potentially sipificant water quality impact also would occur at the affordable housing site and at the schooUpark site proposed by the Precise Plan and the Sycamore Estates sub-project because more than 20 parking spaces would be required in these two areas. No portions of the Precise Plan area are located within a 100-year floodplain as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). However, as a design option of the proposed Project, a gravity sewer line is proposed. Gravity sewer improvements would occur within the City of Poway, and portions of the improvements would be located in a 100-year floodplain. The construction of the proposed underground improvements would conform to the National Flood Insurance requirements and local ordinance. The improvements would not increase flood levels or impair the ability of the floodway to carry and discharge the waters resulting from the one-hundred-year flood; thus impacts would not be significant. Development of the Rancho Encmtudu project site as proposed would result in an increase in the amounts of urban pollutants over existing conditions. Short-term water quality impacts to the drainage basin would be expected during the grading and construction phases of the proposed Project when cleared and graded areas would be exposed to rain and surface runoff. Improperly controlled runoff would result in erosion and transport of the sediment to the basin, The long-term water quality impact potential would be related to contaminated urban runoff caused by the introduction of urban uses and impervious surface areas to the site. These pollutants would adversely affect the water quality in Beeler Canyon Creek and would increase the amount and concentration of urban pollutants entering the drainage basin. As required under the City's NPDES Permit; dischargers are required to develop and implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control the discharge of pollutants. BMPs appropri- ate to the characteristics of the Project would be employed to reduce pollutants available for transport or to reduce the amount of pollutants in runoff prior to discharge to a surface water body. The sub- project, applicants would be required to secure the necessary NPDES permits and implement the appropriate BMPs for consmction activities and structural improvements to reduce direct impacts to below a level of significance.. Significant direct impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance. Cumulatively significant impacts would remain unmitigable. Transportation The Project's access opportunities based on the existing street network are from the north via existing Beeler Canyon RoadlCreek Road and from the west on Pomerado Road just north of Spring Canyon Road. Rancho Encantada Parkway is proposed to be constructed on-site to provide access to Pomerado Road. Rancho Encantada Parkway would be built along the southern portion of the project site, forming a 'T" intersection south of Legacy Point on Pomerado Road. Given the layout of the site and the locallregional orientation of Project traffic, the traffic study indicates that the bulk of the project trips would load from the west via this new roadway. Beeler Canyon'Road access to the north would remain with limited Project access. The Project would generate approximately 10,548 ADT. L' RANCHO ENCAIWADA DRAnEIR (LOR No. 99-1094; SCHIVO. 2000011053) Draft: November 21,2000; Final: June 28,2001 Page ES-10 m Executive Summarv To determine the Project’s traffic distribution on the surrounding transportation network, a regional traffic model was developed to reflect this Project and its proposed access. Based on this model, the addition of Project traffic to Pomerado Road is regarded as a significant direct and cumulative unmitigable impact. Cumulatively significant impacts would also occur at the following facilities, and would require mitigation: a) the westbound to southbound freeway on-ramp at Pomerado Road/I-15; b) the merging distance on Pomerado Road to the east of the 1-15 northbound off-ramp; c) off-ramp Y 4) storage at the Pomerado Road/I-15 northbound off-ramp; d) the intersection of Pomerado Road/Scripps Poway Parkwayfiltmeetiotl; and e) three Pomerado Road intersections: Scripps Poway Parkway, Willow Creek, and Scripps Ranch Boulevard. Mitigation measures specified in Section 4.6 of this ER would reduce these cumulative impacts to below a level of significance, except for the addition of traffic to Pomerado Road which is unmitigable. Noise Traffic noise, except along the western property boundary of the Montecito sub-project site, very close to Pomerado Road, is not perceptible on the site, particularly because variable terrain shields the site interior from exterior noise sources. Due to the proximity of the project site to the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar runway, aircraft noise is audible. The MCAS Miramar 60 dB CNEL contour is well within the MCAS property, and is not within the Rancho Encantada project boundaries. Three noise concerns are typically identified with land use development such as that proposed for the project area: 1) construction activities, especially heavy equipment, which could create short-term noise increases near the project site; 2) the increase in project-related traffic which could cause an incremen- tal increase in area-wide noise levels; and 3) elevated future ambient levels from adjacent arterial roadways that could place possible consmints on siting noise-sensitive uses on the project site. Construction noise impacts would be temporary in nature and less than significant. The project would be required to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance which states that all construction and general maintenance activities, except in an emergency, shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday. This requirement would be included as a condition of all grading and construction pennits for the City of San Diego’s and the City of Poway’s Noise Ordinance. Section 59.5.0404 of the City of San Diego’s Municipal Code and Chapter 8.08.100 of the City of Poway’s Municipal Code also contain perfonnance standards that limit the allowable noise from construction at the property line of any adjacent residential use. Short-term construction noise impacts also would occur off-site along a proposed sewer line alignment, if the gravity sewer design option is implemented. Construction of the off-site gravity sewer line would be required to comply with the City of Poway’s noise ordinance. Long term noise concerns from the increased urbanization of the project area center primarily on mobile source emissions surrounding the project site. Maximum Project-related impacts would be 2 dB along any roadway seapent analyzed. These increases would occur along roadways closest to the project site (Pomerado or Spring Canyon Roads). Farther from the site,.as Project traffic becomes progressively diluted, noise increases are 0-1 dB. None of the Project-related noise increases equal or exceed the +3 dB CNEL increase considered an individually potentially si,@icant noise impact. Vehicular noise along Pomerado Road has the potential to impact homes on the Montecito sub-project site if privare yards of the homes were located within 100 feet of the roadway centerline. Because no RANCHO ENCA~TADA DRAFTEIR (LDR No. 99-1094; SCHNo. 2000011053) Draft: November 21,2000; Final: June 28, ZOO! Page ES-! 1 il Environmental Analysis -Trans,portation. 0 YEAR 2020 RAMP METER ANALYSIS WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT BIJEDOUT TRAFFIC Table 4.6-13, Significance of Ramp Meter Analysis, summarizes the findings of the ramp meter analysis. As shown by the Table, the addition of Project Buildout traffic to Year 2020 conditions would result in a significant cumulative impact at the 1-15 westbound to southbound Miramar RoadPomerado Road in, the PM peak hour and at the 1-1 5 eastbound to southbound Miramar RoadPomerado Road in the AM peak hour. 0 YEAR2020FREEWAY SEGME&TANAL,YSISWITHANDWITHOUTPROJECTBU~LDOUTTRAFFIC Table 4.6-14, Significance of Freeway Segment Analysis, summarizes the findings of the freeway segment analysis with the addition of Project Buildout traffic to Year 2020 conditions. As shown in Table 4.6-14, all seven of the studies segments between SR-163 and SR-56 will have LOS E or worse conditions under Year 2020 conditions with or without the addition of Project Buildout traffic. The Project at Buildout would result in volume to capacity ratio increases of between 0.000 and 0.00996. The Traffic Impact Analysis has determined that the project would therefore not generate any significant traffic impacts on freeways. 0 YEAR 2020 BUILDOUT ANALYSIS WITH STREET “B” AS EMERGENCY ONLY ACCESS The traffic impact analysis indicates that approximately 3 percent of the Project’s externally-oriented traffic would proceed to Pornerado Road via Street “E which is proposed to connect with Beeler Canyon RoadCreek Road. Without the Street “B” connection, $e traffk utilizing this access would have to be shifted to Rancho Encantada Parkway. Peak hour capacity analysis was conducted at the Pomerado Road intersections with Creek Road, Legacy Point, and Rancho Encantada Parkway., The analysis is indicated in the following table. Table 4.6-3& YEAR 2020 BUILDOUT WITH AND WITHOUT STREET “B’’ In comparing the two conditions shown in the table, there would be no signification increase in intersection delay and LQS under the Buildout with Project wirhout Street “B”condition. RANCilO ENCANTADAEIR (LDR No. 99-1094; SCHNo. 2000011053) Draft: November 21,2000; Final: lune 28,2001 Page 4.6-35 Environmental Analysis "Transportation Environmental Analysis -Transportation an additional lane for the northbound off-ramp at 1-15 and Pomerado Road, satisfactory to the City Engineer. 4.6-7: Prior to recordation of the first final map, the ownedpermittee shall assure by permit and bond the construction of an additional lane along Pomerado Road between the U.S. NavyMarine driveway and the USIU secondary driveway to improve the eastbound merging for the 1-15 northbound off-ramp, satisfactory to the City Engineer. 4.6-8: Prior to recordation of the first final map,l~ri~'~.an'~tem'a'tive td':v ,: ,.,.,. , . I . .. auxiIi ..:lank on I- 1'5 from,Mil.~Mes~;Blvar~t~~~Mi~~~~~a~~, 4.6-9: Prior to recordation of the first final map, the owner/permittee shall assure by permit and bond the construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Spring Canyon Road with Spruce Run Drive, Semillon Boulevard and Scripps Creek Drive, satisfactory to the City Engineer. 4.6-10: Prior to recordation of the first final map, the owner/pennittee shall assure by permit and bond the construction of median improvements at the intersection of Spring Canyon Road with Semillon Boulevard, Sunset Ridge Drive, Scripps Creek Drive, Spruce Run Drive, Blue Cypress, and other locations along Spring Canyon Road needed to reduce cut-thru traffic on local collector streets in the Scripps Miramar Ranch community, satisfactory to the City Engineer. 4.6-11: Prior to recordation of the first final map, the ownedpermittee shall assure the construction of a traffic signal interconnect system on Spring Canyon Road between Scripps Ranch Boulevard and Pomerado Road, satisfactory to the City Engineer. RANCHO ENCANEADA EA? (LDR No. 99-1094; SCH No. 2000011053: Page 46-39 Draft: November 21,2000; Final: he 28,2001 , I' " . " " 8 4 z I - There are two proposed alternative locations for the radio antenna. Alternaiively, the tower may remain in its current location. Offsite Improvements Due to the traffic generated by the projecl, impacts to Vineyard Avenue and Valley Parkway were identified. Specifically, Vineyard Avenue will he widened hetwezn West lvlission Road and Alpine Way. Valley Parkway will be widened between 1 Irh Street and Citracado Parkway. To mitigare these impacts, these street segments will ultimately be widened in accordance with the mitigation measures identified in the 'Ira& Analysis (Section 23 &though these final roadway improvements have not been designed at this time, impacts from their construction. are assessed in this EIR. General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element The proposed project will require modification to the City of Escondidn General Plan Circulation Element to eliminate Enterprise Street and Citracado Parkway. The project proposes PO eiirnime a segment of Entcrprise Strcet, amend the existing designation of Citracado Parkway, and eliminate the interconnection of Citracado Parkway and Enterprise Street. Currently. under Policy D2.1 of the Circulation Element of he City's General Plan, "The City shall plann, design, and implement a street system thar recognizes the importance of the use and function of each streer classification." According to the Circulation Element, Enterprise woold serve as a Loc.2i Collector, and Citracado Parbay was classified as a Major Road Additional improvements to Citracado Parkway have been proposed w%k thc Spe~fic P~G~ including north,'south connection through the site to connect to Vintyrd acexe, necessary offsitt circulation improvements, and the addition of a sufficienf bicycle laze ;width ~iloi~g Cipacado Parkway to encourage an alternative mode of transportation. However, implementation of these improvements will require a Circulation Element Amendment Io modify the existing Major Road designation to Coilector. The Quail Hills Specific Plan established that Citracado Parkway vroniJ be conswmTed rn a Major Road per the City's General Plan and Design Standards. Furthmnore. all ofher roads within the project were to be classified as Local Collector, serving industrial nnd privak jent, By: HP LaserJet 3100; I 111 II I 1 I 4 n I 1 L u I I P,qP :3 driveways. SlTeets were to he construcred in conformance with City design svandard~ ~providinp primary access to lots and intcrnal circulation for the tenants. [Jpon approval of the proposed ERTC Specific Plan. tcntatiwc subdivision maps and site plms will be reviewed prior to initiati.on of development. At this time, the tentative subdivision map will be processed conculrently with the Specific Plan. The. P!anning Commissian and Ci?; Council will review the Tentative subdivision map for approval in accordance with the %ate Subdivision Map Act, the City of Escondido Subdivision Ordinance, and the approved Specific Plan. Following recordation of the Final Subdivision Map, any further parcel maps and boundary adjustments will be subject to approval of the Planning Director, with aupeal rights i,> the Ylming Commission and City C:ouncil. General Plan Amendment and Remne for Residential Use Residential wes are proposed for approximately 22 acre's and will be rezaned RE with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. This area wi11 not be incorporated with the ERTC Specific Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL, ANALYSIS Table S-2 is a summary of the impacts associated with the proposed project. recomrmndti! mitigarion measures, and the level of significance ofthe imparts mitigatioa. ALTERNATWES A summary of the alternatives and signific.ance of impacts is przumted ITI 'Table S-? No Proiect/No DeveloDment Alternative The No ProjecUNo Development Alternative would leave the project site in its present condition. without 'project development or new construction. Implementation of the KO ProjeCVHo Development Alternative is considered environmentally supcrior tir ;he. proposcd projcct, shce no new significant environmental impacts would result. Exisring conditions for each cnvironrnental resource would remain, and environmental irnpwrs would remain a! existing Sent By: HP LaserJet 3100; . . . ... . . .. ient ay: tip LaserJet 3100; I ?nt ' By HP LaserJet 3100; i c 3 n 2 .- c m a,.... I%. . . """..- ! ! ! 1 , ! i i ! i nt. By:, HP LaserJet 3100; 1 760 839 4313; Auy-20.02 10:57; rdyr oIc: I . . . . . . . .. L BENNETT I 2 AVE '26-1, RD I"" e"." OGl 71 N= .. FANITA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, TENTATIVE MAP, AND OTHER RELATED ACTIONS Final Recirculated Environmental Impact Report Prepared for City of Santee 10601 Magnolia Avenue Santee. CA 92070 RECON December 1998 Iml I' Mission Gorge RoadiMagnolia Avenue I I Mmion Gorge Roadfl'own Center Parkway iVoousldc Avenue/SR-67 southbound off-ramp u Wvodsidc AvenudSR-67 northbound on-ramp h-ospzcl k\.enueMagnolia Avenue d) F'reeway Operations S;nc.,i I::C ;p,t~jei:i i; :,alc~lated $0 add about 7.000 ADT to an existing and forecasted LOS F L' diacr~ 07' SR -Si. this is considered a significant project impact. However, when SX-52 IS .widened to six lanes or the opening of the portion of SR-52 between 1Mis.io:: Sarge Road and SR-125 significantly improves operations on eastbound SR-52 applt:m:.+:ing Masi Rrxtltvxd (as predicted by Caltrans), (ne project impact to SR-52 noulc' nc! be slgnificanr fl I I 0 1 1 I 4) Mitigation MitigatioI: for the impacts oi project traffic for the conditions described in this analysis are shown In Table 4G-14 for both the 2005 and 2015 conditions. For the intersections and streer segments sinown. implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce project Impacts to a Ievel below significance by the criteria used in this analysis. Included among these measures are: ! The City snail perform, at the developer's expense, a traffic srudy to determine the actual traffic generaxion from the Fanita Ranch project at two mid-points within the development-s constm!::ic:1 (occupancy of the 1,200" residential unit and occupancy oi the 2.?00'h residential unitj. Based upon the findings of this traffic study. the developer shail pay to the City additional traffic impact fees (per the trdfic fee rate in effect at that time), if the traffic study finds that (ne ADT being generated from the prqect IS over and above what was estimared within the traffic study as shown within ,ihC EIR Tu1 the amount of developmeni which has occurred. The City may require traffic improvenlenrs to be made in lieu of these fees. If the cost of traffic improve- ments require.d by the City are in excess of the required additional traffic impact fees, thc d~ffere.nce shall be re1mburse.d to the developer. An) mtigation require.d shall be completed or secured by the issuance of the 1,400' residential building permlt for the first study and the Issuance of the 2,500" residential building permit for the second study. i 1 I ! 2. Haibems Bouievard shouid be extended into the site in addition to Cecilwood Drive, 249 ei.E:OI a0 oa i I f t D I I a 'd i >, i- FANITA RANCH Sites shown as White = City of San Diego Brown = Santee EAST ‘LLIOTT - UN1 RBI, RECREAl LAKE5 Dm' SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FORTHEPROPOSED DAJXY ENTERPRISES ROCK QUARRY Mup 8410SW .' LOG NO. 84-19-32 .. Prepared by; COUNTY'OF .SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & LAND USE 5201 RuffLn Road, Sui& B San Diego, California 92123 ., Applicant: Environmental Consultant: DALEY ENTERPRISES LE'ITIERI-MCIhTYRE & ASSOCIATES ,2400 Murphy Canyon Road. Sa Diego, CA 92123 1551 Fourth Avenue, Suite 430 San Diego, CA 92101 -M. Bruce Mchtyre, Pdcipal Lettieri-McIntyre and Associates Dalcy Rock Quarry Draft EIR Traffic 4.32 Potential Impacts Implementation of all of the components of the proposed project would result in a maximum of 930 ADT or 2,010 passenger car equivalents (PCE). The addition of the concrete and asphalt plant operations would be primarily responsible for the increase in traffic. The traffic associated with the proposed modification would result in an increase in the traffic volumes on the primary roadways serving the project: Otay Lakes Road, Telegraph Canyon Road, East H Street and SR-94. A discussion of the trip generation and distribution of project traffic along with an assessment of the project traffic’s impact on the ability of the roads to accommodate the proposed traffic and the potential for road maintenance or safety impacts is provided below. A complete discussion of the project’s cumulative traffic impacts is provided in section 5.2 of this document. Project Traffic Generation and Distribution - The estimate of 930 ADT is a maximum, assuming peak weekday operation of all of the facilities. The applicant estimates that the .average number of truck trips would be on the order of 560 ADT; however, this analysis is based on the worst-case condition. The maximum production level of 450 loads per day or 900 truck trip ends and 15 employees who will generate a total of 30 automobile trips. The truck traffic is associated with delivering products to off-site destinations and delivery of materials to the project site needed for the rock processing and manufacturing of concrete and asphalt. In order to determine the number of passenger car equivalents, the total truck trips were multiplied by 2.2 with 30 employee trips added to the product, giving a total of 2010 passenger car equivalents. The maximum peak hourly traffic volume generated by the project would be 93 trips (185 PCE). The analysis of the traffic impads is based on this maximum although this condition would be expected to occur on only several days each month. Normal operation of the facility would likely generate approximately half of the maximum number of trips. Weekend project traffic would on average be even less. As shown in Figure 4.3-5, the traffic analysis indicates that on average the majority of the truck trips (88% or 818 ADT) would be to and from the South Bay area which lies to the west of the project. Most of these trips would utilize the length of Otay Lakes Road/Telegraph Canyon Road extending to 1-805. Future development in the planned communities of Rancho Del Rey and EastLake would attract truck trips from this length of roadway to segments of East H Street and Eastlake Parkway. These projects and other future development in the South Bay area are expected PO require significant quantities of aggregate material and is believed to represent the primary market area for the project. Dalq RoEk Quarry Draft EIR Traffic Approximately 12% or 112 of the truck trips would be to or from the East County area via SR-94 due to the fact that demand for aggregate material in this area is expected to be considerably lower than in South Bay and due to the fact that several existing quarries are servicing the East County area. Subsequent to the completion of the traffic study, the applicant proposed to limit the number of outbound truck loads to the east, to a maximum of 75 per day, and a maximum of 8,000 per year. This proposal will not substantially affect the conclusions of the traffic study for two reasons. First, the traffic study was a worst case analysis that assumed a greater level of aggregate demand than is actually expected to occur. Second, if the annual limitation is less than the market demand to the east of this quarry site, it is unlikely that suppliers would use a westbound route to supply demand to the east. This is due to the fact that the economics of the transportation of aggregate material discourages suppliers from shipping material twenty miles or more out of direction when attempting to deliver material from the quarry sites to construction sites. If the demand for aggregate is higher than the limitation of this project, it is more likely that buyers will obtain supplies from other quanjes of this site, due to lower transportation costs. Proposed Road Improvements As discussed in Section 2.0, the project is proposing to make roadway im rovements along the property frontage as well as to the west between the project an & hula Vista City Limits. Along the project frontage, the paved width of Otay Lakes Road would be increased to 32-feet. In addition, the project would create a new entrance at the easterly end of the property to serve the concrete and asphalt plant area. The existing entrance would be retained to provide access to the field office and parking area. Otay Lakes Road in the vicinity of the new entrance wodd be widened to accommodate acceleration and deceleration lanes. A haul road would be constructed on the south side of the project to be used between March 15 and August 31 to avoid impacting a sensitive bud species residing in the creek area along Otay Lakes Road. The road would be used by trucks traveling to or from the west. The entrance to the haul road from the west would be approximately 300 feet east of the point where Otay Lakes Road crosses Jamul Creek. Acceleration/deceleration lanes would be included on Otay Lakes Road at the haul road entrance. The haul road would continue to the east and enter the south side of the concrete and asphalt plant area. Prior to commencement of excavation in Phase B, a %-foot road would be constructed as illustrated on Figure 2.2-1B to connect Phase B with the rock processing area. Trucks carrying materials to and from the Phase B to the plant site would travel this road and would not use Otay Lakes Road. hbmary IO, IW 434 'C ~dcy Rock Quarry Draft EJR Traffic In addition to these onsite improvements, the County is requiring the applicant make hprovements to Otay Lakes Road from the westerly project boundary to Chula Vista City Limits (Refer to Figure 2.2-2). From the westerly boundary, the roadway would be widened to 32 feet to the culvert crossing Jmul Creek. From this point, the crossing the roadway to the west would be widened to a paved width of 44 feet for a distance of 1,200 feet to accommodate a passing lane. From this point, the width would transition back to 32 feet; the 32-foot section would continue to Chula Vista City Limits. Roadway Capacity The traffic study evaluated the impact of the project traffic on Otay Lakes Road, Telegraph Canyon Road, East H Street and SR-94. The analysis considered the effect of project traffic on existing and future (build-out) conditions. The results of the analysis are contained in Tables 4.3-1 and 4.3-2. Level of service (LOS) conditions shown in these tables portray County standards are applied to level of service conditions for road segments .located in p. f; 1. ~ " :' :. 8. . : "' . ". i ~ :: i .. ,.I *.-: . ~ standard capacities used by the County of San Diego, not the City of Chula Vista. As such, ... . . .. Chula Vista. Operating conditions of LOS E or worse are considered unacceptable by the <, County. For MS D operating conditions, the level of significance is determined by the .,.:. affected intersections and road segments. .. . It should be noted that capacity standards for street classifications differ between the County .. of San Die o and the City of Chula Vista. The capacity for a six-lane prime arterial at LOS f ;.;: ' . 3,: County on a project-by-project basis. It was assumed for this project that LOS D operating conditions were not significant given the negligible contribution of project traffic at the +. ?... ,I 1 C for th & ity of Chula Vista is 50,000 ADT rather than the 44,600 ADT threshold set by the County. Thus, using the Chula Vista standards, the level of service conditions would be generally LOS C or better on Telegraph Canyon Road segments once the roadway is built out to six-lane prime arterial standards. Such improvements are projected to occur before 1995 according the City of Chula Vista's East Chula Vista Phasing Plin Update (January 1991). ,. . As stated earlier, the analysis is based on the worst-case estimate of 930 or 2,010 PCE ADT which is expected to occur on only several days of each month. Thus, the impacts of the project traffic on the major roadways would be generally less than described below. This is particularly true on weekends when roadway traffic on Otay Lakes Road is highest due to recreational trips; project traffic would be lowest on the weekends. Existing Plus Project Conditions In evaluating the existing traffic plus project condition (Table 4.3-l), the traffic study concludes that the increase in traffic asso6iated with the project would change the existing level of service (US) on the following road segments 01: Telegraph Canyon Road: Apache Road to Rutgers Avenue and Lane Avenue to Wueste Road. The Apache Road/Rutgers February IO, 1994 4-35 3EGMEM TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD I %~ ~~ ~ ~~ 1-305 TO PASEO DEL REY PASEO DEL REY TO PASEO IADERA ~ ~~ PASEO IADUU TU APACHE DR. APACHE RD. TO RUTGERS AVE RVTGERS At2 TO LaNE At2 LANEAMTOWUESnRD. WUESIE RD. TO PROECT ACCESS I PROJECTACCESS TO CAMPO RD. I 2c EAST H STREET 1-805 TO PASEO DEL REY 6P PASEO DUREY TO BUENA VETA WAY 6P BUENA VLSTA WAY TO OTAY LAKES RD. 6P OTAY IAICES RD. TO CORRAL 4M I QTAY LAKES ROAD< CANYON RD. 90 OTAY LAKE5 RD. LYONS VALLEY RD. SOURCE: * BASED ON LOS C; COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO STREET CLGSIRCATIONS. SEE APPEND= E ” Crr( OF CWULA VISTA TR4FFIC COtim: SEE APPENDIX A d: SANDAG 1950 TRAFFIC FLOW MAP. SEE FIGURE 4 LEGEND 4M = 4 LWE MOR ROAD 6P = 6 I-%.% PRIME ARTERN 2C = 2 WUE COLLECTOR ‘ EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ,ElTIERI-McINTYRE AND ASSOCIATES Sourcc: Urban Syrtems Asxiate, Inc. 3/91 1 I STREET I CLASS- SEGMENT W/O SR-125 SR-I73 TO €AS- PKWY. (OTAY LaKEs ROAD) PROECTACCESSTO CAMPO RD. I EAST H STREET 4c SR-IZ TO HLRvn PKWY. 6P UO HUKIE PKWY. I 6P HUNTE PKWY. EASTHSTREETTOELEGRAPH 4M TUEGRAPH WON ROAD TO WON RD. ORANGE AVE SI0 ORANGE AVE 6P I CAMPO RD. OTAY IAKES RD. TO LYONS VALLEY RD. St0 OTAY LAW RD. SOURCE: ' BASED ON LOS C; COUNI-Y OFSAN DIEGO STREET cwsrncmoNs, SEE APPENDIX E "SANDAG FQREW,ln6191,SEE FIGURE 12 '" P.CE = PASSENGER CAR EQUIVALENTS. SEE FIGURE I4 LEGE?D. 6P - 6 LWE PRIME ARTERN 4M = 4 L4NE MATOR ROAD 2C = 2 LANE COLLECTOR BUILDOUT PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ,ETIIERI-McIN'TYRE AND ASSOCIATES Sourn: Urban Srtemr Asrociates. Inc. 3/91 Dalcy Rcck Quaq Draft Em Traffic Avenue segment decreases from the current LOS C to LOS D with project trafEic. The Lane Avenue to Wueste Road would diminish from LOS B to C. While other segments would operate at less than a LOS C, the addition of the project would not change the LOS over that which would occur without the project. As stated earlier, the widening to six lanes and signalization of the Telegraph Canyon/Otay Lakes intersection is expected to be completed by 1995. As a six-lane road, the Apache Road/Rutgers Avenue segment of Telegraph Canyon Road would operate at LOS C or better. Based on the fact that the quarry would not be fully operational before 1993, the LOS D condition would likely not exist. In addition to the two Telegraph Canyon Road segments, Campo Road would be impacted by project traffic between the Otay Lakes Road and Lyons Valley Road. This segment would decline from LOS C to LOS D, the total volume is an estimated 182 trips over that which would result in LOS C. As the project traffic would represent only 4% of the total traffic and the total trips aTe just over that necessary to assure LOS C, the impact of this project on this road segment is not considered significant. As previously stated, with the improvement of Telegraph Canyon Road between Otay Lakes Road and EastLake Parkway, all major affected roadways, with one exception, would operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS C or better) in the existing plus project condition. The segment of East H Street between 1-805 and Paseo del Rey currently operates at LOS E and would continue to operate at LOS E with the project traflic. As the project traffic would contribute less than one percent of the traffic on this segment, the impact of the project would not be substantial, in and of itself. Future (Build-out) Conditions The analysis of the impact of the project on future trafEic circulation conditions in the area (Refer to Table 4.3-2) indicates that the additional traffic contributed by the project would not lower any of the anticipated levels of service. In general, levels of service would be LOS C or better except for Telegraph Canyon Road between SR-125 and Road "A" which would be located west of the project. Here, the LOS would be D with or without the project traffic. Intersection Capacity lntersection capacity utilization (ICU) calculations were prepared for various intersections affected by the project. Levels of service for existing plus project and year 1995 plus project conditions at the intersections are shown in Table 4.3-3 and Table 4.3-4. The intersections include southbound and northbound freeway ramps at Telegraph Canyon Road and 1-805, Otay Lakes Road at East H Street, and Otay Lakes Road at Telegraph Canyon Road. Since project traffic would not use East H Street to access 1-805, ICU calculations were not prepared for East H Street at the 1-805 ramps. In addition, a signal does not currently exist February 10, 1% 4-?8 5- ' ~... 4 _.:.. <, .. .~ , '. .,. . r- Dalcy Reek Quarry Draft EIR Traffic .. for Otay Lakes Road at Telegraph Canyon Road. Therefore, ICU calculations at this intersection were prepared for the year 1995 plus project condition only. ICU calculations prepared for these intersections assumed a worst-case scenario by using 10% of the project traffic during the PM peak hour, a passenger car equivalent rate of 2.2, and maximum plant production. As mentioned earlier, production at this level is anticipated to occur only several times a month. As shown on Table 4.3-3, the subject intersections are operating at LOS B or better, excluding Telegraph Canyon Road, at the southbound 1-805 ramps, which operates at LOS E during the PM peak hour. With project traffic, conditions at these intersections would generally remain at LOS B or better, with the exception of the southbound 1-805 ramp which would continue to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. ., .. .. . ' Table 4.34 shows short-term conditions at these same intersections. Otay Lakes Road at Telegraph Canyon Road would operate at LOS C with future sipalhtion. The remaining three intersections would operate at LOS D. With project traffic, level of service at the subject intersections would remain unchanged. Trafllc Safety The project would increase the number of truck which travel Otay Lakes Road which cause ,-.., , . ,, ,.. . ?.. , . ... ., . ,, :~:. :, .~ a safety risk to motorists and bicyclists. Slow moving trucks could be a problem for .~ motorists of the project due to the creek crossing and uphill grade to the west of the creek ,, crossing. Motorists may experience delays by fully loaded trucks heading westbound. .. Impatient motoristsmay attempt to pass these trucks which would could endanger eastbound motorists. The proposed project includes acceleration and deceleration lanes at all entrances including the haul road to allow trucks to safely access the project site. In addition, the entrances would have adequate line of sight distance. The proposed passing lanes and the overall widening between the project and the Chula Vista City Limits would substantially reduce the risk of truck traffic to motorists. .Truck traffic to the east would be limited to 75 loads a day with no more than 8,000 loads annually in order to reduce the impact on Otay Lakes Road (east of the project) and SR-94. At the intersection of Otay Lakes Road and SR-94, horizontal line-of-sight along SR-94 is less than the County's standard of 550 feet. Therefore, the project would be required to provide line-of-sight improvements at the intersection to meet the standards, hplementation of these improvements max require grading within native slopes which may be associated with biological, visual, or cultural resource impacts. The final design of the improvements is currently uncertain, and may invoIve altering of topography, installation of , February 10, 1994 4-41 Daley Rofk Quarry Draft EIR Traffic a traffic signal and/or realignment of the intersection. Therefore, an analysis of impacts that may be associated with the line-of-sight improvements cannot be made at this time. The additional tr&c on Otay Lakes Road would incrementally affect bicyclists using this roadway including future training activities of athletes from the future Olympic Training facility currently under construction on the west side of Lower Otay Reservoir. Studies have shown that use of Otay Lakes Road, particularly by bicyclists, is greatest on weekends when project traffic would be at its lowest volumes. Furthermore, the proposed widening on Otay Lakes Road adjacent to .the project and westerly to the Chula Vista City Limits as well as the limitation on daily truck traffic on Otay Lakes Road, east of the project, would enhance the safety of bicyclists. Road Maintenance The increased number of trucks on Otay Lakes Road related to operation of the proposed project could accelerate the need for road repair. However, the pavement overlay along the property frontage and west to aula Vista City Limits would reduce the localized impact of truck traffic. In addition, material being carried in the trucks could spill onto the roadway. Currently, the project applicant maintains bonds to cover any additional road repair and maintenance costs related to the project. The cash deposit for road maintenance would be increased with approval of this project. The deposit would be built up to $75,000 over the first five years of operation and would be maintained at this level for the life of the project. 4.3.3 Mitigations The construction of onsite and offsite improvements for vehicular access to the site shall require the following mitigations: * 4.3.3(1) Prior to obtaining any building permit or other permit pursuant to the Major Use Permit, and prior to commencement of construction or use of the property in reliance on the Major Use Permit, the applicant shall: Execute a secured agreement to realign and construct a dip section on Otay Lakes Road (SF1396) at the westerly end of the project west of Jamul Creek, subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Public Works. Execute an "Agreement to Secure Maintenance of County Roads" for the truck had routes on County roads, to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. i.---:D& mk Quarry Draft EIR ~*\..,: 'i.> i : Traftic ,. . . ~. .. I. .~ ~ The specific haul route is Otay Lakes Road from Highway 94 to the Chula Vista City Limits. .. Provide an annual cash deposit, for the first five years, in the amount of $15,000.00 to secure an estimated cost of repairs to the above-identified road that is necessary for the hauling operation. Fifteen thousand dollars is to be provided each year for five years to establish a maintenance fund of $75,000. After the first five years of operation, $75,000 is to be available for said repairs at all times. If, after five years, any portion of the $75,000 is utilized, said funds are to be replaced until a fund of $75,000 is available. This replacement shall be annually to a rnaxirnum of $15,000.00 increments. Grant an irrevocable offer to dedicate real property for public highway to ninety-four feet (94'), plus slope rights and drainage easements for the ultimate alignment of Otay Lakes Road (SF1396) across the project site from west to the east boundary of the project. Improve Otay Lakes Road with a pedestrian and bicycle travelway across Jamul Creek adjacent to the existing dip section located approximately 200 feet west of the western project boundary to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Install W51 signs warning of slow trucks facing both eastbound and westbound traffic on SR-94 at the Otay Lakes Road intersection to the satisfaction of Caltrm. Contribute a fair share contribution fee (to be determined by Caltrans up to an equivalent to $200,000, and which may include right of way dedication) to provide a future passing lane along the south side of SR-94, between PM 21.8 and PM 22.4 and a climbing lane along the north side between PM 23.5 and PM 24.5. Execute an "Agreement to Secure Maintenance of City of Chda V& Roads" for the truck haul routes on County roads, to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. The specific haul route is Otay Lakes Road and Telegraph Dalcy Rwk Quany Draft EIR Traffic Canyon Road from the easterly boundary of the Chula Vista city limits to Interstate 805. Provide an annual cash deposit, for the first five years, in the amount of $15,000.00 to secure an estimated cost of repairs to the above-identified road that is necessary for the hauling operation. Fifteen thousand dollars is to be provided each year for five years to establish a maintenance fund of $75,000. After the first five years of operation, $75,000 is to be available for said repairs at all times. If, after five years, any portion of the $75,000 is utilized, said funds are to be replaced until a fund of $75,000 is available. This replacement shall be annually to a maximum of $15,000.00 increments. 4.3.3(1a) Upon completion of mitigation measure 4.3.3(1), the applicant may construct and operate the rock crushing facility; however the maximum number of outbound truck loads per day shall be 150. Tne rock crushing facility shall cease operation if the following conditions are not implemented within a 1Zmonth period following commencement of rock crushing operations: Improve Otay Lakes Road (SF 1396) from the main entrance of the project westerly to the ,Chula Vista City limits to thirty- two feet (32’) overall width of asphaltic concrete pavement over approved base and an asphaltic concrete dike and spillways along the low point of the road. The graded width of the road shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works. Improve Otay Lakes Road from the easterly boundary of the Chula Vista Citv limits,as of the date of approval of this Major Use Permit Modification, westerly for approximately three thousand feet (3,000’) (to where it joins the existing wider section) to thirty-two feet (32’) to thirty-four feet (34’) overall width with asphaltic concrete payment over approved base, asphaltic concrete dike, and spillways along the low points of the road. The graded width of the road shall be subject to the approval of the City of Chula Vista, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Provide horizontal sight distance of 550 feet along SR-94 from Otay Lakes Road and dedicate 50-feet of right of way from Febwry 10,1994 444 Dalcy Rock Qvarry Dlaft EIR Trdffic centerline along the south side of SR-94 and provide any additional clear space easements in order to maintain the line of sight. If grading within native slopes and/or native vegetation is necessary to implement the line-of-sight improvements, subsequent environmental review and any associated mitigation measures shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Land Use prior to approval of the Caltrans encroachment permit and find improvement plans. Where the existing alignment for Otay Lakes Road includes curve radius' of less than 700', provide additional pavement for the traveled way to assure that trucks can negotiate the curves while remaining in the travelway, as approved by the Director of Public Works. Improve the east side of SR-94 at Hillsdale Drive to provide a bus turnout which ensures passenger safety to the satisfaction of Caltrans, the Director of Public Works and the Jamul- Dulzura Union School District. Grant slope rights and drainage easements along Otay Lakes Road between the project site and SR-94, where necessary, for construction of bicycle facilities. Install safety lighting at the intersection of Otay Lakes Road and SR-94 to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 4 4.3.3(2) Upon satisfaction of mitigation measures 4.3.3(1) and 4.3.3(1a) and prior to construction and operation of the concrete facility and the asphalt concrete facility, the following is to be completed: Improve the dip section on Otay Lakes Road'(SF1396) to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. Improve westerly bound Otay Lakes Road west of the existing dip section approximately two hundred feet (200') west of the western project boundary for a passing lane with appropriate transitions with asphaltic concrete. payment and appropriate base twelve fe~et (12') wide and twelve hundred feet (1,200') long to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 7? Daley Roek Quarry Draft EIR Traffic Improve the. proposed access points on Otay Lakes Road (SF1396) with acceleration, deceleration, and left-turn lanes to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. * * 4.3.3(3) 4.3.3(4) Intersectional sight distance along Otay Lakes Road (SF1396) shall be five hundred fifty feet (5507, or shall be based on prevailing approach speed, to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. Improve Otay Lakes Road (SF1396) with appropriate oveTlays as determined by a deflectometer test to be performed by the County of San Diego. The limits of the overlays are from the eastern boundary of the site westerly to the Chula Vista City Limits. Overlays shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. Upon satisfaction of measures 43.3 (1, la and 2), truck operations shall be limited to no more than 450 outbound loads for 50 calendar days per year and 350 outbound loads for all other operating days of the year. Truck loads shall be limited to between the hours of 6:OO am. and 1O:OO p.m. weekdays, and 7:oO am. and 5:OO p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. Trucks travelling to and from the east shall always use the primary project entrance. No more than 75 outbound loads per day, and a maximum of 8,000 outbound loads per year, may go east; all others must .go west. The applicant shall provide the necessary funding for DPW to prepare and provide a report addressing traffic safety problems resulting from the increase in truck trac from the project. This report shall be submitted annually until two years after the PCC batch plant and asphalt concrete facility are in operation. After this period, the report shall be submitted every other year for the life of the permit. I€ the Board of Supenrisors, based on the information provided in said report(s) regarding traffic safety problems resulting from the increase in truck traffic from this project, finds that the safety level has declined to an unacceptable level to the detriment of public health, safety and welfare, the Board may require specified road improvements which shall be completed at the expense of the applicant, and with the specified time period,- to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. If said improvements are 'not completed as specified above, February 10,1994 4-46 Daley Rock QUr?r Draft EIR Traffic the Board may initiate proceedings to consider appropriate modification to, or the revocation of, the Major Use Permit. * 4.3.3(5) Street lights are required. Prior to the approval of street improvement plans, the applicant shall: Deposit with the County of San Diego, through the Department of Public Works, a cash deposit sufiicient to: Energize and operate the street lighting system until tax revenues begin accruing from the development for those purposes. Pay the cost to process lighting district administration of this project. After granting of the Major Use Permit, the development shall be transferred without notice or hearing to Zone “A“ of the Lighting District to operate and maintain the system. 4 4.3.3(6) Before any use or occupancy of the new premises, pursuant to this Major Use Permit, the applicant shall: Obtain a construction permit from the Department of Public Works for work in the County right-of-way. Furnish. the Director of the Department of Planning and Land Use, along with their request for final inspection, a letter from the Director of the Department of Public Works, stating Conditions 4.3.3(1), 4.33(1a), and (2) have been completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 4.3.4 Level of Signi6cance The potential, project-related impacts, would be mitigated to acceptable levels with the roadway improvements identified in Mitigation Measures 4.3.3(1), 4.3.3(1a), and (2) along with the operational measures contained in 4.3.3. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Home Depot - East. Main Street Project SCH No. 98111oGg Preparedfk Ciy ofEl Cajon Deprtrnent of Community Development zoo East Main Street El Cajon, CA 92020 Contad Earbap Ramkez Phone: (69) 441-1741 Prepared bz Da rid Evans and Assoaates, Inc. 7676 Hazard Cents Drive, Suite 880 San Diego, CP 92108 Contact: ffiren Ru.gg&, Marisa Lundstedt Phone: (Grp) zGo-jqzo Project Prormnent: 3800 West Chapman Avenue 73e Home Depot Onnge, CA 92868 Contact: Rick Mannezs Phone: 014) 940-3614 I.... Section 4: Environmen!allmpact Analysis (continued) 1::;. i:~ t. I. :. < The addition of project-related traffic to the existing plus cumulative condition would lead to an increase in 1 delays at the study intersections. Comparing the results of this analysis to existing LOS reveals that all ;: with the exception of the intersections of East Main StreeUGreenfield Drive and East Main StreeVSydney 1 Terrace. The intersection of East Main StreeUGreenfield Drive further degrades into LOS D during the PM peak hour (average intersection delay increases fiom 28.4 to' 35.6 seconds) with the southbound left turn movement degrading to LOS E/F (see Appendix D for detailed turning movement volumes). The East Main ; StreeVSydney Terrace intersection degrades to LOS C and F during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. This is considered a significant adverse impact and would require mitigation. I intersections within the study area would still operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak periods, /. Impact 4.2-1: When considered with existingand cumulative project traffic, the project would add trafic to the East Main Street/Greenfield Drive intersection. The intersection of East Main q. Street/Green)eld Drive further degrades into LOS D during the PM peak hour with the 8. southbound le$ turn movement degrading to LOS E/F. This is regarded as a signzjicant 1 impact. 8; 1,- To improve the LOS of the East Main StreetiGreenfield Drive intersection, the project would restripe East Main Street to provide dual left tums from southbound East Main Street to Greenfield Drive. These dual left turn lanes would increase stacking capacity for left tuming vehicles and prevent obstruction of and delays on i the through lanes on East Main Street. In addition, stiping in a right turn lane for northbound East Main: Street to Greenfield Drive would improve the PM intersection LOS to C (see Exhibits 4.2-6, Lane Configuration). These roadway modifications would also require modifications to the existing traffic signal, as well as removal of some on-street parking on East Main Street at the intersection. The removal of on-street parking will require the approval of the City of El Cajon's Traffic Commission and City Council. .. 8~ i I I The Greenfield Drive westbound 1-8 entrance ramp currently experiences periods of severe congestion during I the AM peak due to the ramp meter rates currently used by Caltrans. The City of El Cajon's staff is currently working with Caltrans to increase the meter rates slightly to reduce backups and delays at the ramp meter, and Caltrans will soon be restriping Greenfield Drive to better accommodate through traffic. The proposed Home Depot project would produce very low traffic demands for this ramp during the AM peak hour. Calculations reveal that project traffic would add only 10 vehicles per hour to the AM peak hour traffic volume at the ramp, which is approximately one percent of the existing demand volume for the ramp. (The project's trip generation has a peak from 10 AM to 2 PM and its AM peak hour trips would consist mainly of local tips that do not utilize the 1-8 freeway.) Thus, the existing congestion at the ramp is not caused by the project, nor will the project add any significant traffic impact on the 1-8 ramp. Impact 4.2-2: When considered with existing and cumulative project traffic. the project would add traflc to the East Main Street/Sydney Terrace intersection, lowering the levels of service at this intersection. The East Main StreetlSydney Terrace intersection degrades !o LOS UF. This is regarded as a significant impact. Home Depot - Earl Main Street Project: SCHNo. 9811 1069 Final EIR for the June 15, 1999 4.2-14 _I ~~i ,,.~ .-x >q 3 ,e.. .a;:. ~..Z3 ;p .:& .+i .qe3 ,I ,a 5& . __ 253 Broadway-Greenfield ..* :.$ :,3 :% ..,, .... ;$ . .. 1~. . .. ... -.+ East Main Street is planned as a major four-lane arterial street designed to handle traffic as an alternate to the! 1-8 Freeway between Los Coches Road and Greenfield Drive. SANDAG indicates that at buildout, East Main4 Street would carry 28,000 ADT. Based on buildout conditions in the project area and assuming East Maing Street is built to provide two lanes in each direction, this roadway would be operating at LOS C, which is an! acceptable LOS. Discussion of buildout traffic conditions is provided in Section 6, Cumulative Impacts, o&g ,." this EIR. P Traffic Diversion Concerns regarding the diversion of traffic through the residential neighborhood located on the west sid East Main Street at Pepper Drive were raised in response to the previous environmental documentati prepared for the project. To address this issue, the potential for diverted trips has been studied as part of traffic study summarized in this section. Adjacent residents have expressed concern regarding the pote for project-generated traffic to take a "short-cut" through the Rancho Arboleda residential neighborhoa between Pepper Drive and East Main Street, via Sydney Terrace to Jasmine Street and Chatsbuxy S Jasmine and Chatsbury Streets are residential streets; parking is allowed on both sides, and both streets relatively steep grades. Currently, there are 1,300 ADT on Sydney Terrace, with 800 trips going eastbou Jasmine Street and 500 trips going westbound on Jasmine Street. Jasmine Street is a residential col street with a roadway capacity of 4,500 ADT. Based on the traffic analysis conducted for the project, the project would generate approximately 80 trips on Sydney Terrace, a six percent increase over existing volumes and two percent of the capacity of this roadway. The addition of 80 trips to existing traffic volume: on Sydney Terrace (1,300 ADT) would result in 1,380 ADT, which is well within the design capacity of thi, roadway. Timing runs were performed on the three possible routes through this nearby neighborhood: 1. East Ma$ Street to Pepper Drive; 2. Sydney Terrace to westbound Jasmine Street; and 3. Sydney Terrace eastbound Jasmine Street to Chatsbury Street. The runs showed that, currently, the East Main Street t! Pepper Drive route can be driven approximately 10 seconds faster than the other two routes. Based on the?! factors, it is anticipated that if traffic'flows are kept at an acceptable level (LOS D or better) on East Mail Street and Pepper Drive, no significant traffic diversions are expected. .. Final EIR for the Home Depot - Ens2 Main Sireet Project: SCH No. 981 I1069 ::@ . -4 j>/ ..A< z .!E - . . . -. . June IS. IYYY 4.2-17 ovements proposed by this project, the LOS of East Main Street would remain at an acceptable ]eve] gh buildout. Thus, no significant diversions are anticipated. ce performance. Local agencies are required by statute to conform to the CMP. The San Diego County requires an enhanced CEQA review for all projects that are expected to generate more than 2,400 ADT more than 200 peak hour trips. Since the project is calculated to generate over 2,400 ADT and over 200 ak hour trips, the enhanced traffic review is required for this project. agement Program (CMP) Transportation Impact Report For The. San Diego Region". Based on the satisfy the CMP criteria. Final EIRfor the Home Depot -East Main Street Project; SCH No. 98111069 June IS, 1999 4.2- 18 MM 4.2-la: MM 4.2-lb: “4.2-2: Section 4: Environmental Impact Analysis (continued) The applicant shall restripe East Main Street at the Greenfield the intersection. 4.2.5 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts circulation impacts are expected after mitigation. Final EIR for the Home Depot - Eat Main Stree! Project; SCH No. 9811 1069 June IS, I999 4.2-21 1 N Not to Scale XOME DEPOT - EAST m1N STREET PROJECT ZITY OF EL CAJON ~~ . iOURCE: Davld Evans and Associates, 1999 Iamam SURROUNDING LAND USES ~ . - .~ Co'unty Log No. 95-8-1 State Clearinghouse No. 95021002 Applicant: 4s KELWOOD ', 1'0840 Thornmint, Suite 116 San Diego, CA 92127 Lead Agency: CO.UNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE 5201 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 Contact: LeAnn Camichael Prepared by: DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. 605 Third Street Encinitas, CA 92024 Contact: June Collins 6 FEBRUARY 1998 CERTIFIED NOVEMBER 4,1998 r A multi-agency study team including Caltrans, the City ofSan Diego and County ofSan Diego havel considered to participate in implementing upgrades to the 1-15 Corridor as a means to inprov, regional transportation network. As the North City FUAand other portions oftheMid-CountyStUdy develop, additional strategies such as Transportation Demand Management TCDM), Transpop SystemsManagement CTSM), IntelligentTransportation Systems (ITS) andadditional tc beyond those already planned may have to be implemented to further improve freeway petforma Improvements to ramp intersections should alsotake into consideration the potential ofqueuesfrom, meters, Ramp metering analysis for the project identified locations for potential queues and delays, to ramp meters and the corresponding flow rates. Queued vehicles and the potential for these veh3 to interfere with arterial operations is an issue throughout the region. Caltrans currently monitors & Id meters, adjusting them accordingly, and is expected to continue these operational adjustmen& i"? future. Actual meter or flow rates in the future codd be even lower due to mainline freeway con,& s which would create even longer vehicle queues and delays. Similar ramp metering analyses for:$ proposed developments within the Study Area have identified similar ramp queuing concerns, :$ queues at affected interchanges must be monitored and if determined to be excessive or remid degradationofarterial operation, improvementsshould beconsideredthatcouIdpotentiallyinclu&H( bypass lanes and additional storage of queued vehicles on arterial approaches and/or ramp facili& .. 'li" ..$ , ~.-,I Analysis of Significance - 2,891-acre Specific Plan Amendment .5-a Unacceptable LOS on Offsite Segment of Carmel Valley Road - .i Road from the San Diego City limits to Black Mountain Road would operate at LOS E. Thi regarded as a significant impact. . i_ ,.q 4.5-b Substantial ADT Contribution to Rancho Bernardo Road and Camino del Norte - The projj would contribute substantially to traffic volumes on Rancho Bernardo Road and Carnino..$ Norte. Although these roadways would operate at an acceptable level of service, the pro18 contribution to total traffic volumes is regarded as significant. ~.,, :;:> ,:.;j ./E :+ e4.5~ Substantial Project Contribution to Unacceptable LOS at Six Offsite Intersections - Si4 31 .. - ,, . I/ intersections are forecast to operate at unacceptable peak hour levels of service under exist!$ geometrics as follows: .. .,i: .. .;'( ).i ,.;_. Intersection #4: Rancho Bernardo RoadWest Bernardo Dr Intersection #12: Camino del Norte/Bernardo Center Drive (AM LOS F, PM LUb pl:rZ Intersection #14: Bernardo Center DriveJ-15 southbound ramps fAM LOS E, PM Lo! . Interwxiion #1 5: Rernardo Center Driveh-15 northbound ramos (AM LOS F, PM Lo! -8 , ., ,,... ... .,. ( Intersection Intersection .. ". #16: #17: Camino Camino . ~~~ ~ ~ ~ del Nortdl-15 southbound ramps del Nortdl-15 northbound ramps e 4.5-d Unacceptable Delays and Queuing at 1-15 Ramps in the Project Specific Study Area - Tliii .% project will add substantial amountS of new traffic to metered freeway ramps on Interstate, which currently experience queues and delays. The City of San Diego has a standard., @ ', @;:is an increase Of 25 percent or greater in existing delay time will be considered a significant &However, i" there is no accepted methodology for projecting queuing effects on the circulation &use of alternative routes, different modes of transportation, and delay oftrips. Therefore, it is I. to attempt to quantify the magnitude of significance or the timing of impacts relative B. %,to project phasing. & & , . .' Mitigation - 2,891-acre Specific Plan Amendment ii I;?.) &ion package is incorporated in the 45 Ranch project that includes cash contributions to &shed improvement programs. Whenever mitigation will be contribution offun&, the established &ement program will need to build the improvements prior to or concurrent with the project f&, for either direct or cumulative impacts. Should the project choose to go forward prior to the ;:being improved by the established improvement programs, the project would need to build the ired improvements. The County accepts the City of San Diego's public facilities financing plans as < Emitigation .L through which contributions to mitigation of impacts may occur. Idition, improvements to intersections affected by the project would be required. With planned ovements, based on mitigated intersection geometrics as documented in the4 Ranch Transportation i, included in Appendix E, affected intersections would operate at an acceptable level of sewice as m in Table 4.5- 18. 2.. ~ii~pact. Thecumulativeeffectofprojectbuildoutwillbesignificantonqueuinganddelaytimes. i,*: ;?,-system. This is because of potential changes in travel behavior as a result of queuing including: Q it,. E i .~. F' 4 .. .- :TABLE 4.5-18. FUTURE CONDITIONS MITIGATED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE "'. 4s RANCH PROPOSED PROIECT *. , .,. . Westbound Ramps at Bernardo Canter Drive: AM 10s.- 818.4; PM~LOS - 817.9 ~, ~ ~.. f mitigation package would fully mitigate impacts to the affected roadways. 4.54 Substantial Project Contribution to Unacceptable LOS at Six Offsite Intersections- mitigation package would fully mitigate impacts at the affected intersections. 4.5.d Unacceptable Delays and Queuing at 1-15 Ramps in the Project Specific Study agency study team including Caltrans, the CityofSan Diego and the County ofSan Dieg considered to implement upgrades to the 1-15 corridor as a means to improve th transportation network. Transportation Demand Management KDM) strategies and transit improvements beyond those already planned may have to be implemented~ improve freeway performance. High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) bypass lanes and' Significance After Mitigation 2,891-Acre FUDA Specific Plan Amendment 2,891-Acre FUDA Specific Plan Amendment 4.5.a As discussed above, the measure which would mitigate the identified impact, buildout of the offsite portion of Carmel Valley Road as a six-lane major, has been determined to be infeasiblesince it would require the City of San Diego to amend their General Plan; imposing a requirement on another jurisdiction. Please refer to Alternative 3 in Section 7.0, Alternatives, for discussion of a reduced density alternative that would avoid impacts to the offsite segment of Cannel Valley Road. Significant Less than Significant Final Subsequent Program Environmental Impact Report North County Square Specific Plan Repared for City of Vista Planning Department September 1992 ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY SERVICES . s-10 . s-11 D. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION A transportation analysis for the proposed North County Square Specific Plan was conducted in January 1992 and revised in May 1992. The following summarizes the transportation analysis; the technical report is contained in Appendix D. The purpose of this traffic study is to analyze the mffic-related impacts associated with the proposed North County Square project, and to identify the measures that would be required to mitigate those impacts. The analysis process will entail several steps, summarized in the following paragraphs. An Existing Conditions section will be presented, to explain the current operating conditions of the area roadways and intersections. Next, traffic to be added to the roadway system from Related Projects (comprised of approved or planned projects in the area) will be identified. The resulting operating conditions will be analyzed. Then, the amount of traffic expected to be generated by the proposed North County Square project will be calculated, and added to the roadway system. This condition will be termed the Short-Term Cumulative Condition. Any significant impacts on roadway segments and at intersections as a result of the project will be identifia and appropriate mitigation measures will be recommended to mitigate project impact on short-term conditions. -. A Long-Term Future analysis will also be conducted, to identify the project impacts on the General Plan Build-Out (Post Year 2010) network. This analysis is needed, because the project represents an increase in development intensity on the site, over that specified in the current General Plan. The buildout analysis will involve, first, an analysis of conditions at buildout of the City and the region, per the existing General Plans. Then, the traffic increase over'the General Pian to be generated by the project will be added, to arrive at a buildout Plus Project conditions analysis. The impact of the project on General Plan buildout conditions will be identified, and appropriate mitigation measures will be recommended to mitigate project impact on buildout conditions. 4.D-1 Existing Conditions Wwav Characteristia c As discussed in Section II Project Description, the proposed Specific Plan area is located east and west of Sycamore Avenue, north of SR-78 and University Drive and south of South Santa Fe Avenue (Figure 2-2). The plan area is currently served by Sycamore Avenue and University Drive. There are also numerous neighborhood residential streets in the vicinity of the project site. Although the street segments adjacent to the plan area are within the jurisdictional boundaries of Vista, street segments north and east of the plan area are within the County of San Diego. Table 4.D-1 lists the street segments near the plan' area and includes functional street classifications for each segment. The existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, volume-to-capacity ratios, and levels of service (LOS) for each segment are also shown. See Table 4.D-2 for definitions of levels of service. Typically, levels of service A. B or C are acceptable in urban or semi-urban areas. The City will accept Level D as the maximum acceptable service level on major arterials and Level C for all other facilities. Figure 4.D-I illustrates the street -. segments described in Table 4.D-1, and provides existing daily traffic volumes for those segments. Svcamore AvenllS;. Sycamore Avenue isa winding two-lane collector street from the SR-78 interchange to South Santa Fe Avenue within the County and a four-lane divided roadway south of SR-78 Freeway. The nbrtherly segment of Sycamore Avenue continues north from Lobelia Drive as a two-lane street named Robelini Drive, so that the intersection is referred to as Robelini Drive/South Santa Fe Avenue. Between South Santa Fe Avenue and Lobelia Drive, Sycamore Avenue/Robelini Drive operates at LOS E, with approximately 9,450 ADT, and between Lobelia Drive and University Drive at LOS F, with 13,500 ADT. The segment of Sycamore Avenue under SR 78 is scheduled as a locally funded street widening project in conjunction with the planned Caltrans SR 78 improvements. Sycamore Avenue currently has direct access to the SR-78 freeway via a tight diamond interchange. The OR-ramps are currently stop-sign controlled. 4.D-2 Table 4.D-1 2L 9,450 10,000 0.95 E* @:> Ifi..; ?.,.. ..: Lobelia Drive to University Drive 2L 13,500 10,000 1.35 F' .*2!; University Drive to SR-78 2u 10,500 16,200 0.65 B SR-78 to Thibodo Road/ Plumosa Avenue 4D 29,150 37,000 0.79 C Thibodo RoaWlumosa Avenue to Shadowridge Drive 4D 24,800 37,000 0.67 B Southwest of Shadowridge Drive 4D 21,700 37,000 0.59 A University Drive: Northwest of Sycamore Avenue 2u 2,000 16,200 0.12 A South Santa Fe Avenue: Palmyra Drive to Buena Creek Road Buena Creek Road to Sycamore/Robelini North of Sycarnore/Robeliii Lobelia Drive: East of Sycamore/Robelini Thibodo Road: Northwest of Sycamore Avenue Shadowridge Drive: Northwest of Sycamore Avenue 2D 21,000 24,000 0.88 D 2D 17,900 24,000 0.75 C 2D 15,600 24,000 0.65 B 2L 3,500 7,000 0.50 A 2D 3,100 24,000 0.13 A 2D ' 15,600 24,000 0.65 B 4.D-3 Table 4.D-1 (Continued) EXISTING STREET SEGMENT CHARACTERISTICS Sheet Segment Functional Daily Roadway VIC Average Classiiication(a) T&c Capacity;) Ratio LOS SR-78 Freeway(% Rancho Santa Fe Avenue to Sycamore Avenue 4F 93.,000 86,000 1.08 F* Mar Vista Avenue Sycamore Avenue to 4F 88.000 86,000 1.02 F' 'Unacceptable Level of Service (a) L = Local Unimproved (Shoulders or Nariow Lanes) U = UndividedRoadway F = Freeway D = DividedRoadway Estimatedroadway capacity at LOS E. (4 EstimaFed daily capacity of Ihe freeway is obtained from the County of Riverside. Caltrans District 11 performs Freeway V/C analysis and LOS are presented as a general informational guidelie for the City of Vista. Actual operations analysis based upon peak hour capacity and does not have established daily capacities for freeways. freeway operations analysis is performed by Caluans District 11. Source: Kimley-Hom, 1992. Table 4.D-2 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Level of Service &OS) operating Volumdcapacity Conditions Ratio (V/C) A Free flow, no restrictions on 0.60 or less maneuvering or operating speeds. Low traffic volumes and high speeds. C 0.71-0.80 B Stable flow, few restrictions. 0.61-0.70 Operating speeds beginning to be affected by MIC volumes. Stable flow, more restrictions. Speed and maneuverability more closely controlled by higher traffic volumes. D -. E F Approaching unstable flow. 0.81-0.90 Traffic volumes profoundly affect arterials. Unstable flow, some 0.91-1.0 stoppages. Speeds lower than LOS D. Constitutes maximum capacity by definition. Forced flow, many Undefined stoppages. Low operating speeds, at times dropping to zero. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 1965. . 4.D-5 . OURCE: Kimley-Horn. 1992 NOT TO SCALE ! Lobelia Drive. Lobelia Drive is a two-lane local street extending to the east from Sycamore Avenue and connects to Primrose Avenue. The existing traffk. volume is 3,500 ADT. fimrose Avenu. Rimrose Avenue is a two-lane local street that winds through the established residential area east of the project site. Local traffic gains access to South Santa Fe Avenue from the Lobelia Drivefirnose Avenue area by way of a short segment of Palmyra Street. These streets provide a connection between South Santa Fe Avenue and Sycamore Avenue, but are used primarily by local traffic since the winding streets do not provide a significant time saving diversion for traffic travelling through to the South Santa Fe Avenue/Robelini Drive intersection. South Santa Fe Avenue. South Santa Fe Avenue to the east and west of Robelini Drive is within the County of San Diego, and is a two-lane arterial street with widening at some intersections for left-turn lanes. Segments within the City of Vista to the northwest are four lanes and segments to the southeast within the City of San Marcos are also four lanes. The County of San Diego has recently signalizd the intersections at Robelini Drive and Buena Creek Road on South Santa -. Fe Avenue. The County is currently planning to widen South Santa Fe Avenue to four lanes, from the City limit to 500 feet east of Smilax Road, and proposes to go forward within the next few years as funds become available (Smith 1991). The volume of traffic on South Sank Fe Avenue west of Robelini Drive is 15,600 ADT, and east of Roklini Drive is 17,900 ADT. yniversitv Drivc. University Drive is currently a two-lane street extending west from Sycamore Avenue and located directly north of SR-78. University Drive serves the existing National University campus and a 246-unit apartment complex near the end of this cul-de-sac street. University Drive currently carries approximately 2,OOO ADT and is operating at LOS A. Avocado Drivc. Although University Drive currently ends in a cul-de-sac, the City of Vista has expressed an interest in extending University Drive to Avocado Drive. Avocado Drive is a two-lane residengal collector sweet extending south from the Mar Vista Drive intersection to-end in a cul-de-sac near the westerly cul-de-sac of University Drive. 4.D-7 Mar Vista Drive. Mar Vista Drive is a two-lane collector that extends east and west of a modified diamond interchange with SR-78. The easterly extension from SR-78 intersects Avocado Drive at a four-way stop conuolled intersection, and then continues northerly to intersect South Santa Fe Avenue. State Route 78 fSR-7Q. SR-78 is a regional four-lane freeway that extends between 1-5 to the west and 1-15 to the east. Caltrans is currently widening segments of SR-78 to six lanes, and the segment overpassing Sycamore Avenue is scheduled to be widened and completed by mid-1993. This widening also would include lengthening the SR-78 overpass so that the Sycamore Avenue underpass can be widened in the future. East and west of Sycamore Avenue, SR-78 carries 93,000 ADT at LOS F and 88,000 ADT at LOS F, respectively. Intersection Levels of Service Analysis of daily traffic volumes on roadway segments provides a general assessment of traffic conditions. However, analysis of peak hour operations at the intersections along those roadways provides a much more reliable evaluation of -traffic level of service. A Level of Service E or F on a roadway segment indicates that the analysis should focus on intersection operation along that segment. Therefore, nine key intersections in the vicinity of the project have been evaluated to determine the level of service for each analysis scenario. The intersections are: Sycamore Avenue at University Drive Sycamore Avenue at SR-78 Westbound Ramps Sycamore Avenue at SR-78 Eastbound Ramps Sycamore Avenue at Thibcxio RoadPIumosa Avenue Sycamore Avenue at Shadowridge Drive Sycamore Avenue/Robelini Drive at Lobelia Drive Sycamore AvenueBobelini Drive at South Santa Fe Avenue South Santa Fe Avenue at Buena Creek Road South Santa Fe Avenue at Palmyra Drive The analysis will .focus on $e intersections along Sycamore Avenue, from University Drive to South Santa Fe Avenue, because that portion of Sycamore Avenue is shown to currently operate at MS E and F. 4.D-8 Existing peak hour traffic counts for each of the nine intersections are presented in Figure 4.D-2. The results of the intersection analysis are given in Table 4.D-3. Review of Table 4.D-3 reveals that all but one intersection are currently operating at acceptable levels of service. The only intersection currently operating at Level of Service E or worse in one or more of the peak hours is Sycamore Avenue at the SR-78 eastbound ramps. This intersection currently operates at LOS F during both peak periods. Of particular note is the fact that the intersections currently serving those over-capacity portions of Sycamore Avenue are currently operating at LOS A or B. Impacts Belated Prw Before evaluating the impact of the proposed project on the area roadways, it was first necessary to consider any approved or planned projects (Related Projects) in the vicinity. Information regarding related projects in the vicinity of the project was -. obtained from the City of Vista. Related projects in the vicinity of the proposed project site are given in Table 4.D-4. The location of each of these related projects is shown on Figure 4.D-3. Traffic from these projects is estimated to be 22,827 daily tips with 2,586 tips in the morning peak hour and 2,775 mps in the evening peak hour. The anticipated trips from the related projects were added to existing traffic volumes and the resulting daily and peak hour intersection traffic volumes are shown on Figures 4.D-4 and 4.D-5, respectively. The roadway segments previously analyzed were reevaluated taking into consideration the additional traffic to be added by related projects in the area (Table 4.D-5). The analysis revealed that the following additional roadway segments would operate at Level of Service E or worse with the addition of related project traffic: Sycamore Avenue - SR-78 Thibpdo Road (LOS F) Sycamore Avenue - Thibodo Road to Shadowridge Drive (LOS E) 4.D-9 SOURCE: Kimley-Horn. 1992 NOT TO SCALE FIGURE Existing Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes Table 4.D-3 SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS ICU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS ICU LOS Sycamore Avenue at: Shadowridge Drive 0.5 1 A 0.53 A Thibodo RoadPlumosa Avenue 0.43 A 0.46 A South Santa Fe Avenue at: Robelini Drive Buena Creek Road PalmyraDrive 0.61 B 0.55 A 0.54 A 0.63 B 0.65 B 0.64 B Unsignalized Intersections Two-way Stop Controlled ICU AM Peak How PM Peak How LQS ICU LOS Sycamon Avenue/Robelini Drive at Lorielia Drive WB Left WE5 Right SB Left 306 990 B 217 C A 924 A A 701 A a85 Unsignalized AM Peak Hour Four-way Stop Intersections Controlled Total Demand VIC Total Demand V/C Volume Split Ratio LOS Volume Split Ratio LOS Sycamore Avenue at: SR-78EB Ramps 2,320 80120 1.05 F 2,338 80QO 1.06 F SR-78WBRmps 1.466 65/35 0.62 A 1,847 65/35 0.18 C university Dr./ sycamore CL 886 9@/10 0.40 A 1,256 9@/10 0.57 A . 4.D-11 - N' m d: In . n 11 Table 4.D-5 DAILY VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY ANALYSIS EXISTING PLUS RELATED PROJECTS Functional Daily Roadway v/c Average Sneet Segment Classification(a) Traffic Capacity*) Ratio LOS Sycamore Avenue1 Robelini Drive: South Santa Fe Avenue to Lobelia Drive Lobelia Drive to University Drive University Drive to SR-78 SR-78 to Thibodo Road Thibodo Road to Shadowridge Dr. Drive South of Shadowridge University Drive: West of Sycamore Avenue South Santa Fe Avenue: Palmyra Drive to Buena Creek Road Robelini Buena Creek Road to West of Robelini Lobelia Drive: East of Sycamore/Robelini Thibodo Road: West of Sycamore Avenue 2L 2L 2U 4D 4D 4D 2u 2D 2D 2D 2L 2D 10,950 15,200 12,800 38,250 34,600 27,700 2,600 2 1.000 18,600 16,300 3,700 4 4,400 10,000 10,000 16,200 37,000 37,000 37,000 16,200 24,000 24,000 24,000 7,000 24,000 1.10 1.52 0.79 1.03 0.94 0.75 0.16 0.88 0.78 0.68 0.53 0.18 F#' F* C F* E* C A D C B A A 4.D-I3 Table 4.D-5 (Continued) DAILY VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY ANALYSIS EXISTING PLUS RELATED PROJECTS Street Segment Functional Daily Roadway v/c Average Classification(") Traffic Capacity@) Ratio LOS ~ ~~~~ ~~ Shadowridge Drive: West of Sycamore Avenue ?D 17,300 24,000 0.72 C SR-78 Freeway(+ Rancho Santa Fe Avenue to Sycamore Avenue 4F 96,100 86,000 1.12 F* Sycamore Avenue to Mar Vista Avenue 4F 9 1,200 86,000 1.06 F* *Unacceptable Level of Service. (3 L = Local Unimproved Shoulders or Narrow Lanes -. U = UndividedRoadway D = Divided Roadway F = Freeway (b) Estimated roadway capacity at LOS E. (C) Freeway V/C analysis and LOS are presented as a general informational guidcline for the City of Vista. Actual freeway operations analysis is perforrncd by Caluans District 11. Estimated daily capacity of analysis based upon peak hour capacity and does not have eslablished daily capacides for Freeways. the freeway is obtained from the Counly of Riverside. Cnllrans District 11 performs operations . 4.D-14 \ LEGEND OFFICE BUlLOlNG KAISER PERMANENTE MEDICAL @ PLUMOSA AVENUE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT @ SYCAMORE BUSINESS PARK @ THlBOOO ROAD/THlBODO COURTMEDICAL OFFICES @ .,"SA SUSINESS PARK NOT TO SCALE SOURCE: Kimlev-Horn. 1992 ! QGDEN FICURI Location of Related Projects j4.D-3 mmmmm NOT TO SCALE SOURCE: Kimley-Horn, 1992 FIGUR Daily Traffic Volumes Existing Plus Related Projects xx/YY = AMIPM PEAK HOURLY TRAFFIC VOLUME . 3URCE: Kimley-Horn. 1992 NOT TO SCALE 1 FIGURE @DEN Peak Hour Intersection Traffic volumes Existing PIUS Related Propacts ammE4m Evaluation of the intersection operation along these roadway segments will provide a better indication of traffic operations along this portion of Sycamore Avenue. The intersections previously analyzed under existing conditions were reevaluated taking into consideration the additional traffic to be added by related projects in the study area (Table 4.D-6). This analysis reveals that the addition of related project traffic would cause the intersection of Sycamore Avenue at the SR-78 westbound ramps to operate at Level of Service F in the PM peak hour with the addition of approved project traffic. The intersection of Sycamore Avenue at the SR-78 eastbound ramps would continue to operate at LOS F during both peak periods with the addition of related project traffic. Although- four roadway segments along Sycamore Avenue are projected to operate at unacceptable levels, all intersections along Sycamore Avenue, except the unsignalized ramps, are projected to continue to operate at LOS D or better. Proiect Traffic Imoacts The proposed Specific Plan would be comprised of over one million square feet of -. commercial development. The amount and distribution of these trips and the impact they would have on local and regional traffic is described below. Road improvements proposed as part of the Specific Plan to handle onsite circulation needs are also discussed. The existing National University generated traffic was not included in the analysis of the project traffic because it is already on the roadway system, and thus, accounted for in the existing traffic counts. Trip generation characteristics for the proposed project are based on daily and peak hourly project trip generation rates obtained from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) January, 1990 edition of the San Diego Traffic Generators. This manual provides "driveway rates," which represent the actual amount of traffic expected to enter and exit the project site. The manual also provides "cumulative rates," which represent the amount of traffic' that is expected to be added to the roadway system as a result of the project. The difference between the driveway rates and cumulative rates is the amount of project traffic that is assumed to already be on $e roadway adjacent to the project, and is therefore not an additional hip on the roadway system. Driveway trips are actually experienced 4.D-18 Table 4.D-6 SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION ANALYSIS EXISTING PLUS RELATED PROJECTS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersections ICU LOS ICU LOS Sycamore Avenue at: Shadowridge Drive 0.82 D 0.68 B Thibodo RoWlumosa Avenue 0.74 C 0.72 C South Santa Fe Avenue at: Robelini Drive Buena Creek Road Palmyra Drive 0.65 ' B 0.60 0.54 A A 0.65 B 0.63 0.64 B B Unsignalized Intersections Two-way Stop Controlled -~ AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Reserve Capacity LOS Capacity LOS Reserve Sycamore. Avenue/Robelini Drive at Lobelia Drive WB Right WB Left SB Left 247 989 866 C A A 114 836 566 D A A Unsignalized AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersections Four-way Stop Total Demand V/C . Total Demand V/C Controlled Volume Split Ratio LOS Volume Split Ratio LOS Sycamore Avenue at: SR-78 EB Ramps 3,345 80120 1.51 F 3,417 80120 1.55 F SR-78 WB Ramps 2,106 60/40 0.84 D 2,519 70/30 1.14 F University Dr./ . sycamore Ct 1,139 90/10 0.52 A 1,503 90/10 0.68 B 4.D-19 at the project driveways, and cumulative trips are those that represent new trips to the surrounding roadway system. Table 6 in Appendix D summarizes the trip generation rates used in this analysis. Applying these mp generation rates to the proposed land use mix provides an estimation of the traffic levels to be generated by the proposed project. The resulting daily and peak hourly project generated traffic volumes are presented on Table 4.D-7. The proposed project is projected to generate approximately 67,980 total daily driveway mps ends, with 2,585 in the morning peak hour and 6,085 in the evening peak hour. Of these total trip ends, the cumulative mps expected to represent new trips on the study area roadways is 38,570 daily trips, with 1,460 in . the morning peak hour and 3,526 in the evening peak hour. The estimates of project generated cumulative traffic volumes presented in Table 4.D-7 were distributed to the surrounding roadways; Figure 4.D-6 presents the daily project traffic on the surrounding roadways, and Figure 4.D-7 presents the project related peak hour intersection traffic. Short-Tern Traffic Conditions " " There are three roadway improvements in the project study area that are currently planned with projected completion dates prior to or concurrent with the the expected buildout of the North County Square project. These roadway improvements were incorporated into the analysis of short-term conditions, and are discussed briefly in the following paragraphs. SR-78 Freewav Widening. Caltrans District 11 is currently widening the SR-78 Freeway from Interstate 5 to Interstate 15. The freeway will be improved from the current four travel lanes to provide six travel lanes. In addition, the freeway overpass at Sycamore Avenue is being lengthened to allow for the future underpass widening of Sycamore Avenue under the freeway. Completion of the freeway widening and overpass improvements is expected in the fall of 1993. Improvements to Sycamore Avenue under the freeway and to the SR-78/Sycamore Avenue Interchange are proje$ts contained in the long-term roadway improvement plan of the City and Caltrans, respectively, as discussed on page 4.D-31. 4.D-20 4.D-21 1 SOURCE: Kimley-Horn. 1992 NOT TO SCALE OGDEN FIGURE Project-related Daily Traffic Volumes m.... OURCE: Kimley-Horn, 1992 FIGUR Project-related Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes yniversitv Drive Realignment, The North County Square Specific Plan proposes the realignment of existing University Drive to the north so that it intersects with Sycamore Avenue at Lobelia Drive to form a four-way intersection. The improvement project will provide four lanes of divided roadway on most of University Drive. There will be six lanes of divided roadway provided on the eastern end of University Drive between the primary project entrance and Sycamore Avenue. The new four-way Sycamore AvenuelLTniversity DriveLobelia Drive intersection and the primary project driveway will be signalized. The proposed alignment of University Drive will continue to provide access to National University and the apartment complex. The proposed alignment is shown on the site plan map (Figure 2-6). The relocation of University Drive will make it possible to implement future improvements to the SR-78/Sycamore Avenue interchange, which will be discussed later in this report. Svcamore Avenue. The North County Square Specific Plan proposes the realignment and improvement of Sycamore Avenue from the Vista City limits (just north of Primrose Avenue) to the SR-78 Freeway. The existing two-lane roadway will be improved to provide six lanes of divided roadway. This roadway -. improvement, combined with the University Drive realignment, will result in a four-way signalized intersection on Sycamore Avenue at University Drive and Lobelia Drive. This improvement will interface with the County-planned improvements on Sycamore Avenue to the north. The new alignments and increased capacities outlined above have been assumed in all subsequent traffic analyses. Cumulative Short-Term Traffic Proiections and Conditions Adding the project traffic (Figures 4.D-6 and 4.D-7) to the traffic volumes shown in Figures 4.D-4 and 4.D-5 (existing plus related projects average daily traffic) provides an indication of the traffic volumes that may be experienced in the short term once the project is completed. The short-term cumulative daily traffic volumes are shown on Figure 4.D-8. . The roadway segments and intersections previously analyzed were reevaluated with the additional traffic to be added by the proposed project. Analysis results for the 4.D-24 i cumulative short-term conditions (existing plus related projects plus project) are shown on Table 4.D-8 for daily roadway conditions and Table 4.D-9 for peak hour intersection conditions. Review of Table 4.D-8 reveals that with the addition of project related traffic and without implementation of further roadway improvements, the following roadway segments will worsen to LOS E: Lobelia Drive - Sycamore Avenue to Planning Area 5 Access Driveway South Santa Fe Avenue - Palmyra Drive to west of Sycamore AvenueRobelini Avenue The portions of Sycamore Avenue which would already be operating at unacceptable levels would continue to do so, with the exception of the segment from SR-78 to the County line, which is planned to be widened to six lanes in conjunction with the North County Square project. -. Further review of Table 4.D-7 also reveals that the operating conditions are projected to improve to acceptable Levels of Service (LOS D or better) on some of the roadway segments in the study area due to the planned roadway improvements. The following roadway segments were at LOS F without the short-term roadway improvements, but will operate at LOS D or better even with project WIC: Sycamore AvenueNniversity Drive to SR-78 SR-78 - Rancho Santa Fe Avenue to Mar Vista Avenue The northern segment of Sycamore Avenuemobelhi Drive from the County line to South Santa Fe is currently operating at LOS E and F and the Level of Service would deteriorate with the addition of related plus project traffic. The segments of South Santa Fe Avenue on either side of Robehi Drive are projected to worsen from acceptable conditions to LOS F with the addition of project traffic. These roadways are part of a planned County roadway improvement that will be discussed below. . The segment of Sycamore Avenue from the SR-78 Freeway to Shadowridge Drive currently operates at LOS B. When the related projects are completed, the roadway 4.D-25 SOURCE: Kimley-Horn, 1992 NOT TO SCALE Cumulative Short - term Daily Traffic Volumes (Includes Existing Plus Related Projects Plus North County Square Traffic) FIGURE I I4.D- I Table 4.D-8 EXISTING PLUS RELATED PROJECTS PLUS PROJECT SHORT-TERM CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Future Avenge Functional Daily Roadway V/C Street Segment Classificationb) Traffic Capacity@) Ratio LOS Sycamore Avenue: South Santa Fe Avenue to University Drive/ Lobelia Drive University Drive to Lobelia Drive to SR 78 SR 78 to Thibodo Road/ Plumosa Avenue Thibodo Roadplumosa Avenue to Shadowridge Drive South of Shadowridge Drive University Drive: West of Sycamore Avenue@) South Santa Fe Avenue: Palmyra Drive to Buena Creek Road Buena Creek Road to Sycamore AvenuelRobelini Drive West of Sycamore Avenue/ Robelini Drive Lobelia Drive: Sycamore Avenue to Planning Area 5 Access Driveway East of Planning Area 5 Access Driveway Thibodo Road: West of Sycamore. Avenue -. 2L 6D 4D 4D 4D 6D 2D 2D 2L 2L 2D 23,250 40,200 42,500 41,300 32,700 34,700 27,600 25,200 22,100 8,300 4,500 . 5,900 10,000 57,000 37,000 37,000 3 7,000 57,000 24,000 24,000 24.00 7,000 7,000 24,000 2.33 0.71 1.15 1.11 0.88 0.61 1.15 1.05 0.92 1.19 0.64 0.25 F* C F* F* D B F* F* E* F* B A 4.D-21 Table 4.D-8 (Continued) EXISTING PLUS RELATED PROJECTS PLUS PROJECT SHORT-TERM CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Future Average Functional Daily Roadway V/C Street Segment Classification(a) Traffic Capacity@) Ratio LOS Shadowridge Drive: West of Sycamore Avenue ZD 18,800 24,000 0.78 C SR-78 Freeway:cd1 Rancho Santa Fe Avenue to Sycamore Avenue 6F 105,000 138,000 0.76 C Sycamore Avenue to Mar Vista Avenue 6F 98,900 138,000 0.72 C * Unacceptable Level of Service (a) L = Local Unimproved (Shoulders or Narrow Lanes) U = UndividedRcadway F = Freeway D = DividedRoadway (b) Estimated roadway capacity at LOS E. (d University Avenue will be four lanes divided west of the primary project driveway and six lanes east to Sycamore Avenue. Since the majority of project traffic will be using the eastern six-lane ponion, this width was assumed in the capacity analysis. Estimated daily capacity of the freeway iiobtained from the County of Riverside. Caltrans District 11 perfonm operations analysis based upon peak hour capacity. Freeway V/C analysis and LOS are presented as a general informational guideline for the City of Vista. Actual freeway operations analysis is performed by Caltrans District 11. Source: Kimley-Horn, 1992. . 4.D-28 Table 4.D-9 SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SHORT-TERM CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS Signalized Intersections ICU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS ICU LOS Sycamore Avenue at: Shadowridge Drive 0.85 D 0.80 Thibodo Roadmlumosa Avenue 0.78 C 0.87 Uhiversity Drive/Lobelia Drive 0.46 A 0.80 South Santa Fe Avenue at: Roklini Drive Buena Creek Road Palmyra Drive 0.81 D 0.98 0.58 A 0.69 0.69 B 0.80 C D C E B C Unsignalized AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersections Four-way Stop Total Demand V/C Total Demand V/C ControUed Volume Split Ratio LOS Volume Split Ratio LOS Sycamore Avenue at: SR-78 EB Ramps 3,928 75/25 1.78 F SR-78 WB Ramps 2.988 4,947 80/20 2.24 F 65/35 1.27 F 4,802 75/25 2.17 F . 4.D-29 is projected to operate at LOS E and F. The addition of the North County Square traffic will contribute to these conditions. There are no roadway improvements planned for this segment of Sycamore Avenue in the short term. With the exception of the unsignalized ramp intersections, the intersections along this portion of Sycamore Avenue are shown to operate at Level of Service "D" or better. As mentioned previously, intersection operation is a better indicator of traffic operations than is daily level of service of the roadways. It should be noted that Sycamore Avenue (currently 4 lanes divided) is identified in the City of Vista General Plan as needing six lanes of divided roadway or possibly eight lanes in the long-term future. The analysis of the daily roadway operations indicates that widening Sycamore Avenue from SR-78 to Shadowridge Drive to provide six lanes of divided roadway as identified in the City of Vista General Plan would improve operating conditions to LOS C. However, such widening is not now shown to be needed to provide acceptable peak hour operations at the intersections along the roadway in the short-term cumulative condition. Lobelia Drive currently operates at LOS A and is projected to continue at LOS A with the addition of related project traffic. Once the North County Square Project traffic is added, the western portion of Lobelia Drive (Sycamore Avenue to Planning Area 5 access driveway) will experience LOS F. If this section of Lobelia Drive were improved to the design standards of a Light Collector (60 feet of roadway), sufficient capacity would be provided to serve the projected traffic at LOS A. Thus, it is recommended that Lobelia Drive be widened to Light Collector roadway standards, per the City of Vista General Plan, from Sycamore Avenue to the Planning Area 5 access driveway, concurrent with the development of Planning Area 5. -. Review of Table 4.D-9 reveals that the addition of project traffic to the intersection of Robelini Drive/South Santa Fe Avenue will change the evening peak hour ICU Level of Service from LOS A to LOS E. Further review of Table 4.D-9 reveals that under short-term cumulative conditions, the two unsignalized intersections on Sycamore Avenue at the SR-78 ramps would continue to operate at LOS F during both peak hours. Conditions would be particularly severe during the PM peak hour, where aaffic volumes are projected to be more than double the estimated capacity of the intersections, assuming the existing roadway geometrics. These three intersections would need to be improved to serve the projected 4.D-30 short-term cumulative traffic. Programmed improvements by the County, the City, and Caltrans for these intersections will be discussed in the following sections of the report. Future Roadwav ImDrovementS In addition to those roadway improvements scheduled to be in place prior to buildout of the project, two other significant roadway improvements are planned. These improvements do not have fii completion dates, and therefore have not been assumed to be in place prior to project buildout. In the following sections, these improvements will be discussed, and the resulting roadway and intersection operation will be summarized SR-78/Svcamore Avenue hterchanpc. The City of Vista and Caltrans have entered into a cooperative agreement concerning the improvement of the SR-78/Sycamore Avenue interchange. Caltrans has prepared a Supplemental Project Study Report for the proposed improvement of this interchange (approved February 1991), -. which will allow for the widening of Sycamore Avenue under the freeway to provide three through lanes of roadway in both directions. The entrance and exit ramps will all be widened and lengthened to provide three lanes each, along with the necessary transitioning areas. This will require realignment of existing University Drive and Sycamore Court farther north of the freeway. As descrikd earlier, the North County Square Specific Plan proposes to relocate and reconstruct University Drive, which will facilitate the interchange improvement. The intersections at each set of freeway ramps will be signalized and improved. The distance along Sycamore Avenue between the two rampintersections will be increased and will allow for separate but coordinated operation of each of the signals. South Santa Fe Avenue/Svcamore Avenuc. The County of San Diego is currently planning the improvement and realignment of South Santa Fe Avenue from just west of Robelini Drive to just east of Simlax Road, and Sycamore Avenue from South Santa Fe Avenue to the City limit. Although detailed engineering design has not been completed, preliminary plans for the county project include widening and realignment of the existing South Santa Fe Avenue two-lane roadway to provide 112 feet of right-of-way. This would allow for a modified major roadway with 92 4.D-31 feet of roadbed including bike lanes, a 14-foot median and four travel lanes. The improvement project, as currently proposed by the County, would include the realignment and widening of Sycamore Avenue to provide four lanes of divided roadway from the Vista City limits (just north of primrose Avenue) to South Santa Fe Avenue. Sycamore Avenue would intersect with South Santa Fe Avenue at Buena Creek Road, forming a four-way intersection. The existing Robelini Drive would be converted into a cul-de-sac just west of El Vile Opulent0 and would no longer connect with Sycamore. Avenue. An1 lx i h r-T r with Future Roadw h- The short-term cumulative aaffic conditions on the area roadways and intersections were reevaluated to determine the effect of the proposed future improvement plans. Daily roadway analysis with the improvement in place is summarized on Table 4.D-10, and intersection analysis is summarized on Table 4.D-11. -. Review of Table 4.D-10 reveals that with the South Santa Fe/Sycamore improvements and the interchange improvements implemented, all roadways in the study area would operate at an acceptable level of service with the exception of Sycamore Avenue south of SR-78. Review of Table 4.D-11 shows that the SR-78 interchange intersections would be improved to an acceptable level (LOS D or betwr) during both peak hours. The Circulation Plan contained in the City's General Plan shows a four-lane roadway labeled Anna Way connecting University Drive to the existing Anna Lane. Anna Lane currently connects to South Santa Fe Avenue via a short segment of Woodland Drive, through County land. If Anna Way were constructed as shown on the City's Circulation Plan, the Southwestern portion of the roadway at University Drive would be located within the project site. The proposed project does not incorporate the Anna Lane connecting road as part of the proposed site plan. Thus, the traffic analysis was performed assuming that this roadway would not be constructed. The short-term traffic analysis indicated that the projected traffic demands could be served adequately by the recommended short-term 4.D-32 F. .. CG..~, ./ .~ ~.. ~ -. ~ ?;.; Table 4.D-10 i.1 SHORT-TERM CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH FUTURE :~. ~. .. r : ~~. i :,~~ COUNTY AND CALTRANS PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS ~.. Functional Daily Roadway VIC Average street Segment C1assificatioda) Traffic Capacity@) Ratio LOS Sycamore Avenue: South Santa Fe Avenue Lobelia Drive to University Drive/ University Drivehbelia Drive to SR-78 SR-78 to Thibodo Road Plumosa Avenue Thibmio Road/Plumosa Avenue to Shadowridge Drive South of Shadowridge Drive University Drive: West of Sycamore Avenue South Santa Fe Avenue: Palmyra Drive to Sycamore AvenueDuena Creek Road West of Sycamore Avenue/ Buena Creek Road Lobelia Drive: Area 5 Access Driveway Sycamore Avenue to Planning Eastof Planning Area 5 Access Driveway Thibodo Road: West of Sycamore Avenue 4D 6D 4D 4D 4D 6D 4D 4D 2u 2L 2D 23,250 40,200 46,750 41,200 32,700 34,700 27,600 22,100 8,300 4,500 5,900 4.D-33 37,000 57,000 37,000 37,000 37,000 57,000 37,000 37,000 16,200 7,000 24,000 0.63 0.7 1 1.26 1.11 0.88 0.61 0.75 0.60 0.51 0.64 0.25 B C F* F* D B C A A B A Table 4.D-10 (Continued) SHORT-TERM CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH FUTURE COUNTY AND CALTRANS PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS Future Functional Average Daily Roadway VJC Street Segment Classification(a) Traffic Capacityc" Ratio MS Shadowridge Drive: West of Sycamore Avenue 2D 18,800 24,000 0.78 C SR-78 Freeway(.): Rancho Sann Fe Avenue to Sycamore Avenue 6F 105,000 138,000 0.76 C Sycamore Avenue to Mar Vista Avenue 6F 98,900 138,000 0.72 C ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ 'Unacsptable Level of Service. (a) L = Local Unimproved Shoulders or Narrow Lanes U = UndividedRoadway F = Freeway D = DividedRoadway @) Estimated roadway capacity at LOS E. tC) Estimated daily capacity of the freeway is obtained from the County of Riverside. Caltrans District 11 performs operations analysis based upon peak hour capacity and does not have established daily capacities for freeways. Freeway V/C analysis and LOS are presented as a general information guideline for the City of Vista. Actual freeway operations analysis is performed by Calwns District 11. Source: Kimley-Horn, 1992. . 4.D-34 Table 4.D-11 SIIMMARY OF INTERSECTION ANALYSIS "_ " ~~ ~~~~ SHORT-TERM CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITH FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour signalized Intersections ICU LOS ICU LOS Sycamore Avenue at: Shadowridge Drive 0.85 D 0.80 C Thibodo Roadmlumosa Avenue 0.78 C 0.88 D University DriveLobelia Drive 0.45 A 0.85 D South Santa Fe Avenue at: Sycamore Avenue/Buena Creek Road 0.83 D 0.88 D Palmyra Drive 0.38 A 0.46 A Sycamo~ Avenue at: SR-78 EB Ramps SR-78 WB Ramps 0.75 C 0.84 D 0.54 A 0.86 D . 4.D-35 cumulative roadway system which does not include the Anna Way connection. A General Plan Amendment to delete the Anna Way connection from the City's Circulation Plan will be required. V The City of Vista General Plan also includes a proposed four-lane connection between Avocado Drive and University Drive. University Drive currently ends in a cul-de-sac at its northwestern end just past the apartment complex. Avocado Drive extends south from its intersection with Mar Vista Drive to end in a cul-de-sac near the University Drive cul-de-sac. The connection of these roadways would be achieved by eliminating the two cul-de-sacs, and constructing the remaining roadway to provide a continuous link from Sycamore Avenue to Mar Vista Drive. The short-term cumulative aaffic analysis did not incorporate this roadway link. The analysis indicates that the recommended short-term cumulative roadway system will serve the projected traffic demand at acceptable Levels of Service without this link. -. ~umarv of Project Imoact Under Short-Term Cumulative Conditions A summary of roadway and intersection operating conditions at each analysis stage is provided on Tables 4.D-12 and 4.D-13, respectively. The North County Square Specific Plan includes the following roadway improvements in conjunction with development of the property site: Realign University Drive to align with Lobelia Drive and form a four- way intersection at Sycamore Avenue. Improve University Drive to provide four to six lanes. Signalize the four-way intersection of Sycamore Avenue and UniversitylLobelia Drive. * Realign and improve the portion of Sycamore Avenue between SR-78 and the Vista City limits to provide six lanes of roadway. 4.D-36 These improvements will allow each of the involved roadway segments and intersections to operate at acceptable levels in the short-term future, with project tdfiC. The project will cause or contribute to unacceptable conditions on a number of other roadway segments or intersections with the addition of project traffic to the surrounding roadway system. In particular, the segment of Sycamore Avenue from the County/City line to South Santa Fe Avenue and South Santa Fe Avenue on either side of Sycamore Avenue will experience degradation of level of service with the addition of project traffic without the County planned improvement in place. The County projects completion of the Sycamore Avenue extension in 1996, yet no funds have been irrevocably committed to implement the project. The County has linked these improvements with two other County roadway improvement projects for the purpose of environmental review and approval. The fmt is the realignment and widening of South Santa Fe Avenue from the City/County boundary to Woodland Drive and the second is realignment and widening of South Santa Fe from Woodland Drive to Smilax Road. The County has not irrevocably committed funds to these projects. The combination of these three projects for purposes of environmental review and approval substantially increases the likelihood of delays in completion of the Sycamore widening and realignment. Neither the City nor the project applicant would have sufficient control over the County project to expedite the process or prevent delays to ensure the completion of the Sycamore Avenue extension within a reasonable period of time. The improvements are wholly outside the City’s jurisdiction and the City has no funds available from its capital improvements budget or otherwise to finance the project, The City currently experiences a shortfall in funding for its capital improvement budget. -_ % Likewise, the SR-78 interchange at Sycamore Avenue will worsen significantly as a result of project traffic. Based upon the CalTrans Supplemental Project Study Report (“SPSR’) dated February, 1991, project completion is anticipated in 1996. However, the project is currently 15 months behind the accelerated schedule set forth in the SPSR. Completion of the project is expected to take approximately three (3) years following preparation of the necessary environmental documents, plans, specifications and engineering, and acquisition of right of way, none which has yet commenced. Based upon this information, it is highly improbable that the improvements shall be completed in a reasonable period of time. The project 1 r. rn applicant owns a portion of the property necessary to construct the improvements to the SR-78 westbound on-ramp. This property shall be conveyed to the City in connection with project approval. Yet, beyond the proposed conveyance and acceptance, neither the applicant nor the City exercise reasonable control over the timing of interchange improvements. The City has included the SR-78 interchange improvements in its 1996 capital budget, yet no source of funds have been committed to the project. The City currently experiences a shortfall in funding of its capital improvements budget. Delay in project development and occupancy pending completion of these road improvements would severely hamper and likely render infeasible both public debt financing of infrastructure and public improvements, as well as the conventional financing of site development and constmction. Releasing commitments would be difficult to obtain because ultimate project occupancy would be beyond the control of the City and the applicant, which in turn would adversely affect the applicant's ability of obtaining loan commitments from lenders. The marketability and sale of revenue bonds necessary to generate funds to construct the public improvements and infrastructure would be placed in serious jeopardy due to the impairment of security caused by the uncertainty of the project completion as well as future project revenues, which would be dependent upon leasing commitments. This would result in the delay in the construction of significant public improvements, including substantial uaffic improvements. -. Because of these factors no site development or construction of significant public improvements and infrastructure, including substantial traffic improvements as proposed by the project, would likely occur until the completion of County and Caltrans improvements. This would have an adverse effect, as"the fiscal benefits of the project to the City and the City's Redevelopment Agency, as described in the socioeconomic analysis of this SEIR, including the generation of sales tax and property tax revenues, the creation of jobs for residents of the City, and similar beneficial economic impacts disclosed by the City's fiscal benefits analysis, which would be unreasonably delayed pending completion of these improvements. These fiscal benefits are necessary to provide basic services to the City's residents and to promote the redevelopment goal's and objectives in accordance' with the Redevelopment Plan. 4.D-41 In light of all of the above considerations, delaying project completion or occupancy until the completion of the County and/or Caltrans roadway improvement is considered infeasible within the meaning of CEQA Guideline Section 15364. As discussed earlier, the improvements planned by the County and Caltrans at these locations will achieve acceptable levels of service for the short-term cumulative (with project) condition. The improvements are needed to accommodate even existing levels of traffic. The addition of related plus project traffic to Sycamore Avenue will exacerbate already unacceptable conditions. However, as discussed previously, these improvements may not reasonably and/or feasibly be completed prior to project implementation. Therefore, the impacts of the project on short-term traffic conditions are considered to be significant. General Plan Buildout Traffic Conditions Because the North County Square Specific Plan involves a General Plan Amendment, and proposes development intensities in excess of that contained in the -. current General Plan, a General Plan buildout analysis is required to determine the impacts of project-related traffic on long-term future traffic conditions. The General Plan Buildout analysis will involve two analysis scenarios. First, the "baseline" Buildout Condition will incorporate full buildout (Post Year 2010) of the General Plans of the City of Vista and surrounding jurisdictions. This scenario includes only that portion of the proposed project which is included in the current General Plan. Second, a Buildout Plus Project scenario will evaluate the impact of the additional project traffic to be generated in excess of that already assumed in the General Plan. The projected traffic volumes for buildoG conditions were obtained from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) SR-78 Conidor Traffic Model. The analysis will evaluate the adequacy of the Buildout roadway system to accommodate traffic demands. Analysis of daily operating conditions will be conducted first. Where LOS E or F conditions are projected, the analysis will then focus on the intersection analyih, which provides a more accurate indication of traffic operations. The results of the intersection analysis will determine the adequacy of the roadway system. If the peak hour traffic demands can be 4.D-42 accommodated with ultimate intersection configurations that are consistent with General Plan standards, then the roadway system will adequately accommodate traffic demand. If, however, in order to accommodate traffk demands, intersection improvements beyond General Plan standards are required at the intersections along the roadway, then improvements to the roadway system between those intersections will be required to achieve acceptable operations. The projected daily traffic volumes for the buildout scenario are presented on Figure 4.D-9. These traffic estimates assume that the project site will be built out consistent with the densities allowed according to the current General Plan Land Use designation. The traffic forecasts 'produced by the model were adjusted to reflect the lack of an Anna Lane connection. The roadway system would need to incorporate several improvements in order to serve the projected buildout traffic volumes. All of the roadway and intersection improvements previously recommended to address short-term cumulative conditions were assumed to be in place for the buildout scenario. All additional roadway improvements recommended to serve the projected buildout traffic are "identified and discussed below. Analvsis of Roadwav Ouerations for General Plan Buildout Conditions Analysis of roadway operation for buildout conditions (excluding the project increase over the General Plan), was performed by comparing the projected daily buildout traffic volumes (Figure 4.D-9) to the roadway capacities. The resulting Level of Service is summarized in Table 4.D-14. Review of Table 4.D-14 reveals that segments of Sycamore Avenue and South Santa Fe Avenue will experience Level of Service E or F conditions. South Santa Fe Avenue is projected to be at LOS E from Palmyra Drive to Sycamore AvenueDuena Creek Road and at LOS F north of Sycamore AvenueDuena Creek Road. Daily operating conditions on Sycamore Avenue are projected to be at LOS E from SR-78 to Thibodo Road/Plumosa Avenue and at LOS F southwest of Shadowridge Drive. Accordingly, anatysis will focus on the intersection operations todetemine the geometrics needed to maintain acceptable operations along these roadways. 4.D-43 NOT TO SCALE XXXX - PROJECTED DAILY TRAFFIC VSLUMES LEGEND IROUNDED TO NEAREST HUNDRED1 I jOURCE: Kimley-Horn. 1992 Assuming Buildout General Plan Projected Daily Traffic Volumes FIGURE 7 I4.D-9 4.D-44 Table 4.D-14 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT INCREASE WITH RECOMMENDED SHORT-TERM ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS I Average Future Functional Daily Roadway V/C Street Segment Classification(a) Traffic Capacity*) Ratio LOS Sycamore Avenue: South Santa Fe Avenue to University Drive/ Lobelia Drive University Drive/Lobelia Drive to SR-78 SR-78 to Thibcdo Road/ Plumosa Avenue Thibodo RoadPlumosa Avenue to Shadowridge Drive South of Shadowridge Drive University Drive: West of Sycamore Avenue South Santa Fe Avenue: Palmyra Drive to Sycamore Avenuemuena Creek Road West of Sycamore Avenue/ Buena Creek Road Lobelia Drive: Area 5 Access Driveway Sycamore Avenue to Planning East of Planning Area 5 Access Driveway 4D 6D 6D 6D 4D 6D 4D 4D 2u . 2L 29,700 35,600 52,200 49,900 45,700 16,100 36,600 39,700 5,000 5,000 37,000 0.80 c 57,000 0.62 .B 57,000 0.92 E* 57,000 0.88 D 37,000 1.24 F* 57,000 0.28 A 37,000 0.99 E* 37,000 1.07 F* 16,200 0.31 A 7,000 0.71 C 4.D-45