2.11 transportation and traffic - sandiegocounty.gov€¦ · 2.11 transportation and traffic ......

2.11 Transportation and Traffic

December 2016 6653

Warner Ranch EIR 2.11-1


This section describes the results of a Traffic Impact Study (August 2015) conducted by KOA

Corporation to evaluate the transportation-related impacts of the Warner Ranch Project (project)

on transit, bicycle, and pedestrian movements. The Traffic Impact Study, prepared in compliance

with the County’s Report Format and Content Requirements for Traffic Analysis is included in

this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as Appendix M. This EIR section is based on the Traffic

Impact Study, and when possible, tables from the Traffic Impact Study are incorporated into the

analysis to make it easier for the reader to obtain the relevant information.

2.11.1 Existing Conditions

2.11.1.1 Traffic Network

The project site is located in the San Luis Rey River Valley, approximately 6 miles east of

Interstate 15 (I-15). It is located on the north side of State Route 76 (SR 76), immediately west of

the Pala Casino, which is on the south side of SR 76 (Figure 2.11-1, Project Study Area).

SR 76 runs generally west to east through the San Luis Rey River Valley and is the dominant

route to access the valley. SR 76 varies in classification from a two-lane highway, to a four-lane

collector, to a four-lane major roadway. It has a painted median and a posted speed limit of 55

miles per hour. Project access would be from SR 76. The majority of SR 76 in the study area is

classified as a two-lane State Route with a portion from I-15 classified as a four-lane major

roadway (see Figure 3-1 of Appendix M).

SR 76 has been the subject of three improvement projects by Caltrans: the SR 76 West Project

(between I-5 and Melrose Drive) completed in 1999, the SR 76 Middle Project (from approximately

Melrose Drive to South Mission Road) completed in 2012, and the SR 76 East Project (from

approximately South Mission Road to and including the SR 76/I-15 interchange ramps) for which

phase I was completed in 2013 and phase 2 is currently underway (TransNet 2016).

Since the baseline date for the TIS analysis for the Warner Ranch project, the SR 76 Middle

Project between Melrose Drive and South Mission Road, was completed by Caltrans (in 2012 as

previously indicated). Construction of the Middle Project expanded the existing highway from

two lanes to four and project features included:

Installing new signalized and full access intersections to improve the functionality of the

roadway, including better local access,

Constructing a new two-lane bridge over the San Luis Rey River for eastbound traffic,

reconfiguring the existing San Luis Rey River Bridge for westbound traffic, and

Replacing both the Bonsall Creek Bridge and the Ostrich Farm Creek Bridge.


December 2016 6653


The EIR/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Caltrans SR 76 East Project was finalized in

January 2012. The SR 76 East Segment is the final segment in a series of the three improvement

projects to the SR 76 corridor located between I-15 and I-5. The East Segment stretches 5.2 miles

from South Mission Road to I-15 and serves local, intraregional, and interregional traffic.

Construction of the East Segment will widen and realign SR 76 to a four-lane highway to meet

present travel needs and accommodate future growth. The first phase of the East Project improved

the interchange at SR 76 and I-15 and was opened to traffic in August 2013.

Physical Improvements to the East Segment include:

Widening the roadway from South Mission Road to Old Highway 395 to create a

four-lane highway

Expanding the Park & Ride at SR 76 and Old Highway 395

Widening and upgrading the SR 76/I-15 interchange, including improvements to existing

on- and off-ramps and the addition of two loop on-ramps to I-15, to improve traffic

operations and efficiency

Construction of the second phase will widen and realign SR 76 to a four-lane highway from just

east of South Mission Road to the newly improved SR 76/I-15 interchange. In support of that

project, pre-construction work efforts such as clearing dense brush and trees began in February

2014. Major construction efforts for the second phase of the project began in November 2014

and will last about three years. The Caltrans SR 76 East Project has identified TransNet as a

funding source, with completion in Fall 2017 (Caltrans 2015a; TransNet 2016).

Pala Temecula Road runs generally north to south between the City of Temecula and the

Community of Pala, intersecting SR 76 approximately one mile east of the project site. It is a

two-lane rural collector with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour.

Pala Mission Road is the main road of the Pala Community, and is located north of SR 76. It

runs roughly parallel to SR 76 from approximately the eastern edge of the project, crosses Pala

Temecula Road, and then rejoins SR 76. It is a two-lane local road with a painted median and a

posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour.

Traffic conditions, for both existing and projected conditions, are described in terms of Level of

Service (LOS). For roadway segments, LOS is a qualitative measure of conditions in terms of

speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, comfort, convenience, and safety. LOS for roadway

segments varies between LOS A, with no congestion and free flow, and LOS F, with

considerable congestion and forced or breakdown of flow (Table 2.11-1a, Roadway Segment

Level of Service Definitions, Table 2.11-1b, SANTEC/ITE Measure of Significant Project

Traffic Impacts, and Appendix M). For intersections, LOS is a measure of delay. It is based on


December 2016 6653


the elapsed time between when a vehicle stops at the end of a queue and when it departs from the

stop line. For signalized intersections, LOS A indicates a delay of less than 10 seconds, while

LOS F indicates a delay of greater than 80 seconds (Table 2.11-2, Signalized Intersection Level

of Service). More detailed information is included in the Traffic Impact Study, Appendix M of

this EIR.

Existing conditions pertinent to the proposed project are those conditions within the defined

traffic study area. County of San Diego Guidelines specify that a roadway segment or

intersection should be analyzed if it will carry 25 Peak Hour peak direction project trips or more.

The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has a Congestion Management

Program (CMP) to identify the regionally significant circulation system. The CMP requires

projects generating greater than 2,400 average daily trips to analyze CMP roadways within the

study area. CMP roadways within this study area include SR 76 and I-15, and these are included

in the Traffic Impact Study.

2.11.1.2 Roadway Segments

The resulting study area includes all of SR 76 between E. Vista Way (approximately 8 miles

west of I-15) and Cole Grade Road (approximately 15 miles east of I-15 and approximately 9

miles east of the proposed project) (Figure 2.11-1). The study area also includes two other road

segments just east of the project site: Pala Temecula Road and W. Pala Mission Road.

This approximately 23-mile stretch of SR 76 is broken into 16 segments (Figure 2.11-1). Of the

16 segments, six are west of I-15:

Between west of E. Vista Way and N. River Road (currently LOS F )

Between N. River Road and Camino Del Rey/Olive Hill Road (LOS F)

Between Camino Del Rey/Olive Hill Road and S. Mission Road (LOS F)

Between S. Mission Road and Gird Road (LOS F)

Between Gird Road and Old Highway 395 (LOS F)

Between Old Highway 395 and the I-15 ramps (LOS D).

The seventh segment of SR 76 is that stretch between the I-15 ramps, currently operating at LOS E.

The study area has nine segments of SR 76 east of I-15 (Figure 2-11-1):

1. Between the I-15 ramps and Pankey Road (currently LOS A)

2. Between Pankey Road and Horse Ranch Creek Road (LOS A)


December 2016 6653


3. Between Horse Ranch Creek Road and Rice Canyon Road (LOS C)

4. Between Rice Canyon and Couser Canyon Road (LOS C)

5. Between Couser Canyon and W. Pala Mission Road (LOS C)

6. Between W. Pala Mission Road and E. Pala Mission Road (LOS C)

7. Between E. Pala Mission Road and Lilac Road (LOS C)

8. Between Lilac Road and Adams Drive (LOS C)

9. Between Adams Drive and Cole Grade Road (currently LOS C).

In addition to the SR 76 segments, the study area has two other road segments (Figure 2.11-1):

1. W. Pala Mission Road between SR 76 and Pala Temecula Road (LOS C)

2. Pala Temecula Road north of SR 76 (currently LOS D).

Two freeway mainlines are within the study area: I-15 north of SR 76 and I-15 south of SR 76.

2.11.1.3 Intersections

Twenty intersections met the criteria for inclusion in the study area. Of those 20 intersections, 19 are

intersections with SR 76. And of those 19 SR 76 intersections, six are west of I-15 (Figure 2.11-1):

1. SR 76 and E. Vista Way (AM Peak Hour LOS F, PM Peak Hour LOS E)

2. SR 76 and N. River Road (AM Peak Hour LOS C, PM Peak Hour LOS C)

3. SR 76 and Camino Del Rey / Olive Hill Road (AM Peak Hour LOS D, PM Peak Hour LOS D

4. SR 76 and S. Mission Road (AM Peak Hour LOS C, PM Peak Hour LOS C)

5. SR 76 and Gird Road (AM Peak Hour LOS B, PM Peak Hour LOS B)

6. SR 76 and Old Highway 395 (AM Peak Hour LOS C, PM Peak Hour LOS C).

Two of the intersections are at I-15:

1. SR 76 and I-15 southbound ramps (AM Peak Hour LOS C, PM Peak Hour LOS E)

2. SR 76 and I-15 northbound ramps (AM Peak Hour LOS C, PM Peak Hour LOS D).

The remaining 11 intersections with SR 76 are east of I-15 (Figure 2.11-1):

SR 76 and Pankey Road (AM Peak Hour LOS B, PM Peak Hour LOS B)

SR 76 and Horse Ranch Creek Road (NA)


December 2016 6653


SR 76 and Rice Canyon Road (AM Peak Hour LOS B, PM Peak Hour LOS B)

SR 76 and Couser Canyon Road (AM Peak Hour LOS B, PM Peak Hour LOS B)

SR 76 and Project Entry (AM Peak Hour LOS A, PM Peak Hour LOS A)

SR 76 and W. Pala Mission Road (AM Peak Hour LOS C, PM Peak Hour LOS C)

SR 76 and Brittain Road (AM Peak Hour LOS A, PM Peak Hour LOS B)

SR 76 and E. Pala Mission Road (AM Peak Hour LOS B, PM Peak Hour LOS C)

SR 76 and Lilac Road (AM Peak Hour LOS B, PM Peak Hour LOS B)

SR 76 and Adams Drive (AM Peak Hour LOS B, PM Peak Hour LOS B)

SR 76 and Cole Grade Road (AM Peak Hour LOS C, PM Peak Hour LOS C).

The twentieth intersection is located at W. Pala Mission Road and Pala Temecula Road. It has an

existing AM Peak Hour LOS A, and an existing PM Peak Hour LOS B.

2.11.1.4 Trip Generation

Trip generation is a measure or forecast of the number of trips that begin or end at the project site

and is a function of the extent and types of land use proposed as part of a proposed project

(Appendix M). Vehicular traffic generation characteristics for projects are estimated based on

established rates. These rates identify the probable traffic generation of various land uses based

studies of developments in comparable settings. The rates used in this analysis are determined

based on rates contained in the (SANDAG) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for

the San Diego Region (2002). This manual provides standards and recommendations for the

probable traffic generation of various land uses based upon local, regional and nationwide

studies of existing developments in comparable settings. For the proposed project, each single

family dwelling unit is expected to generate 10 trips per day; each multifamily unit is expected to

generate eight trips per day; the park is expected to generate 50 trips per acre per day; and the

fire station is expected to generate 50 trips per day. These trips are shown in Table 2.11-3,

Project Trip Generation, and include a breakdown of the number of trips expected during the AM

and PM Peak Hour periods. The AM Peak Hour period is between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m., and the PM

Peak Hour is between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. These periods are the times during which the largest

numbers of vehicles are entering and exiting the project site. Because of the multiple factors and

ensuing rounding of numbers done by predictive models, rows and columns may not total

exactly. As seen in Table 2.11-3, the proposed project is predicted to produce 7,570 daily trips.

During the AM Peak Hour, 178 trips are predicted to enter the project site, and 443 trips are

predicted to exit the project site. During the PM Peak Hour, 524 trips are predicted to enter the

project site, and 234 trips are predicted to exit the project site.


December 2016 6653


2.11.1.5 Trip Distribution and Assignment

Trip distribution and assignment is the process of identifying probable trip destinations, and then

the directions and routes that traffic will affect. Once the proposed developments trips have been

estimated, they are assigned to the study area network. The trip distribution and assignment for

this project is based on SANDAG’s computerized travel forecast model (Series 11 Select Zone

analysis). All project traffic moves on to SR 76, and then travels either east or west on SR 76.

The project has many potential local services to link up to in the community of Pala, which

begins half a mile to the east.

Local factors affecting trip destinations are potential employment at the Pala Casino and

additional casinos to the east; shopping at the casinos and the stores in the Community of

Pala; and trips to the schools, churches, and play fields in the Community of Pala. These

services include:

Employment at Pala Casino (or further east at Pauma Casino);

Education at Vivian Banks Charter School, Ashwet Patia School, and Pala State Preschool;

Limited shopping at Pala Store (including produce, groceries, sundries), Pala Minimart and

additional shopping and entertainment at the casino;

Other services including a Catholic Church, the Pala Buffet, a fire station, Wells Fargo

Bank, play fields.

A detailed breakdown of predicted trips is provided in Figures 1.3 through 1.6 in the Traffic

Impact Study (Appendix M). The maximum number of trips predicted to leave the project site

onto SR 76 during one time period is the 443 trips of the AM Peak Hour (Table 2.11-3).

Projections of this traffic show 273 trips turning west on SR 76, and 170 trips turning east on SR

76. Some of these westbound 273 trips turn onto intersecting streets (Couser Canyon Road, Rice

Canyon Road, Horse Ranch Creek Road, Pankey Road; see Figure 2.11-1). At I-15, 152 trips

remain on SR 76. Of these 152 trips, 10 are predicted to go north on I-15, and 101 trips turn

south onto I-15. The remaining 51 trips continue west on SR 76.

The bulk of the predicted 170 project traffic trips that turn east on SR 76, then turn into the Pala

Casino, into the Community of Pala, or north on Pala Temecula Road towards Temecula. The

remaining 35 trips continue east on SR 76.

2.11.1.6 Level of Service

Level of Service (LOS) designations comprise a professional industry standard by which the

operating condition of a given roadway, state route, freeway segment, or intersection is

measured. LOS designation is reported differently for signalized and unsignalized intersections,


December 2016 6653


as well as for roadway segments. LOS is defined using letter designations from “A” to “F,”

wherein LOS A represents the best operating conditions and LOS F represents the worst

operating conditions. The County’s Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is the number of vehicles that

pass a point on a roadway over a 24-hour period. The increase in ADT that would result in a

LOS E and LOS F for different roadway designations is shown below:

For LOS E

o Two-lane road – 200 ADT increase

o Four-lane road – 400 ADT increase

o Six-lane road – 600 ADT increase

o Two-lane highway – 325 ADT increase

For LOS F

o Two-lane road – 100 ADT increase

o Four-lane road – 200 ADT increase

o Six-lane road – 300 ADT increase

o Two-lane highway – 225 ADT increase

The volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) is a measure of traffic demand on state and local facilities

(expressed as volume) compared to its traffic-carrying capacity. In evaluating the performance of

roadway segments under the existing conditions, V/C is considered together with LOS.

2.11.1.7 Regulatory Setting

Federal

2000 Highway Capacity Manual

Prepared by the Transportation Research Board, the 2000 HCM is a joint effort between the

Transportation Research Board, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and American

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials to provide concepts, guidelines,

and computational procedures for calculating capacity and quality of service for highway

facilities, including freeways, intersections (signalized and unsignalized), and rural

highways. In addition, the 2000 HCM addresses the effects of transit, pedestrians, and

bicycles on transportation system performance.


December 2016 6653


State Transportation Improvement Program

The California STIP, approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation in October 2006, is a

multi-year, statewide, intermodal program of transportation projects that is consistent with the

statewide transportation plan and planning processes, metropolitan plans, and Title 23 of the

Code of Federal Regulations. The STIP is prepared by Caltrans in cooperation with the

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and the regional transportation planning agencies.

In San Diego County, the MPO and regional transportation planning agency is SANDAG. The

STIP contains all capital and non- capital transportation projects or identified phases of

transportation projects for funding under the Federal Transit Act and Title 23 of the U.S. Code,

including federally funded projects.

San Diego Association of Governments Congestion Management Program (CMP)

The purpose of a CMP is to monitor the performance of a region’s transportation system, develop

programs to address near- and long-term congestion, and better integrate transportation and land use

planning. Within SANDAG’s CMP, the Land Use Analysis Program requires assessment of impacts

to state highways and regionally significant arterials from projects that generate 2,400 or more ADT

or 200 or more Peak Hour trips. I-15 and SR 76 are CMP roadways.

County of San Diego General Plan, Mobility Element

The Mobility Element establishes policies and implementation measures for the assessment and

mitigation of traffic impacts of new development. An objective in the Transportation Section is

the provision of LOS D or better on County Mobility Element Roads; LOS D is an off-site

mitigation limit for discretionary projects. If the existing LOS is D, a LOS of D may be allowed.

Projects that significantly increase congestion of roads already operating at LOS E or F must

provide mitigation. Mitigation can consist of road improvements, or a fair share contribution to

an established program or project to mitigate the project’s impacts. Select applicable General

Plan policies are listed below:

M-1 Balanced Road Network. A safe and efficient road network that balances regional

travel needs with the travel requirements and preferences of local communities.

M-1.2 Treatment of High-Volume Roadways. Consider narrower rights-of-way, flexibility

in design standards, and lower design speeds in areas planned for substantial

development in order to avoid bisecting communities or town centers. Reduce noise,

air, and visual impacts of new freeways, regional arterials, and Mobility Element

roads, through landscaping, design, and/or careful location of facilities.


December 2016 6653


M-2 Responding to Physical Constraints and Preservation Goals. A road network that

provides adequate capacity to reasonably accommodate both planned land uses and

regional traffic patterns, while supporting other General Plan goals such as providing

environmental protections and enhancing community character.

M-2.1 Level of Service Criteria. Require development projects to provide associated road

improvements necessary to achieve a level of service of “D” or higher on all Mobility

Element roads except for those where a failing level of service has been accepted by

the County pursuant to the criteria specifically identified in the accompanying text

box (Criteria for Accepting a Road Classification with Level of Service E/F). When

development is proposed on roads where a failing level of service has been accepted,

require feasible mitigation in the form of road improvements or a fair share

contribution to a road improvement program, consistent with the Mobility Element

road network.

M-2.2 Access to Mobility Element Designated Roads. Minimize direct access points to

Mobility Element roads from driveways and other non-through roads to maintain the

capacity and improve traffic operations.

M-2.3 Environmentally Sensitive Road Design. Locate and design public and private roads

to minimize impacts to significant biological and other environmental and visual

resources. Avoid road alignments through floodplains to minimize impacts on

floodplain habitats and limit the need for constructing flood control measures. Design

new roads to maintain wildlife movement and retrofit existing roads for that purpose.

Utilize fencing to reduce road kill and to direct animals to under crossings.

M-3 Transportation Facility Development. New or expanded transportation

facilities that are phased with and equitably funded by the development that

necessitates their construction.

M-3.2 Traffic Impact Mitigation. Require development to contribute its fair share toward

financing transportation facilities, including mitigating the associated direct and

cumulative traffic impacts caused by their project on both the local and regional road

networks. Transportation facilities include road networks and related transit,

pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and equestrian.

M-3.3 Multiple Ingress and Egress. Require development to provide multiple ingress/egress

routes in conformance with State law and local regulations.

M-4.3 Rural Roads Compatible with Rural Character. Design and construct public roads to

meet travel demands in Semi-Rural and Rural Lands that are consistent with rural


December 2016 6653


character while safely accommodating transit stops when deemed necessary, along

with bicyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians. Where feasible, utilize rural road design

features (e.g., no curb and gutter improvements) to maintain community character.

[See applicable community plan for possible relevant policies.]

M-4.5 Context Sensitive Road Design. Design and construct roads that are compatible with

the local terrain and the uses, scale and pattern of the surrounding development.

Provide wildlife crossings in road design and construction where it would minimize

impacts in wildlife corridors.

M-5.2 Impact Mitigation for New Roadways and Improvements. Coordinate with Caltrans

to mitigate negative impacts from existing, expanded, or new State freeways or

highways and to reduce impacts of road improvements and/or design modifications to

State facilities on adjacent communities.

Public and Private Road Standards

The County has road standards for both public and private roadways. These standards provide

minimum design and construction requirements for roadways. The Mobility Element includes

LOS standards for Mobility Element roads, which are based upon typical peak traffic periods.

Non-Mobility Element roads do not include LOS standards, but target design capacities.

Mobility Element roads are constructed based on the Public Road Standards. Private roads are

constructed based on the Private Road Standards and do not include LOS standards, but are

based on average daily trips (ADT).

County of San Diego Transportation Impact Fee Program/Ordinance

The Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Program requires payment of fees as a fair share

contribution towards the construction costs of the planned transportation facilities that are

affected by a proposed development to mitigate cumulative impacts. The primary purpose of the

TIF is to fund the construction of identified roadway facilities needed to reduce or mitigate

projected cumulative traffic impacts and to allocate the costs of these roadway facilities

proportionally among future developing properties based upon their individual cumulative traffic

impacts (County Guidelines for Determining Significance-Traffic). TIF fees are collected as a

condition of approval of a project or prior to issuance of a development permit, typically a

building permit. Existing deficiencies in transportation infrastructure cannot be financed with

these fees. Mitigation of direct impacts of future development is the responsibility of individual

projects. The TIF is designed to be updated when there is an adopted change to the General Plan

land uses and/or Mobility Element. As stated in the TIF program, “[t]here is a reasonable

relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of transportation facilities, or portions

thereof, attributable to future development because the TIF is derived from a TDU formula that


December 2016 6653


considers trip generation rates and vehicle miles traveled by land use type to correlate impact to

specific development types” (Section 77.203[5]).

2.11.2 Analysis of Project Effects and Determination as to Significance


Guidelines for Determination of Significance

The County of San Diego’s Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format and

Content Requirements – Transportation and Traffic (County of San Diego 2011) states that traffic

volume increases from projects would result in a significant traffic volume or LOS traffic impact if:

The additional or redistributed ADT generated by the proposed land development project will

cause on-site Circulation Element Roads to operate below LOS C during peak traffic hours;

The additional or redistributed ADT generated by the proposed project will significantly

increase congestion on a Circulation Element Road or State Highway currently operating at

LOS E or LOS F, or will cause a Circulation Element Road or State Highway to operate at

a LOS E or LOS F as a result of the proposed project as identified in Table 2.11-1; or

The additional or redistributed ADT generated by the proposed project will cause a

residential street to exceed its design capacity.

Caltrans Facilities

As shown in Table 2.11-1.5, Measures of Significant Project Impacts to Congestion: Allowable

Increases on Two-Lane Highways with Signalized Intersection Spacing under 1 Mile, the

SANTEC/ITE Guidelines were utilized to determine traffic impacts to facilities under the

jurisdiction of Caltrans.

Two-Lane Highways with Signalized Intersection Spacing Over 1 Mile

Traffic volume increases from public or private projects that result in one or more of the

following criteria will have a significant traffic volume or level of service traffic impact on a

two-lane highway facility with signalized intersection spacing greater than 1 mile:


increase congestion on a two-lane highway segment currently operating at LOS E or LOS

F, as identified in Table 2.11-4, Measures of Significant Project Impacts to Congestion:

Allowable Increases On Two-Lane Highways with Signalized Intersection Spacing over

1 Mile, or will cause a two-lane highway segment to operate at LOS E or LOS F as a

result of the proposed project.


December 2016 6653


Two-Lane Highways with Signalized Intersection Spacing Under 1 Mile

Traffic volume increases from public or private projects that result in one or more of the

following criteria will have a significant traffic volume or level of service traffic impact on a

two-lane highway facility with signalized intersection spacing less than 1 mile:


increase congestion on a two-lane highway segment currently operating at LOS E or LOS

F, as identified in Table 2.11-5, or will cause a two-lane highway segment to operate at

LOS E or LOS F as a result of the proposed project.

Analysis

Construction

Construction of the proposed project would result in the temporary addition of vehicles on

surrounding circulation network, primarily for travel to and from the site. As cut and fill for

grading is expected to be balanced on-site, no dirt import or export trucks would travel to and

from the project site. It is not estimated that the project would require any street closures during

construction. There are no sidewalks in the area, as such, sidewalk closures would not be an

issue. In addition, construction impacts on the area are projected to be minimal since

construction vehicles are estimated to contribute fewer vehicles during the peak hours than the

project would after completion. As construction would result in the temporary addition of

minimal vehicles to the surrounding circulation network, impacts would be less than significant.

Operation

The thresholds of significance described previously are in terms of the allowable increase in

traffic, which also relates directly to the change in the volume to capacity ratio. Where roadways

segments operate at LOS D or better, impacts are not considered significant.

Table 2.11-6, Summary of Roadway Segment Conditions, contains information on the 18

roadway segments identified in the study area. The v/c ratios and resulting LOS are listed for

four scenarios: Existing Conditions establishes the baseline traffic operations within the study

area. Existing Conditions Plus the Project represents the existing transportation network with the

addition of traffic from the proposed project. Existing Conditions Plus Cumulative Conditions

represents cumulative traffic conditions (the existing baseline traffic with traffic from

foreseeable land development projects, without the project). Existing Conditions Plus the Project

Plus Cumulative Conditions represents cumulative traffic conditions (the existing baseline traffic

with traffic from foreseeable land development projects, and traffic from buildout of the

proposed project.


December 2016 6653


Existing Plus Project (Direct Impacts)

The Existing Plus Project analysis includes existing traffic volumes (2012 baseline) with the

addition of the traffic generated by the project (Table 2.11-7, Summary of Mitigated Roadway

Segments – Existing Plus Project Conditions). No significant impacts to I-15 either north or

south would occur (Appendix M). The following six roadway segments of SR 76 are shown to

operate at LOS E or F under both Existing Conditions and Existing Conditions Plus the Project:

Impact TR-1 SR 76 from west of E. Vista Way to N. River Road

Impact TR-2 SR 76 from N. River Road to Camino Del Rey

Impact TR-3 SR 76 from Camino Del Rey to S. Mission Road

Impact TR-4 SR 76 from S. Mission Road to Gird Road

Impact TR-5 SR 76 from Gird Road to Old Highway 395

Impact TR-6 SR 76 between the I-15 northbound and southbound ramps

The first five of these segments operate at LOS F in the existing baseline condition and would

continue at LOS F with the proposed project, with a worsening of the v/c ratio. The last segment

presently operates at LOS E in the existing baseline condition and with the proposed project

would operate at LOS F, with a worsening of the v/c ratio (Table 2.11-6).




Content Requirements: Transportation and Traffic (County of San Diego 2011) states that traffic

volume increases from projects would result in a significant traffic volume or LOS traffic impact

on a signalized intersection if:


increase congestion on a signalized intersection currently operating at LOS E or LOS F, or

will cause a signalized intersection to operate at a LOS E or LOS F; or

Based upon an evaluation of existing accident rates, the signal priority list, intersection

geometrics, proximity of adjacent driveways, sight distance, or other factors, the project

would significantly impact the operations of the intersection.


December 2016 6653



Content Requirements: Transportation and Traffic (County of San Diego 2011) states that

traffic volume increases from projects would result in a significant impact to an unsignalized

intersection if:

The additional or redistributed ADT generated by the proposed project will add 21 or

more Peak Hour trips to a critical movement of an unsignalized intersection and cause

an unsignalized intersection to operate below LOS D, or

The additional or redistributed ADT generated by the proposed project will add 21 or

more Peak Hour trips to a critical movement of an unsignalized intersection currently

operating at LOS E, or

The additional or redistributed ADT generated by the proposed project will add six or

more Peak Hour trips to a critical movement of an unsignalized intersection and cause

the unsignalized intersection to operate at LOS F, or

The additional or redistributed ADT generated by the proposed project will add six or

more Peak Hour trips to a critical movement of an unsignalized intersection currently

operating at LOS F, or

Based upon an evaluation of existing accident rates, the signal priority list, intersection

geometrics, proximity of adjacent driveways, sight distance, or other factors, the project

would significantly impact the operations of the intersection.

Analysis

Construction

Construction of the proposed project would result in the temporary addition of vehicles on

surrounding circulation network, primarily for travel to and from the site. As cut and fill for

grading is expected to be balanced on-site, no dirt import or export trucks would travel to and

from the project site. It is not estimated that the project would require any street closures during

construction. There are no sidewalks in the area, as such, sidewalk closures would not be an

issue. In addition, construction impacts on the area are projected to be minimal since

construction vehicles are estimated to contribute fewer vehicles during the peak hours than the

project would after completion. As construction would result in the temporary addition of

minimal vehicles to the surrounding circulation network, impacts would be less than significant.

Operation

The thresholds of significance described previously are in terms of the allowable increase in

traffic, which also relates directly to the change in the volume to capacity ratio. Where


December 2016 6653


intersections operate at LOS D or better, impacts are not considered significant. Tables 2.11-8

and 2.11-9 give a summary of intersection performance during the AM and PM Peak Hours, for

Existing Conditions, Existing Conditions Plus the Project, Existing Plus Cumulative and Existing

Plus Cumulative Plus Project.

Existing Plus Project (Direct Impacts)

Under the Existing Plus Project condition (2012 baseline), the project would have the following

significant impacts to four intersections as described below (Table 2.11-10, Summary of

Mitigated Intersections – Existing Plus Project Conditions):

Impact TR-7 SR 76/E. Vista Way. This intersection operated at LOS F for the AM Peak Hour

and at LOS E for the PM Peak Hour. Project traffic creates additional significant

delays at both Peak Hours by increasing delays over two seconds.

Impact TR-8 SR 76/I-15 southbound ramps. This intersection operated at LOS E for the PM

Peak Hour. Project traffic creates additional significant delay in the PM Peak

Hour by increasing delays over 12 seconds.

Impact TR-9 SR 76/I-15 northbound ramps. This intersection operated at LOS D for the

PM Peak Hour. Project traffic creates additional significant delay in the PM

Peak Hour resulting in an LOS of E with additional delays over six seconds.

Impact TR-10 SR 76/Project driveway (Figure 1-12, Circulation Plan). Analysis of this

intersection shows that it will fulfill the warrant for signalization (Appendix M).

2.11.2.3 Hazards and Alternative Transportation


The County of San Diego’s Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format

and Content Requirements: Transportation and Traffic (County of San Diego 2011)

states that a significant transportation or traffic impact may occur if the project causes a

transportation hazard. The determination of significant hazards to an existing

transportation design feature shall be on a case-by-case basis, considering the following

factors: Design features/physical configurations of access roads may adversely affect the

safe movement of all users along the roadway.

The percentage or magnitude of increased traffic on the road due to the proposed project

may affect the safety of the roadway.


December 2016 6653


The physical conditions of the project site and surrounding area, such as curves,

slopes, walls, landscaping or other barriers, may result in conflicts with other users or

stationary objects.

Conformance of existing and proposed roads to the requirements of the private or public

road standards, as applicable.


Content Requirements: Transportation and Traffic (County of San Diego 2011) the

determination of significant hazards to pedestrians or bicyclists shall be on a case-by-case basis,

considering the following factors:

Design features/physical configurations on a road segment or at an intersection that may

adversely affect the visibility of pedestrians or bicyclists to drivers entering and exiting

the site, and the visibility of cars to pedestrians and bicyclists.

The amount of pedestrian activity at the project access points that may adversely affect

pedestrian safety.

The preclusion or substantial hindrance of the provision of a planned bike lane or

pedestrian facility on a roadway adjacent to the project site.

The percentage or magnitude of increased traffic on the road due to the proposed project

that may adversely affect pedestrian and bicycle safety.

The physical conditions of the project site and surrounding area, such as curves,

slopes, walls, landscaping or other barriers that may result in vehicle/pedestrian,

vehicle/bicycle conflicts.

Conformance of existing and proposed roads to the requirements of the private or public

road standards, as applicable.

The potential for a substantial increase in pedestrian or bicycle activity without the

presence of adequate facilities.

Analysis

Hazards

The proposed project would include numerous roadway and circulation improvements including:

internal residential streets, internal intersections, off-site intersection improvements, pedestrian

walkways and sidewalks, equestrian trails, and bicycle facilities as described in Chapter 1,

Project Description. All internal circulation improvements conform with the would comply with

the County’s Private Road Standards (County of San Diego 2012) and applicable roadway/

highway design standards/design manuals as they apply to safety of motorists, pedestrians, and


December 2016 6653


bicyclists. The County Public Road Standards are intended to “provide for the service and

protection of the public. No design exceptions are being requested for this project. The project is

consistent with the County Mobility Element Goal 4, Safe and Compatible Roads. Relevant

policies pursuant to Goal M-4 and the project’s consistency with each are listed below:

Policy M-4.1 (Walkable Village Roads), the project would provide a multi-modal

transportation system, consisting of private roads, bicycle paths, pedestrian and equestrian

trails is proposed, to support both the growth within the SPA and the adjoining existing and

planned communities. The project also includes a network of pathways and trails that

meander along streets and within the open space areas. The Specific Plan includes

objectives and policies to develop a comprehensive transportation system that would

provide safe and efficient movement of people with in the SPA, the Pala Pauma

Subregional Area, and the regional circulation network, while protecting sensitive

environmental resources and community character.

Policy M-4.2 (Interconnected Local Roads) requires the provision of an

interconnected and appropriately scaled local public road network. The project area

would be accessed by a central entry road (Figures 1-12 and 1-13 (Community Entry

Plan)) that would be constructed north of SR 76. An all-way traffic signal would be

installed at the intersection. The entry road would be a public road from SR 76 to the

project’s gate. Additionally, a 350-foot long and 12-foot wide acceleration/

deceleration lane is proposed adjacent to the project’s main entry. Conceptual plans

for neighborhood entry roads as well as primary and secondary theme roads are

shown in Figures 1-14, 1-15, and 1-16 (Road Sections – Entry, Residential Internal,

and Alley). All other on-site roads would be private roads built to County Private

Road Standards with maintenance funded by the HOA. The on-site roads would still

be interconnected with the public roadway system in that the on-site roadway allows

traffic from off-site to enter the project, and also provide emergency evacuation

routes to the adjacent SR 76.

Policy M-4.4 (Accommodate Emergency Vehicles) requires the design and construction

of public and private roads to allow for necessary access by appropriately sized fire

apparatus and emergency vehicles while accommodating outgoing vehicles with residents

evacuating from the project. Roads within the project site are designed to accommodate

emergency vehicles and also allow residents to evacuate efficiently if necessary. Although

the project includes gated access points throughout the road system would be interconnected

and would provide at least two ways in and out for all residents as required by current safety

regulations. Emergency access would be provided by two roads on the eastern and western

boundaries connecting to SR 76. Both of these alternate access routes would be gated and

will triggered by either a buried sensor or an optical sensor would be used for egress. For


December 2016 6653


ingress, keypads and remotes would be used. The emergency accesses proposed on the

eastern and western boundaries along SR 76 would only be used for emergency purposes.

Policy M-4.6 (Context Sensitive Road Design) requires the design and construction of

roads that are compatible with the local terrain and the uses, scale and pattern of the

surrounding development. Development has been generally clustered to confine

grading to the flatter areas of the property (140 acres of 0-15 percent slopes) and the

pattern of the roads within the project site would follow the site’s terrain while still

providing a safe and efficient road network. The project will provide a public multi-

use trail (0.5 mile) along the project’s frontage which would be built and dedicated to

the County and maintained by the County. This multi-use public trail is situated along

the southern boundary of the project adjacent to SR 76 and would be 8 feet wide

within a 15-foot-wide public easement. The trail would be constructed of stabilized

decomposed granite or other material deemed suitable by the County.

Policy M-4.6 (Interjurisdictional Coordination) requires coordination with adjacent

jurisdictions so that roads that cross jurisdictional boundaries are designed to provide

consistent cross-section and capacity. To the extent practical, coordinate with adjacent

jurisdictions to construct road improvements concurrently or sequentially to optimize and

maintain road capacity. Over the past 5 years, the Warner Ranch project team has been

closely coordinating with CalTrans. The project team has incorporated recommendations

and safety measures into the proposed project related improvements, including the

proposed project frontage improvements, signalization, and off-site intersection

improvements. Off-site improvements would be made or funds contributed to help pay

for future improvements for two intersections to mitigate project traffic impacts.

As described above, the project gains its access from SR 76 which has been constructed in accordance

with Caltrans Standards. Overall, the road network design for the project would provide adequate

ingress and egress for residents as well as emergency access, safe trail system, and conform to

Goal M-4 of the General Plan Mobility Element. With conformance to applicable safety design

standards as set forth by the County and Caltrans, as well as close coordination between the

project team and Caltrans, impacts related to roadway hazards as a result of the project would be

less than significant.

Alternative Transportation

A multi-modal transportation system, consisting of public and private roads, bicycle paths,

pedestrian and equestrian trails is proposed, to support both the growth within the SPA and the

adjoining existing and planned communities. The project would develop a comprehensive

transportation system that would provide safe and efficient movement of people with in the

project site, the Pala Pauma Subregional Area, and the regional circulation network.


December 2016 6653


Additionally, as stated in Chapter 1, Project Description, the project proposes housing types that

would be affordable to the workforce in the area; such housing is presently in short supply. A

better balance of job/housing should reduce commuting and overall miles traveled, as well as

vehicles on the roadways.

The project would not interfere with the General Plan’s overall intent to reduce the demand of

roadways by provision of alternative transportation or any other means. Therefore, the project

would not conflict with the alternative transportation policies of the General Plan and impacts

would be less than significant.

2.11.2.4 Mobility Element

This section discusses the correlation between the General Plan Land Use Element and Mobility

Element at build-out of the Land Use Element as amended by the proposed project. It also

provides a General Plan conformance discussion including consistency with Mobility Element

Policy 2.1, which addresses balancing adequate road capacity to reasonably accommodate build-

out of the Land Use Element, with the need to support other General Plan goals such as

providing environmental protections. Policy 2.1 acknowledges that the preservation of valuable

resources may outweigh the benefits of road improvements. Therefore, a lower LOS along

specified roadways may be acceptable. Table M-4 of the Mobility Element identifies the

deficient roadways and describes the rationale for accepting deficient roadway segments.

Mobility Element Policy 2.1 requires development projects to provide associated road

improvements necessary to achieve a level of service of “D” or higher on all Mobility Element

roads except for those where a failing level of service has been accepted by the County pursuant

to the specified criteria. The applicable situations for accepting a road classification where a LOS

E or F is forecast includes those instances when the adverse impacts of adding travel lanes do not

justify the resulting benefit of increased traffic capacity. This would include the following

relevant situations:

When marginal deficiencies are characterized along a short segment of a road and

classifying the road with a designation that would add travel lanes for the entire road would

be excessive; or

When adding travel lanes to a road would adversely impact environmental and cultural

resources or in areas with steep slopes where widening roads would require massive

grading, which would result in adverse environmental impacts and other degradation of the

physical environment.


December 2016 6653


Build-out Under the General Plan

As shown in Table 6-2 of Appendix M, the following roadway segments of SR 76 are projected

to operate at substandard LOS E/F under buildout of the General Plan without the project:

N. River Road to Camino Del Rey – LOS E

Camino Del Rey and S. Mission Road – LOS F

S. Mission Road to Gird Road – LOS F

Gird Road to Old Highway 395 – LOS E

Old Highway 395 to the I-15 southbound ramp – LOS E

Couser Canyon Road and W. Pala Mission Road – LOS F

W. Pala Mission Road to E. Pala Mission Road – LOS E

E. Pala Mission Road to Lilac Road – LOS E

Adams Drive to Cole Grade Road – LOS E

SR 76 east of Couser Canyon Road was downgraded from a planned four-lane road to a two-lane

road with approval of the General Plan in 2011, as it was determined that widening the roadway

to four lanes would result in adverse environmental impacts and degradation of the physical

environment. With this, an approximately 2.2 miles stretch of SR 76 between Pala del Norte and

Sixth Street in Pala (which includes Warner Ranch) was accepted at LOS E/F in the General

Plan’s Mobility Element. The project would increase the stretch of SR 76 at LOS E/F from the

current 2.2 miles to 8.2 miles, and would therefore have to amend Table M-4 of the Mobility

Element to include the added 5.9-mile deficiency, as shown on Figure 2.11-2, Proposed Mobility

Element Network Amendment. With the addition of the project to the General Plan build-out

condition, the following roadway segments would operate at substandard LOS E or F (Table 6-2

of Appendix M):

N. River Road to Camino Del Rey. LOS F; and the project would add 528 ADT

Camino Del Rey and S. Mission Road. LOS F; and the project would add 594 ADT

S. Mission Road to Gird Road. LOS F; and the project would add 683 ADT

Gird Road to Old Highway 395. LOS E; and the project would add 773 ADT

Old Highway 395 to the I-15 southbound ramp. LOS F; and the project would add

855 ADT

Horse Ranch Creek Road to Rice Canyon Road. LOS E; and the project would add

4,069 ADT


December 2016 6653


Rice Canyon Road and Couser Canyon Road. LOS E; and the project would add 4,426 ADT

Couser Canyon Road and W. Pala Mission Road. LOS F; and the project would add

4,581 ADT

W. Pala Mission Road to E. Pala Mission Road. LOS F; and the project would add

594 ADT

E. Pala Mission Road to Lilac Road. LOS E; and the project would add 594 ADT

Adams Drive to Cole Grade Road. LOS E; and the project would add 363 ADT

The easternmost portion of SR 76 impacted by the project is Cole Grade Road which is 11 miles

east of Couser Canyon Road (Figure 2.11-1). This portion includes the impacted intersections of

SR 76/E. Pala Mission Road, SR 76/Lilac Road, and SR 76/Cole Grade Road. The project would

provide abutting improvements at the project frontage. However, this would not fully mitigate

the contribution to cumulative impacts. To fully alleviate the impacts, SR 76 would need to be

widened with two additional lanes for the length of the 8.2 miles of deficient highway and

possibly more to avoid traffic bottlenecks. However this road is not under the jurisdiction and

control of the County.

The planned classification of two lanes with LOS E/F acceptance is based on the County General

Plan land uses. Without the project’s proposed General Plan Amendment to accept the

deficiencies on SR 76, mitigation to four lanes would be appropriate, but there is no Caltrans’ or

Pala Reservation project funding or program currently in place for adding additional lanes or

other improvements to SR 76 in any part of this 11-mile section for the applicant to make a fair

share contribution or build.

The project would amend the Land Use Element to increase density on the project site, which

would generate more traffic than was included in the County’s General Plan forecast for the

roadway segments identified above. Several of these roadway segments would operate at LOS E

or F without the project at build-out of the General Plan. As noted above, the General Plan

accepts a 2.2 mile portion of SR 76 east of the project between Pala del Norte and Sixth Street in

Pala (which includes the frontage of Warner Ranch) to a LOS E/F in the General Plan’s Mobility

Element. The project would add additional traffic SR 76 that was not considered when the

Mobility Element was adopted. In particular, the project would increase the stretch of SR 76 that

would operate at LOS E/F from the current 2.2 miles to 8.2 miles. Therefore, if the project’s

Land Use density increases, the Mobility Element must also be amended to maintain the

correlation between the Land Use Element and Mobility Element. The 8.2 miles of SR 76 that

would be operating at a deficient operating capacity would require either an upgrade to the

designated roadway classifications or a determination that the further reduction in LOS at build-

out would be acceptable.


December 2016 6653


Pursuant to Mobility Element Policy 2.1, a lower LOS along specified roadways may be

acceptable as described above. The widening of segments of SR 76 to add travel lanes would

require considerable grading that would potentially result in impacts to sensitive biological, and

cultural resources. A biological resources and cultural resources memorandum were prepared to

assess the potential of a SR 76 road widening alignment project. The biological resources

memorandum indicates that the area surrounding the SR 76 segment is characterized by riverine

terrace with south-facing slopes. Based on regional MSCP mapping provided by SANDAG, the

area includes chaparral, disturbed land, grassland, marsh (freshwater), open water (natural flood

channel), oak woodland, and riparian woodland communities (Dudek 2007). The main natural

feature and resource is the San Luis Rey River and various tributary drainages north of the river.

The cultural resources background study, consisting of a record search and literature review,

concluded that ten cultural resources sites have been recorded within or adjacent to the SR 76

segment considered for widening (CA-SDI-683, CA-SDI-744, CA-SDI-12584, CA-SDI-13004,

CA-SDI-13007H, CA-SDI-13767, CA-SDI-13768, CA-SDI-13769, CA-SDI-14609 and P-37-

016051). Therefore, the adverse impacts of adding travel lanes may not justify the resulting

benefit of increased traffic capacity for the additional 5.9 miles of SR 76 that the project

proposes to add to the list of Mobility Element roads for which LOS E or F is acceptable as a

part of the project. The project would amend Table M-4 of the Mobility Element and thus would

be consistent with the Mobility Element of the General Plan.

2.11.3 Cumulative Impacts

The Traffic Impact Study (Appendix M) utilized the SANDAG Series 11 Year 2030 traffic

forecast model, which assumes buildout of each parcel to its General Plan land use. Additionally,

the analysis assumes any project requiring a General Plan Amendment within the study area is

approved and implemented, and that all five casinos are built out to their ultimate density (Table

2.11-11, Cumulative Projects – General Plan Amendments and Casinos). Of these projects, the

Meadowood Project is estimated to generate 8,740 trips, and the Campus Park Project is

estimated to generate 19,941 trips. Planned improvements required to be built by these projects

at the intersections of SR 76/Pankey Road and SR 76/Horse Ranch Creek Road associated with

cumulative projects are assumed.


Guidelines for Significance

Guidelines for significance of impacts to roadways are the same for direct impacts and for

cumulative impacts. Guidelines for significance of impacts to roadways are provided in Section

2.11.2.3, Hazards and Alternative Transportation.


December 2016 6653


Analysis

Tables 2.11-6 and 2.11-12 (Summary of Mitigated Roadway Segments – Cumulative

Conditions) contain information on the roadway segments identified in the study area, including

the scenario of Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative traffic. Three significant impacts to

roadway segments would result:

Impact TR-11 SR 76 from west of E. Vista Way to N. River Road

Impact TR-12 SR 76 from N. River Road to Camino Del Rey

Impact TR-13 SR 76 from Camino Del Rey to S. Mission Road

Under the Existing Plus Cumulative Conditions the LOS remains at F, but the v/c ratio worsens.

Under the Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative Conditions, the LOS remains at F, but the v/c

ratio further worsens (Tables 2.11-6 and 2.11-12) and are considered significant impacts. These

are discussed together because they are contiguous roadway segments (Figure 2.11-1) and all

would include the same mitigation measure.

Impact TR-14 SR 76 from S. Mission Road to Gird Road

Impact TR-15 SR 76 from Gird Road to Old Highway 395

Impact TR-16 SR 76 from Old Highway 395 to the I-15 southbound ramps

Impact TR-17 SR 76 from the I-15 southbound ramps to the I-15 northbound ramps

This portion of SR 76 is located west of I-15. Under the Existing Plus Cumulative scenario, these

roadway segments would operate at LOS F. They would continue at LOS F under the Existing

Plus Project Plus Cumulative scenario, with worsened v/c ratios (Tables 2.11-6 and 2.11-12).

These are considered significant impacts. These are contiguous roadway segments and would

all include the same mitigation measure.

Impact TR-18 SR 76 between Horse Ranch Creek Road and Rice Canyon Road

Impact TR-19 SR 76 between Rice Canyon Road and Couser Canyon Road

This portion of SR 76 is east of I-15. All of these segments function at LOS C under the existing

conditions, but are reduced to LOS F under the Existing Plus Cumulative scenario. The segments

remain at LOS F under the Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative scenario, with worsened v/c

ratios (Tables 2.11-6 and 2.11-12). These are considered significant impacts. These are

contiguous roadway segments and would include the same mitigation measure.


December 2016 6653


Impact TR-20 SR 76 between Couser Canyon Road and W. Pala Mission

Impact TR-21 SR 76 from W. Pala Mission Road to E. Pala Mission Road

Impact TR-22 SR 76 from E. Pala Mission Road to Lilac Road

Impact TR-23 SR 76 from Lilac Road to Adams Drive

Impact TR-24 SR 76 from Adams Drive to Cole Grade Road

The project’s contribution to existing cumulative impacts to the roadway segments listed above

would be cumulatively considerable.



Guidelines for significance of impacts to intersections are the same for direct impacts and for

cumulative impacts. Guidelines for significance of impacts to intersections are provided in

Section 2.11.2.4, Mobility Element.

Analysis

Tables 2.11-8, 2.11-9, and 2.11-13 (Summary of Mitigated Intersections – Cumulative

Conditions) provide a summary of intersection performance during the AM and PM Peak Hours,

for Existing Conditions Plus the Project Plus Cumulative Impacts. Thirteen intersections would

experience significant impacts as defined above:

Impact TR-24 SR 76/E. Vista Way (existing LOS F in the AM Peak Hour and LOS E in the

PM Peak Hour)

Impact TR-25 SR 76/N. River Road (existing LOS C both Peak Hours)

Impact TR-26 SR 76/Camino Del Rey (existing LOS D both Peak Hours)

These intersections are located on the portion of SR 76 west of I-15. All would function at LOS

F in both Peak Hour periods under both the Existing Plus Cumulative and Existing Plus Project

Plus Cumulative scenarios. The v/c ratios and change in ADT further worsen under the Existing

Plus Project Plus Cumulative scenario (Tables 2.11-8, 2.11-9, and 2.11-13). These are considered

significant impacts. These three intersections would include the same mitigation measure.

Impact TR-27 SR 76/S. Mission Road (existing LOS C in both Peak Hours)


December 2016 6653


Impact TR-28 SR 76/Gird Road (existing LOS B in both Peak Hours)

Impact TR-29 SR 76/Old Highway 395 (existing LOS C in both Peak Hours)

These intersections are located on the portion of SR 76 west of I-15 and crossing I-15. All would

function at LOS F in both Peak Hour periods under both the Existing Plus Cumulative and

Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative scenarios. The v/c ratios and change in ADT further

worsen under the Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative scenario (Tables 2.11-8, 2.11-9, and

2.11-13). These are considered significant impacts. These three intersections would include the

same mitigation measure.

Impact TR-30 SR 76/I-15 southbound ramps (LOS C in the AM Peak Hour, LOS E in the

PM Peak Hour under Existing Conditions)

Impact TR-31 SR 76/I-15 northbound ramps (LOS C in the AM Peak Hour, LOS D in the

PM Peak Hour under Existing Conditions)

All of the intersections with the ramps would function at LOS F in both Peak Hour periods under

both the Existing Plus Cumulative and Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative scenarios. The v/c

ratios and change in ADT further worsen under the Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative

scenario (Tables 2.11-8, 2.11-9, and 2.11-13). These are considered significant impacts. The

impacts at SR 76 and all the ramps are identified together as they have the same proposed

mitigation approach.

Impact TR-32 SR 76/Rice Canyon Road (existing LOS B both Peak Hours)

Impact TR-33 SR 76/Couser Canyon Road (existing LOS B both Peak Hours)

Both of these intersections would function at LOS F in both Peak Hour periods under both the

Existing Plus Cumulative and Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative scenarios. The v/c ratios

and change in ADT further worsen under the Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative scenario,

with the intersection of SR 76/Rice Canyon Road rated as “overflow” (Tables 2.11-8, 2.11-9, and

2.11-13). These intersections are located on the portion of SR 76 east of I-15. These are

considered significant impacts. These intersections would include the same mitigation measure.

Impact TR-34 SR 76/E. Pala Mission Road (LOS B in the AM Peak Hour, LOS C in the PM

Peak Hour under Existing Conditions). During the AM Peak Hour period, SR

76/E. Pala Mission Road would operate at LOS D under the Existing Plus

Cumulative scenario, and at LOS E under the Existing Plus Project Plus

Cumulative scenario.


December 2016 6653


Impact TR-35 SR 76/Lilac Road (existing LOS B both peak periods). The intersection of SR

76/Lilac Road would operate at LOS D under either Existing Plus Cumulative

scenario or the Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative in the AM Peak Hour.

Impact TR-36 SR 76/Cole Grade Road (existing LOS C in both Peak Hours). The

intersection of SR 76/Cole Grade Road would operate at LOS F under either

the Existing Plus Cumulative scenario or the Existing Plus Project Plus

Cumulative scenario in the AM Peak Hour.

These intersections are located on the portion of SR 76 east of I-15. During the PM Peak Hour,

all three intersections would function at LOS F under both the Existing Plus Cumulative and

Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative scenarios. The v/c ratios and change in ADT further

worsen under the Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative scenario (Tables 2.11-8, 2.11-9, and

2.11-13). These are considered significant impacts.

The project’s contribution to existing cumulative impacts to the intersections listed above would

be cumulatively considerable (Appendix M).

2.11.4 Significance of Impacts Prior to Mitigation

2.11.4.1 Direct Impacts

SR 76 Under the Existing Plus Project condition, the project would have a significant direct

impact on the following Roadway segments:

SR 76 from west of E. Vista Way to N. River Road (Impact TR-1)

SR 76 from N. River Road to Camino Del Rey (Impact TR-2)

SR 76 from Camino Del Rey to S. Mission Road (Impact TR-3)

SR 76 from S. Mission Road to Gird Road (Impact TR-4)

SR 76 from Gird Road to Old Highway 395 (Impact TR-5)

SR 76 crossing of I-15, between the freeway ramps. (Impact TR-6)

Four intersections with SR 76 would be significantly impacted.

SR 76 intersection with E. Vista Way (Impact TR-7)

SR 76 intersection at the I-15 southbound ramps (Impact TR-8)

SR 76 intersection at the I-15 northbound ramps. (Impact TR-9)

SR 76 intersection with project entry (Impact TR-10)


December 2016 6653


2.11.4.2 Cumulative Impacts

The project’s contribution to existing cumulative impacts to the following roadway segments of

SR 76 would be cumulatively considerable:

SR 76 from E. Vista Way to N. River Road (Impact TR-11)


SR 76 between Camino Del Rey and S. Mission Road (Impact TR-13)



SR 76 from Old Highway 395 to the I-15 southbound ramp (Impact TR-16)

SR 76 between the I-15 ramps (Impact TR-17)

SR 76 between the I-15 NB ramp to Pankey Road (Impact TR-18)

SR 76 between Horse Ranch Creek Road and Rice Canyon Road (Impact TR-19)

SR 76 between Rice Canyon Road and Couser Canyon Road (Impact TR-120)

SR 76 between Couser Canyon Road and W. Pala Mission Road (Impact TR-21)

SR 76 from W. Pala Mission Road to E. Pala Mission Road (Impact TR-22)

SR 76 from E. Pala Mission Road to Lilac Road (Impact TR-23)

SR 76 from Lilac Road to Adams Drive (Impact TR-24)

SR 76 from Adams Drive to Cole Grade Road (Impact TR-25)

The project’s contribution to existing cumulative impacts to the following thirteen intersections

with SR 76 would be cumulatively considerable:

SR 76/E. Vista Way (Impact TR-26)

SR 76/N. River Road (Impact TR-27)

SR 76/Camino Del Rey (Impact TR-28)

SR 76/S. Mission Road (Impact TR-29)

SR 76/Gird Road (Impact TR-30)

SR 76/Old Highway 395 (Impact TR-31)


December 2016 6653


Two intersections are located at I-15:

SR 76/I-15 southbound ramps (Impact TR-32)

SR 76/I-15 northbound ramps (Impact TR-33)

Five of the intersections with SR 76 are east of I-15:

SR 76/Rice Canyon Road (Impact TR-34)

SR 76/Couser Canyon Road (Impact TR-35)

SR 76/E. Pala Mission Road (Impact TR-36)

SR 76/Lilac Road (Impact TR-37)

SR 76/Cole Grade Road (Impact TR-38)

2.11.5 Mitigation

2.11.5.1 Direct Impacts Mitigation

Roadway Segments

The following mitigation measure M-TR-1 reduced direct roadway segment impacts on SR 76

from E. Vista Way to S. Mission Road (Impacts TR-1 through TR-3).

M-TR-1 Implementation of the Caltrans SR 76 Middle Project, which widened SR 76

from two lanes to four lanes between Melrose Drive on the west to S.

Mission Road.

The Caltrans SR 76 Middle Project was completed in 2012 as a four-lane facility with right-of-

way and grading to accommodate a possible future widening (TransNet 2016); see Figure 2.11-3,

Direct Impact Locations, for location. Impacts TR-1 through TR-3 have been mitigated to less

than significant by improving the LOS to an acceptable level.

The following mitigation measure M-TR-2 reduced direct roadway segment impacts on SR 76

from S. Mission Road to the I-15 northbound ramp (Impacts TR-4 through TR-6).

M-TR-2 Implementation of the Caltrans SR 76 East Project, which will widen SR 76 from

two lanes to four lanes between S. Mission Road and I-15.

Caltrans has begun construction of the SR 76 East Project which will widen and realign SR 76 to

a four-lane highway from just east of South Mission Road to the newly improved SR 76/I-15

interchange (TransNet SR 76 Widening) (Caltrans 2015b). The timeframe for construction of the


December 2016 6653


Warner Ranch project begins in 2016 and ends in 2021, while the SR 76 East Project

improvements are expected to be completed by 2017. The SR 76 East Project is the last of the

projects on this major link between Interstate 5 and I-15 and will complete one of the high-

priority transportation projects included in the region’s TransNet Early Action Program. Once

the SR 76 East project is completed, the LOS to this segment will be acceptable. However, until

the Caltrans project is completed, the impact will remain significant unavoidable because the

improvement, necessary to reduce the significant impact, is the responsibility of another

jurisdiction. If a component of the project is occupied before Caltrans completes the SR 76 East

project, the Proposed Project would result in a temporary (short-term), unmitigated impact to

those certain segments of SR 76 identified as Impact TR-4 through Impact TR-5, until such time

as Caltrans completes the SR 76 East project. If the ongoing SR 76 East widening is completed

prior to Project implementation, no significant direct temporary Project impacts would occur. As

explained above, the SR 76 East project is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another

government agency and is outside the jurisdiction of the County. Since CEQA does not clearly

define the level to which a significant impact must be mitigated before a statement of overriding

considerations become unnecessary and because the SR 76 East project is within the jurisdiction

of another agency, this EIR has taken the cautious approach of adopting such a statement for

Impacts TR-4 through Impact TR-6.

Intersections

Impacts to the intersection of SR 76/E. Vista Way (Impact TR-7) are mitigated through

implementation of M-TR-1. Impact TR-7 has been mitigated to less than significant by

improving the LOS to an acceptable level.

Impacts to the following intersections are reduced through implementation of M-TR-3:

SR 76 / I-15 SB Ramp (Impact TR-8)

SR 76 / I-15 NB Ramp (Impact TR-9)

M-TR-3 Implementation of the Caltrans SR 76 East Project to reconfigure the SR 76/

I-15 interchange.

The Caltrans SR 76 East Project relative to reconfiguring the SR 76/I-15 interchange has been

completed; therefore, Impacts TR-8 and TR-9 are mitigated to less than significant by

improving the LOS to an acceptable level.

The impact at the SR 76/project entry intersection (Impact TR-10) will be reduced through

implementation of M-TR-4.


December 2016 6653


M-TR-4 Improve the project frontage and channelized/signalize the main public entrance

intersection on SR 76 so that there are dual left turns for eastbound to northbound

movements and a deceleration lane for westbound to northbound traffic.

The project would mitigate Impact TR-10 by improving the operation of the SR 76 facility at

the project entry location to less than significant. A Traffic Signal Warrant worksheet is

attached to Appendix M.

Table 2.11-14, Direct Impacts and Mitigation Measures, summarizes direct impacts and

mitigation measures for the roadway segments and intersections.

2.11.5.2 Cumulative Impacts Mitigation

Roadway Segments

The following cumulatively impacted segments would be reduced through implementation of the

following mitigation measure; however, it has been determined to be infeasible.:

SR 76 from E. Vista Way to N. River Road (Impact TR-11)


SR 76 between Camino Del Rey and S. Mission Road (Impact TR-13)

Infeasible Mitigation Measure: Construct identified roadway segments of SR 76 to a six-

lane Expressway classification.

While improvement of this segment to a six-lane Expressway classification would mitigate the

project impact, such mitigation is infeasible. A commitment to funding under the TIF or from

another source has not been identified for construction of a six-lane Expressway needed to

mitigate the cumulative impact identified; therefore this portion would remain at four lanes.

The Caltrans SR 76 Middle Project has been completed in which this portion of SR 76 has been

widened from two to four lanes. However, the Circulation Element of the General Plan identified

this improvement as a six-lane Expressway in order to accommodate the build out of the General

Plan. The project would amend the Land Use Element to increase density on the project site,

which would generate more traffic than was included in the County’s General Plan forecast for

the roadway segments identified above. The proposed project contributes approximately 1.4, 1.9

and 1.8 percent, of the total trips respectively, to these road segments in the cumulative traffic

condition. Since improvements to SR 76 is the responsibility of another jurisdiction (Caltrans),

and no program is available to which the applicant could make a fair-share contribution, no


December 2016 6653


feasible mitigation measures are available and the cumulative Impacts TR-11 through TR-13

would remain significant and unavoidable.

In addition, imposing this widening on the project would be infeasible because the mitigation

would not be proportional to the project’s proportional share of the impact. The proposed project

contributes approximately 1.4 to 1.9 percent of the total trips to this road segment in the

cumulative traffic condition. The cost of improving this road segment (approximately 2.9 miles)

would be $20,581,300 million (equivalent to $7,097,000/mile) according to the County of San

Diego TIF Update Facilities Cost Analysis (2012). The project’s small contribution to the

cumulative condition would not be roughly proportional to the cost of mitigation of improving

these roadway segments of SR 76. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(4)(B),

mitigation measures must be roughly proportional to the environmental impacts caused by the

project. Therefore, because the project’s contribution to the cumulative traffic condition is not

roughly proportional to the improvements required to mitigate the impact, conditioning this

project to construct the road improvements is not feasible under CEQA, and the cumulative

impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

The following cumulatively impacted segments would be reduced through implementation of

mitigation measure M-TR-2:



SR 76 from Old Highway 395 to the I-15 southbound ramp (Impact TR-16)

SR 76 between the I-15 ramps (Impact TR-17)

These cumulative impacts would be reduced through implementation of mitigation measure M-

TR-2, but not to less than significant. Cumulative Impacts TR-14 through TR-17 would remain

significant and unavoidable, because if a component of the project is occupied before Caltrans

completes the SR 76 East project, the proposed project would result in a temporary (short-term),

unmitigated impact to those certain segments of SR 76 identified as Impact TR-14 through Impact

TR-16, until such time as Caltrans completes the SR 76 East project. If the ongoing SR 76 East

widening is completed prior to project implementation, no significant cumulative impacts would

occur. As explained above, the SR 76 East project is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of

another government agency and is outside the jurisdiction of the County. Since CEQA does not

clearly define the level to which a significant impact must be mitigated before a statement of

overriding considerations become unnecessary, this EIR has taken the cautious approach of

adopting such a statement for Impacts TR-14 through Impact TR-16.


December 2016 6653


The following cumulatively impacted segments would be reduced to less than significant through

implementation of the following mitigation measure; however, it has been determined to be

infeasible.SR 76 between I-15 NB ramp to Pankey Road (Impact TR-18)

Infeasible Mitigation Measure: Reclassify this segment to six lanes and construct

additional lanes which would increase the its capacity.?

The roadway has already been improved to more than 4 lanes along portions of this length and

further widening is not appropriate since the intersections at each end are operating adequately.

The intersections are more indicative of whether the corridor has capacity. Nonetheless, since

improvements to SR 76 is the responsibility of another jurisdiction (Caltrans), and no

program is available to which the applicant could make a fair-share contribution, no feasible

mitigation measures are available and Impact TR-18 would remain cumulatively significant

and unavoidable.

The following cumulatively impacted segments would be reduced to less than significant

through implementation of mitigation measure M-TR-5:

SR 76 between Horse Ranch Creek Road and Rice Canyon Road (Impact TR-19)

SR 76 between Rice Canyon Road and Couser Canyon Road (Impact TR-20)

M-TR-5 Prior to issuance of any building permit for new structures within the project, the

applicant, or its designee, shall pay all applicable fees to the TIF Program, which

should be updated to include the changes to the Land Use and Mobility Elements

proposed by the project.

The TIF Program was specifically designed to address cumulative impacts. The TIF Program

includes road improvements required to provide adequate circulation through Year 2030.

Required improvements are specified and funds are collected from projects to pay for the road

improvements. Since the TIF Program was designed to address cumulative traffic impacts,

participation in the TIF Program constitutes effective and adequate mitigation for cumulative

traffic impacts. These identified roadway segments are included in the TIF and payment of the

TIF fees would mitigate the cumulative impact. Therefore, payment of TIF fees would reduce the

cumulative impacts to TR-19 through TR-20 to less than significant.

The following cumulatively impacted segments would be reduced through implementation of

mitigation measure M-TR-6:

SR 76 between Couser Canyon Road and W. Pala Mission Road (Impact TR-21)

SR 76 from W. Pala Mission Road to E. Pala Mission Road (Impact TR-22)

SR 76 from E. Pala Mission Road to Lilac Road (Impact TR-23)


December 2016 6653


SR 76 from Lilac Road to Adams Drive (Impact TR-24)

SR 76 from Adams Drive to Cole Grade Road (Impact TR-25)

M-TR-6 Design and construct improvements at the intersection of SR 76 with Cole Grade

Road to the satisfaction of Caltrans (either a signal or roundabout as determined

through a review under the I.C.E. Policy).

These cumulative impacts would be reduced through implementation of mitigation measure

M-TR-6, but not to less than significant. The portions of SR 76 described above (M-TR-21

through M-TR-25) are designated under the County’s General Plan Circulation Element as a two

lane collector. Expansion of the roadway to four lanes would be needed to mitigate the

cumulative impacts but such improvements are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans and are outside

of the jurisdiction and control of the County. County staff coordinated with Caltrans, and

Caltrans confirmed that it has no project, funding, or program to make the necessary

improvements to which the applicant can make a fair-share contribution.

In addition, mitigation measures would be infeasible for Impacts TR-22 through TR-25 because;

the mitigation would not be proportional to the project’s proportional share of the impact. The

proposed project contributes approximately 12 percent of total trips along SR 76 between Couser

Canyon Road and W. Pala Mission Road (Impact TR21), 6 percent of the total trips along SR

76 between W. Pala Mission Road and E. Pala Mission Road (Impact TR-22), 2 percent of the

total trips along SR 76 from E. Pala Mission Road to Lilac Road (Impact TR-23), 2 percent of

the total trips along SR 76 between Lilac Road and Adams Drive (Impact TR-24) and 1 percent

of the total trips along SR 76 from between Adams Drive and Cole Grade Road (Impact TR-

25); see Table 2.11-15, Project Traffic Percentages. The cost of improving this portion of SR 76

would be $41,872 million (equivalent to $7,097,000/mile) according to the County of San Diego

TIF Update Facilities Cost Analysis (2012). The project’s contribution to the cumulative

condition would not be roughly proportional to the cost of mitigation of improving these

roadway segments of SR 76. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(4)(B), mitigation

measures must be roughly proportional to the environmental impacts caused by the project.

Therefore, because improvements necessary to reduce significant cumulative impacts are the

responsibility of another jurisdiction, and no program is available to which the applicant could

contribute, mitigation is infeasible. Furthermore, the improvements required to mitigate impacts

to the majority of the segments to SR 76 would not be roughly proportional to the project’s

contribution to the cumulative effect and conditioning this project to construct the road

improvements is yet another reason that mitigation is not feasible under CEQA. Therefore,

cumulative impacts TR-21 through TR-25 will remain significant and unavoidable.


December 2016 6653


Intersections

The following cumulatively impacted intersections would be reduced through implementation of

infeasible mitigation measure identified above: construct identified roadway segments to 6 lanes.:

SR 76/E. Vista Way (Impact TR-26)

SR 76/N. River Road (Impact TR-27)

SR 76/Camino Del Rey (Impact TR-28)

While improvement of this segment to a six-lane Expressway classification would mitigate the

project impact, such mitigation is infeasible. A commitment to funding under the TIF or from

another source has not been identified for construction of a six-lane Prime Arterial needed to

mitigate the cumulative impact identified; therefore this portion would remain at four lanes.

Therefore, Impacts TR-26 though TR-28 and would remain significant and unavoidable.

Impacts to the following intersections would be reduced through implementation of mitigation

measure M-TR-2, but not to a level below significance because, as previously described, the

mitigation measure calls for completion of SR 76 East project, which is within the responsibility

and jurisdiction of another government agency and is outside the jurisdiction of the County.

Until the improvements are complete, Impacts TR-29 through TR-31 would remain significant

and unavoidable until completion of the SR 76 East project.

SR 76/S. Mission Road (Impact TR-29)

SR 76/Gird Road (Impact TR-30)

SR 76/Old Highway 395 (Impact TR-31)

The following cumulatively impacted intersections would be reduced to less than significant


SR 76/I-15 southbound ramps (Impact TR-32)

SR 76 / I-15 northbound ramps (Impact TR-33)

M-TR-7 Although the interchange is now improved; developer has agreed to make a fair-

share contribution of up to 12.3 percent (see Table 8-3) of the unfunded cost of

approximately $10M based upon Caltrans formula for calculating fair share as set

forth in the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Studies.

Caltrans has determined that the contribution will mitigate the Impacts TR-32 and TR-33 to less

than significant by reducing the effect of the project’s contribution of cumulative traffic to an

acceptable level.


December 2016 6653


The following cumulatively impacted intersections would be reduced to less than significant


SR 76/Rice Canyon Road (Impact TR-34)

SR 76/Couser Canyon Road (Impact TR-35)

SR 76 intersections with Rice Canyon and Couser Canyon Roads are included in the TIF

and payment of the TIF fees mitigates the cumulative contribution of the project to less

than significant.

One of the following three cumulatively impacted intersections would be reduced to less than

significant through implementation of mitigation measure M-TR-6, as further described below:

SR 76/E Pala Mission Road (Impact TR-36)

SR 76/Lilac Road (Impact TR-37)

SR 76/Cole Grade Road (Impact TR-38)

These cumulative impacts would be reduced through implementation of mitigation measure M-

TR-6 because a series of meetings with the County, Caltrans, and the applicant were held to

develop feasible and commensurate mitigation. Based on these, the project will design and

construct the needed improvements to the intersection of SR 76 / Cole Grade Road, to include

channelization and signalization (M-TR-6). The improvements to the intersection of SR 76 /

Cole Grade Road and the improvements to the project frontage (M-TR-4) will improve traffic

flow and safety at the improvement location and on the surrounding portions of SR 76. However,

even with these mitigation measures, cumulative impacts TR-36 and TR-37 will remain

significant and unavoidable because the LOS will not be reduced to an acceptable level.

Mitigation measure M-TR-6 would, however, reduce the LOS impacts to the SR 76/Cole Grade

Road intersection (Impact TR-38) to less than significant.

Tables 2.11-16, Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures—Roadway Segments, and

2.11-17, Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures—Intersections, summarize cumulative

impacts and mitigation measures for roadway segments and intersections, respectively.

2.11.6 Conclusions

The following discussion provides the significance conclusion reached after application of the

mitigation measures in each of the above impact analyses, and the level of impact that would

result after implementation of the project with mitigation. Where mitigation measures do not

reduce impacts to less than significant, this section focuses on the feasibility of mitigating the

impacts. All project traffic impacts requiring mitigation are associated with SR 76, all roadway


December 2016 6653


segments requiring mitigation are SR 76 segments, and all intersections requiring mitigation are

intersections involving SR 76.

2.11.6.1 Direct Impacts

Direct impacts are shown on Figure 2.11-3.

Roadways

Mitigation measure M-TR-1 would reduce direct roadway segment impacts on SR 76 from E.

Vista Way to S. Mission Road (Impact TR-1 through TR-3). The Caltrans SR 76 Middle

Project was completed in 2012 as a four-lane facility with right-of-way and grading to

accommodate a possible future widening.

Mitigation measure M-TR-2 would reduce direct roadway segment impacts on SR 76 from

S. Mission Road to the I-15 northbound ramp (Impacts TR-4 through TR-6). Caltrans is

currently constructing the SR 76 East Project which will widen and realign SR 76 to a four-

lane highway from just east of South Mission Road to the newly improved SR 76/I-15

interchange. However, until this project is completed the impact will remain significant

unavoidable because the improvement, necessary to reduce the significant impact, is the

responsibility of another jurisdiction (Caltrans).

Intersections

Impacts to the intersection of SR 76/E. Vista Way (Impact TR-7) are mitigated through

implementation of M-TR-1. The Caltrans SR 76 East Project relative to reconfiguring the SR

76/I-15 interchange has been completed and therefore impacts TR-8 and TR-9 are mitigated to

less than significant (M-TR-3). Impacts to the SR 76/project entry intersection (Impact TR-10)

would be reduced to less than significant through implementation of M-TR-4.

2.11.6.2 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts are shown on Figure 2.11-4, Cumulative Impact Locations.

Roadways

Cumulative impacts to SR 76 from E. Vista Way to S. Mission Road (Impacts TR-11 through

TR-13) would be reduced through implementation of migration measure M-TR-5. While

improvement of this segment to a six-lane Expressway classification would mitigate the project

impact, such mitigation is infeasible. A commitment to funding has not been identified for

construction of a six-lane Prime Arterial needed to mitigate the cumulative impact identified;

therefore, this portion would remain at four lanes. Impacts TR-11 through TR-13 would remain

significant and unavoidable.


December 2016 6653


Impacts to SR 76 from S. Mission Road to the I-15 ramps (Impacts TR-14 through TR-17) would

be reduced through implementation of mitigation measure M-TR-2, but not to a level below

significance. Impacts TR-14 through TR-17 would remain significant and unavoidable.

Impacts to SR 76 from the I-15 northbound ramps to Pankey Road (Impact TR-18) could be

reduced to less than significant through reclassifying the segment to a higher capacity to match

configuration and the construction of additional lanes along this length. However, the roadway

has already been improved and further widening is not appropriate since the intersections at each

end are operating adequately and more than 4 lanes have been built along portions of this length.

In any event, said improvement to SR 76 is the responsibility of another jurisdiction

(Caltrans), and no program is available to which the applicant could make a fair-share

contribution, no feasible mitigation measures are available and Impact TR-18 would remain

cumulatively significant and unavoidable.

Impacts to SR 76 from Horse Ranch Creek Road to Couser Canyon Road (Impacts TR-19

through TR-20) would be reduced to less than significant through implementation of mitigation

measure M-TR-5. These identified roadway segments are included in the TIF and payment of

the TIF fees would mitigate the cumulative impact.

Cumulative impacts to SR 76 from Couser Canyon Road to Cole Grade Road (Impacts TR-21

through TR-25) would be reduced through implementation of mitigation measure M-TR-6, but not

to a level less than significant. Because the improvements necessary to reduce significant cumulative

impacts to a level less than significant are the responsibility of another jurisdiction, and no program is

available to which the applicant could contribute, mitigation is infeasible. Therefore, cumulative

impacts TR-21 through TR-25 will remain significant and unavoidable.

Intersections

For reasons described above for direct Impact TR-26 through Impact TR-28, constructing

identified roadway segments to 6 lanes is an infeasible mitigation measure. A commitment to

funding under the TIF or from another source has not been identified for construction of a six-

lane Prime Arterial needed to mitigate the cumulative impact identified; therefore this portion

would remain at four lanes. There are no feasible mitigation measures to fully mitigate Impacts

TR-25 though TR-27 and therefore they would remain significant and unavoidable.

Impacts to SR 76/S. Mission Road, SR 76/Gird Road, and SR 76/Old Highway 395 (Impact

TR-29 through Impact TR-31) would be reduced through implementation of mitigation measure

M-TR-2, but as previously described, the mitigation measure calls for completion of SR 76 East

project, which is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another government agency and is

outside the jurisdiction of the County. Until the improvements are complete, Impacts TR-29

through TR-31 would remain significant and unavoidable.


December 2016 6653


Caltrans has determined that the fair share contribution will mitigate (M-TR-7) the impacts

to SR 76 at the north and southbound I-15 ramps (TR-32 and TR-33) to less than significant

by reducing the effect of the project’s traffic to an acceptable level. See Table 2.11-18, Fair

Share Percentages.

Impacts to SR 76/Rice Canyon Road (Impact TR-34) and SR 76/Couser Canyon Road (Impact

TR-35) would be reduced to less than significant through implementation of mitigation measure

M-TR-5, as described above.

The improvements to the intersection of SR 76 / Cole Grade Road (M-TR-6) and the

improvements to the project frontage (M-TR-4) will improve traffic flow and safety at the

intersections of SR 76/E Pala Mission Road (Impact TR-36), SR 76/Lilac Road (Impact

TR-37) and SR 76/Cole Grade Road (Impact TR-38). Even with these mitigation measures,

cumulative impacts TR-36 and TR-37 will remain significant and unavoidable; however,

(Impact TR-38) would be reduce to less than significant.

Table 2.11-1a

Roadway Segment Level of Service Definitions

LOS V/C Congestion/Delay Traffic Description

(Used for surface streets, freeways, expressways and conventional highways)

“A” <0.41 None Free flow.

“B” >0.41-0.62 None Free to stable flow, light to moderate volumes.

“C” >0.62-0.80 None to minimal Stable flow, moderate volumes, freedom to maneuver noticeably restricted.

“D” >0.80-0.92 Minimal to substantial Approaches unstable flow, heavy volumes, very limited freedom to maneuver.

“E” >0.92-1.00 Significant Extremely unstable flow, maneuverability and psychological comfort extremely poor.

(Used for surface streets and conventional highways)

“F” >1.00 Considerable Forced or breakdown flow. Delay measured in average travel speed (MPH). Signalized segments experience delays >60.0 seconds/vehicle.

(Used for freeways and expressways)

“F(0)” >1.00-1.25 Considerable

0-1 hour delay

Forced flow, heavy congestion, long queues form behind breakdown points, stop and go.

“F(1)” >1.25-1.35 Severe

1-2 hour delay

Very heavy congestion, very long queues.

“F(2)” >1.35-1.45 Very Severe

2-3 hour delay

Extremely heavy congestion, longer queues, more numerous breakdown points, longer stop periods.

“F(3)” >1.45 Extremely Severe

3+ hours of delay

Gridlock

Source: Appendix M.


December 2016 6653


Table 2.11-1b

SANTEC/ITE Measure of Significant Project Traffic Impacts

Level of Service (LOS) with Project Allowable Change Due to Project

E & F (or ramp meter delays above 15

min.) Freeways Roadway Segments

Signalized Intersections Ramp Metering

V/C Speed (mph) V/C Speed (mph) Delay (sec) Delay (min.)

0.01 1 0.02 1 2 2

Source: County of San Diego 2011.

Table 2.11-2

Signalized Intersection Level of Service

Control Stopped Delay Per Vehicle (seconds) Level of Service (LOS) Characteristics

<10 LOS A describes operations with very low delay. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.

>10 – 20 LOS B describes operations with generally good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.

>20 – 35 LOS C describes operations with higher delays, which may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping.

>35 – 55 LOS D describes operations with high delay, resulting from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volumes. The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable, and individual cycle failures are noticeable.

>55 – 80 LOS E is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.

>80 LOS F describes a condition of excessively high delay, considered unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay.

Source: Appendix M.

Table 2.11-3

Project Trip Generation

Land Use Intensity Unit Rate/Trips Daily Trips

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Total In Out Total In Out

Single Family (3–6 DU/acre)

534 dwelling unit

Rate 10 8% 30% 70% 10% 70% 30%

Trips 5,340 428 129 300 534 374 161

Condominium (6–20 DU/acre)

246 dwelling unit

Rate 8 8% 20% 80% 10% 70% 30%

Trips 1,968 158 32 127 197 138 60

Developed Park 4.23 acre Rate 50 13% 50% 50% 9% 50% 50%

Trips 212 28 14 14 20 10 10


December 2016 6653


Table 2.11-3

Project Trip Generation

Land Use Intensity Unit Rate/Trips Daily Trips

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Total In Out Total In Out

Fire Station 1 Station Rate 50 8% 60% 40% 10% 40% 60%

Trips 50 4 3 2 5 2 3

Totals 7,570 618 178 443 756 524 234

Source: Appendix M. DU/acre = dwelling units per acre.

Table 2.11-4

Measures of Significant Project Impacts to Congestion: Allowable Increases On Two-Lane

Highways with Signalized Intersection Spacing over 1 Mile

Level of Service LOS Criteria Impact Significance Level

LOS E > 16,200 ADT > 325 ADT

LOS F > 22,900 ADT > 225 ADT

Source: San Diego County 2011. Note: Where detailed data are available, the Director of Public Works may also accept a detailed level of service analysis based upon the two-lane highway analysis procedures provided in the Chapter 20 Highway Capacity Manual.

Table 2.11-5

Measures of Significant Project Impacts to Congestion: Allowable Increases on Two-Lane

Highways with Signalized Intersection Spacing under 1 Mile

Level of Service LOS Criteria

LOS E Intersection delay of 2 seconds

LOS F Intersection delay of 1 second, or 5 peak hour trips on a critical movement

Source: San Diego County 2011. Notes: 1. A critical movement is one that is experiencing excessive queues. 2. By adding proposed project trips to all other trips from a list of projects, this same table is used to determine if total cumulative impacts

are significant. If cumulative impacts are found to be significant, each project that contributes any trips must mitigate its share of the cumulative impacts.

3. The County may also determine impacts have occurred on roads even when a project’s traffic or cumulative impacts do not trigger an unacceptable level of service, when such traffic uses a significant amount of remaining road capacity.

Table 2.11-6

Summary of Roadway Segment Conditions

Roadway Segment Lanes/ Class*

LOS E Capacity

Existing Existing + Project

Traffic v/cADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS

State Route 76

E. Vista Way to N. River Road 2SR 22,900 28,805 1.258 F 29,207 1.275 F 402 0.018

N. River Road to Camino Del Rey

2SR 22,900 39,736 1.735 F 40,274 1.759 F 538 0.023


December 2016 6653


Table 2.11-6

Summary of Roadway Segment Conditions

Roadway Segment Lanes/ Class*

LOS E Capacity

Existing Existing + Project

Traffic v/cADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS

Camino Del Rey to S. Mission Road

2SR 22,900 39,316 1.717 F 39,922 1.743 F 606 0.026

S. Mission Road to Gird Road 2SR 22,900 26,752 1.168 F 27,448 1.199 F 696 0.030

Gird Road to Old Hwy 395 2SR 22,900 23,789 1.039 F 24,577 1.073 F 788 0.034

Old Hwy 395 to I-15 SB Ramp 4C 34,200 29,407 0.860 D 30,279 0.885 D 872 0.025

I-15 SB Ramp to I-15 NB Ramp 2SR 22,900 19,359 0.845 E 21,176 0.925 E 1,817 0.079

I-15 NB Ramp to Pankey Road 4MR 37,000 11,031 0.298 A 13,795 0.373 A 2,764 0.075

Pankey Road to Horse Ranch Creek Road

4MR 37,000 11,031 0.298 A 14,379 0.389 A 3,348 0.090

Horse Ranch Creek Road to Rice Canyon Road

2SR 22,900 11,031 0.482 C 15,179 0.663 D 4,148 0.181

Rice Canyon Road to Couser Canyon Road

2SR 22,900 11,031 0.482 C 15,543 0.679 D 4,512 0.197

Couser Canyon Road to W. Pala Mission Road

2SR 22,900 10,224 0.446 C 14,894 0.650 D 4,670 0.204

W. Pala Mission Road to E. Pala Mission Road

2SR 22,900 10,329 0.451 C 10,935 0.478 C 606 0.026

E. Pala Mission Road to Lilac Road

2SR 22,900 8,821 0.385 C 9,427 0.412 C 606 0.026

Lilac Road to Adams Drive 2SR 22,900 9,456 0.413 C 9,850 0.430 C 394 0.017

Adams Drive to Cole Grade Road

2SR 22,900 9,090 0.397 C 9,460 0.413 C 370 0.016

W. Pala Mission Road

State Route 76 and Pala Temecula Road

2RC 16,200 4,711 0.291 C 5,929 0.366 C 1,218 0.075

Pala Temecula Road

Pala Mission Road to Trujillo Road

2RC 16,200 8,318 0.513 D 9,264 0.572 D 946 0.058

Source: Appendix M. Note: * 2RC: Two-lane Rural Collector; 2SR: Two-lane State Route; 2SR w/ LTL: Two-lane State Route w/ left-turn lanes; 4C: Four-lane

Collector; 4M: Four-lane Major; 6PA: Six-lane Prime Arterial.

Table 2.11-7

Summary of Mitigated Roadway Segments – Existing Plus Project Conditions

Roadway Segment

Mitigated Lanes/ Class

LOS E Capacity

Existing Existing + Project +

Mitigation

Mitigated? ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS

State Route 76

E. Vista Way to N. River Road 4MR 37,000 28,805 1.258 F 29,207 0.789 C Yes

N River Road to Camino Del Rey 4MR 37,000 39,736 1.735 F 40,274 1.088 F Yes


December 2016 6653


Table 2.11-7

Summary of Mitigated Roadway Segments – Existing Plus Project Conditions

Roadway Segment

Mitigated Lanes/ Class

LOS E Capacity

Existing Existing + Project +

Mitigation


Camino Del Rey to S. Mission Road 4MR 37,000 39,316 1.717 F 39,922 1.079 F Yes

S. Mission Road to Gird Road 4MR 37,000 26,752 1.168 F 27,448 0.742 C Yes

Gird Road to Old Hwy 395 4MR 37,000 23,789 1.039 F 24,577 0.664 B Yes

I-15 SB Ramp to I-15 NB Ramp 4MR 37,000 19,359 0.845 E 21,176 0.572 B Yes

Source: Appendix M. Note: 4MR: Four-lane Major Road.

Table 2.11-8

Summary of Intersection Conditions AM Peak Hour

Intersection

Existing Existing +

Project Existing +

Cumulative

Existing + Cumulative +

Project

Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS

AM Peak Hour

1. SR 76/E. Vista Way 84.1 F 88.1 F 252.1 F 256.6 F

2. SR 76/N. River Road 21.1 C 22.3 C 220.3 F 226.7 F

3. SR 76/Olive Hill Road/Camino Del Rey 36.7 D 38.1 D 136.4 F 139.3 F

4. SR 76/S. Mission Road 28.8 C 29.0 C 184.9 F 188.9 F

5. SR 76/Gird Road 13.4 B 13.5 B 165.7 F 173.4 F

6. Old Highway 395/SR 76 31.1 C 31.3 C 160.4 F 162.7 F

7. I-15/SR 76 SB Ramp 31.1 C 44.2 D 197.6 F 221.1 F

8. I-15/SR 76 NB Ramp 23.6 C 28.4 C 95.8 F 127.7 F

9. SR 76/Pankey Road 10.7 B 14.6 B 21.0 C 22.0 C

10. SR 76/Horse Ranch Creek Road N/A N/A N/A N/A 17.9 B 18.2 B

11. SR 76/Rice Canyon Road 11.2 B 16.0 C 114.7 F 465.8 F

12. SR 76/Couser Canyon Road 12.3 B 17.4 C 69.3 F 232.7 F

13. SR 76/Driveway 0.5 A 18.8 B 1.6 A 17.8 B

14. SR 76/W. Pala Mission Road 26.4 C 28.5 C 23.9 C 25.3 C

15. Pala Mission Road/Pala Temecula Road 9.7 A 10.4 B 13.3 B 15.2 C

16. SR 76 /Brittian Road 9.1 A 9.2 A 10.8 B 11.0 B

17. SR 76/E. Pala Missions Road 12.5 B 13.2 B 34.0 D 39.5 E

18. SR 76/Lilac Road 11.8 B 12.3 B 25.8 D 28.5 D

19. SR 76/Adams Drive 10.1 B 10.2 B 13.9 B 14.2 B

20. SR 76/Cole Grade Road 17.0 C 17.5 C 287.0 F 307.2 F

Source: Appendix M.


December 2016 6653


Table 2.11-9

Summary of Intersection Conditions PM Peak Hour

Intersection

Existing Existing + Project Existing +

Cumulative

Existing + Cumulative +

Project

Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS

PM Peak Hour

1. SR 76/E. Vista Way 68.7 E 71.9 E 248.2 F 253.9 F

2. SR 76/N. River Road 34.5 C 37.0 D 310.1 F 318.4 F

3. SR 76/Olive Hill Road/Camino Del Rey 40.7 D 42.6 D 206.5 F 211.1 F

4. SR 76/S. Mission Road 31.9 C 34.1 C 283.8 F 290.7 F

5. SR 76/Gird Road 11.6 B 12.0 B 241.7 F 251.7 F

6. Old Highway 395/SR 76 30.8 C 31.3 C 240.0 F 246.5 F

7. I-15/SR 76 SB Ramp 58.8 E 74.6 E 335.5 F 357.9 F

8. I-15/SR 76 NB Ramp 51.1 D 60.1 E 240.0 F 272.9 F

9. SR 76/Pankey Road 11.1 B 19.8 C 29.1 C 33.2 C

10. SR 76/Horse Ranch Creek Road N/A N/A N/A N/A 18.7 B 19.7 B

11. SR 76/Rice Canyon Road 13.3 B 26.7 D 531.2 F Overflow F

12. SR 76/Couser Canyon Road 14.8 B 23.9 C 297.6 F 933.8 F

13. SR 76/Driveway 0.5 A 11.5 B 2.3 A 19.3 B

14. SR 76/W. Pala Mission Road 27.6 C 32.2 C 25.0 C 35.5 D

15. Pala Mission Road/Pala Temecula Road 11.2 B 12.7 B 17.3 C 22.5 C

16. SR 76/Brittian Road 10.1 B 10.5 B 19.3 C 20.5 C

17. SR 76/E. Pala Mission Road 16.7 C 18.4 C 512.9 F 600.1 F

18. SR 76/Lilac Road 13.1 B 15.7 C 93.0 F 167.6 F

19. SR 76/Adams Drive 13.4 B 13.8 B 32.3 D 33.9 D

20. SR 76/Cole Grade Road 17.9 C 18.5 C 967.0 F Overflow F

Source: Appendix M.

Table 2.11-10

Summary of Mitigated Intersections – Existing Plus Project Conditions

Intersection

Existing Existing + Project Existing + Project

+ Mitigation Fully Mitigated? Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS

AM Peak Hour

1. SR 76/E. Vista Way 84.1 F 88.1 F 39.2 D Yes

PM Peak Hour

1. SR 76/E. Vista Way 68.7 E 71.9 E 44.9 D Yes

7. I-15/SR 76 SB Ramp 58.8 E 74.6 E 27.5 C Yes

8. I-15/SR 76 NB Ramp 51.1 D 60.1 E 27.9 C Yes

Source: Appendix M.


December 2016 6653


Table 2.11-11

Cumulative Projects – General Plan Amendments and Casinos

Name Permit No. Description

Campus Park West TM 5424 Residential, Commercial, Office, and Park

Meadowood TM 5354 Residential, School, and Park

Olive Hill TM 4976 Residential

Pala Mesa Highlands TM 5187 Residential, Community Center, and Park

Pala Mesa Resort TM 5534 Hotel

Palomar Community College MUP 87-021 Community College

Passerelle/Campus Park TM 5338 Residential, Commercial, Office, Park, and Sports Complex

Rancho Lilac TM 5385 Residential, Commercial, Fire Station, Sheriff Annex, Park, and Agriculture

— TM 5263 Residential

Spanish Valley Ranch (Loranda) TM 5173 Residential

Vista Valley Country Club MUP 77-128 Club House

— TM 5166 Residential

Hidden Meadows TM 5175 TM 5176

Residential

San Pasqual Casino — Casino, Hotel, and Restaurant

Rincon Casino — Casino, Hotel, and Restaurant

Pala Casino — Casino and Restaurant

Pauma Casino — Casino, Hotel, Restaurant, and Office

Santa Ysabel Casino — Casino and Restaurant

La Jolla Casino — Casino, Hotel, and Restaurant

Segal Ranch TM 5173 Residential, Market, and Community Park

Source: Appendix M.

Table 2.11-12

Summary of Mitigated Roadway Segments – Cumulative Conditions

Roadway Segment Mitigated

Lanes/ Class LOS E

Capacity

Existing + Cumulative Existing + Cumulative + Project + Mitigation


State Route 76

E. Vista Way to N. River Road

4MR 37,000 56,706 2.476 F 57,108 1.543 F No2

N. River Road to Camino Del Rey

4MR 37,000 66,900 2.921 F 67,438 1.823 F No2

Camino Del Rey to S. Mission Road

4MR 37,000 72,950 3.186 F 73,556 1.988 F No2

S. Mission Road to Gird Road

4MR 37,000 48,854 2.133 F 49,550 1.339 F Yes3

Gird Road to Old Hwy 395 4MR 37,000 42,830 1.870 F 43,618 1.179 F Yes3


December 2016 6653


Table 2.11-12

Summary of Mitigated Roadway Segments – Cumulative Conditions

Roadway Segment Mitigated

Lanes/ Class LOS E

Capacity

Existing + Cumulative Existing + Cumulative + Project + Mitigation


Old Hwy 395 to I-15 SB Ramp

4MR 37,000 41,913 1.226 F 42,785 1.156 F Yes3

I-15 SB Ramp to I-15 NB Ramp

4MR 37,000 33,810 1.476 F 35,627 0.963 E Yes4

I-15 NB Ramp to Pankey Road

4MR 37,000 30,811 0.833 D 33,575 0.907 E Yes

Horse Ranch Creek Road to Rice Canyon Road

4MR 37,000 29,361 1.282 F 33,509 0.906 E Yes

Rice Canyon Road to Couser Canyon Road

4MR 37,000 29,308 1.280 F 33,820 0.914 E Yes

Source: Appendix M. Notes: 1 4MR: 4-lane Major; 2SR: 2-lane state route. 2 Funding for 6 lanes is not identified. 3 Undesirable LOS levels for this facility have been anticipated and accepted in the Mobility Element. 4 A substantial contribution to the cost of improvements has been identified at this location.

Table 2.11-13

Summary of Mitigated Intersections – Cumulative Conditions

Intersection

Existing

Existing + Cumulative + Project

Existing + Cumulative + Project + Mitigation Fully

Mitigated? Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS

AM Peak Hour

1. SR 76/E. Vista Way 252.1 F 256.6 F 57.8 E No1

2. SR 76/N. River Road 220.3 F 226.7 F 27.5 C Yes

3. SR 76/Olive Hill Road/Camino Del Rey 136.4 F 139.3 F 61.2 E No1

4. SR 76/S. Mission Road 184.9 F 188.9 F 70.1 E Yes2

5. SR 76/Gird Road 165.7 F 173.4 F 26.1 C Yes

6. Old Highway 395/SR 76 160.4 F 162.7 F 32.5 C Yes

7. I-15/SR 76 SB Ramp 197.6 F 221.1 F 42.3 D Yes

8. I-15/SR 76 NB Ramp 95.8 F 127.7 F 26.1 C Yes

11. SR 76/Rice Canyon Road 114.7 F 465.8 F 14.6 B Yes

12. SR 76/Couser Canyon Road 25.8 D 28.5 D 13.4 B Yes

20. SR 76/Cole Grade Road 287.0 F 307.2 F 19.7 B Yes

PM Peak Hour

1. SR 76/E. Vista Way 248.2 F 253.9 F 106.9 F No1

2. SR 76/N. River Road 310.1 F 318.4 F 57.8 E No1

3. SR 76/Olive Hill Road/Camino Del Rey 206.5 F 211.1 F 105.7 F No1

4. SR 76/S. Mission Road 283.8 F 290.7 F 52.3 D Yes


December 2016 6653


Table 2.11-13

Summary of Mitigated Intersections – Cumulative Conditions

Intersection

Existing

Existing + Cumulative + Project

Existing + Cumulative + Project + Mitigation Fully

Mitigated? Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS

5. SR 76/Gird Road 241.7 F 251.7 F 24.1 C Yes

6. Old Highway 395/SR 76 240.0 F 246.5 F 39.9 D Yes

7. I-15/SR 76 SB Ramp 335.5 F 357.9 F 79.0 E Yes

8. I-15/SR 76 NB Ramp 240.0 F 272.9 F 45.5 D Yes

11. SR 76/Rice Canyon Road 531.2 F Overflow F 11.8 B Yes

12. SR 76/Couser Canyon Road 297.6 F 933.8 F 23.9 C Yes

20. SR 76/Cole Grade Road 967.0 F Overflow F 16.3 B Yes

Source: Appendix M. Notes: 1 Funding for 6 lanes has not been identified. 2 Unacceptable LOS has previously been identified and accepted. 3 A substantial contribution to the cost of improvements has been identified for the interchange.

Table 2.11-14

Direct Impacts and Mitigation Measures

ID# Location Mitigation Measure Fully

Mitigated?

Direct Impacts

Segment

1 SR 76: West of E. Vista Way to N. River Road

The Caltrans SR 76 Middle Project, which widens SR 76 from two lanes to four lanes, is now complete.

Yes

2 SR 76: N. River Road to Camino Del Rey

3 SR 76: Camino Del Rey to S. Mission Rd

4 SR 76: S. Mission Road to Gird Road The Caltrans SR 76 East Project will widen SR 76 from two lanes to four lanes. Work on the ramps at the I-15 has been completed and construction has begun on the remainder.

Yes1

5 SR 76: Gird Road to Old Highway 395

6 SR 76: I-15 SB Ramp to I-15 NB Ramp

Intersection

1 SR 76 / E. Vista Way The Caltrans SR 76 Middle Project, which widens SR 76 from two lanes to four lanes, is now complete.

Yes

2 SR 76 / I-15 SB Ramp The Caltrans SR 76 East Project, which will reconfigure the interchange, is now completed.

Yes

3 SR 76 / I-15 NB Ramp

4 SR 76 / Project Entry2 Improve the project frontage and channelized/signalize the main public entrance intersection on SR 76 so that there are dual left turns for EB to NB movements and a deceleration lane for WB to NB traffic.

Yes

Source: Appendix M. Notes: 1 Caltrans Fact Sheet in Appendix M. 2 Signal warrants in Appendix M.


December 2016 6653


Table 2.11-15

Project Traffic Percentages

Roadway Segment Existing Ex + Cum Project

Proj./ (Existing +

Proj.)

Project/ (Extg +

Cum+Proj)

SR 76 I-15 to Pankey 11031 33563 2764 20% 8%

SR 76 Pankey to Horse Creek Ranch 11031 32771 3348 23% 9%

SR 76 Horse Creek Ranch to Rice Canyon 11031 33493 4148 27% 11%

SR 76 Rice Canyon to Couser Canyon 11031 33802 4512 29% 12%

SR 76 Couser Canyon to W Pala Mission 10224 34010 4670 31% 12%

SR 76 W Pala Mission to E Pala Mission 10329 23580 606 6% 3%

SR 76 E Pala Mission to Lolac 8821 25904 606 6% 2%

SR 76 Lilac to Adams 9456 25390 394 4% 2%

SR 76 Adams to Cole Grade 9090 24376 370 4% 1%

Table 2.11-16

Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures—Roadway Segments


Mitigated?

Cumulative Impacts

Roadway Segment

1 SR 76: West of E. Vista Way to N. River Road Construct identified roadway segments to 6 lanes. No1

2 SR 76: N. River Road to Camino Del Rey

3 SR 76: Camino Del Rey to S. Mission Rd

4 SR 76: S. Mission Road to Gird Road Await the completion of the SR 76 East Project improvements to a 4 lane major roadway. Work on the ramps at I-15 is now complete and construction has begun on the remainder to obtain 4 lanes.

Yes2

5 SR 76: Gird Road to Old Highway 395

6 SR 76: Old Highway 395 to I-15 SB Ramp

7 SR 76: I-15 SB Ramp to I-15 NB Ramp

8 I-15 NB Ramp to Pankey Road Reclassify to a higher capacity to match configuration. Pay TIF fees for:

SR 76: Horse Ranch Creek Road to Rice Canyon Road

SR 76: Rice Canyon Road to Couser Canyon Road

No3

Yes4

9 SR 76: Horse Ranch Creek Road to Rice

Canyon Road

10 SR 76: Rice Canyon Road to Couser Canyon Road

11 SR 76: Couser Canyon Road to W. Pala Mission Road

Provide abutting improvements at the project frontage and design and construct improvements at the intersection of SR 76 with Cole Grade Road to the satisfaction of Caltrans (either a signal or roundabout as determined through a review under the I.C.E. Policy).

No5

12 SR 76: W. Pala Mission Road to E. Pala Mission Road

13 SR 76: E. Pala Mission Road to Lilac Road

14 SR 76: Lilac Road to Adams Drive

15 SR 76: Adams Drive to Cole Grade Road

Source: Appendix M.


December 2016 6653


Notes: 1

The identified improvements are not included in the County’s TIF program and are outside of the jurisdiction and control of the County. Caltrans has no funding program in place into which the project could pay its fairshare, and it would be disproportionate to require the project to provide this improvement therefore, the cumulative impacts would remain significant and unmitigable.

2 Less than desirable levels of service have been disclosed and accepted for this portion of roadway in the recently adopted Mobility Element even after completion of the SR 76 East section improvements to a 4 lane expressway

3 The roadway has already been improved and further widening is not appropriate since the intersections at each end are operating adequately and more than 4 lanes have been built along portions of this length.

4 It is anticipated that the currently approve TIF program will be updated by the County to accommodate the land use changes that would result from the projects approval. This update would revise fee rates associated with incorporating the project’s land uses to the program. The TIF program enables the County new development to pay its “fairshare” by providing a mechanism to mitigate their cumulative impacts in accordance with CEQA requirements.

5 See correspondence with Caltrans in Appendix M.

Table 2.11-17

Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures—Intersections


Mitigated?

Cumulative Impacts

Intersection

1 SR 76 / E. Vista Way Improve SR 76 in this area to 6 lanes which also involves select intersection improvements to enhance their capacity.

No1

2 SR 76 / N. River Road

3 SR 76 / Camino Del Rey

4 SR 76 / S. Mission Road Await the completion of the SR 76 East Project improvements to a 4 lane major roadway which will also reconfigure the intersections. Work on this project has begun.

Yes2

5 SR 76 / Gird Road

6 SR 76 / Old Highway 395

7 SR 76 / I-15 SB Ramp Although the interchange is now improved; developer has agreed to make a fair-share contribution of up to 12.3% (see Table 8-3) of the unfunded cost of approximately $10M based upon Caltrans formula for calculating fair share as set forth in the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Studies.

Yes

8 SR 76 / I-15 NB Ramp

9 SR 76 / Rice Canyon Road1 Pay TIF fees. Yes3

10 SR 76 / Couser Canyon Road

11 SR 76 / E. Pala Mission Road1 Caltrans has indicated that it would accept the developer’s signalization and channelization at the intersection of Cole Grade Road/SR 76 for mitigation of impacts to SR 76 to be memorialized in a Highway Improvement Agreement between the developer and Caltrans.

No4

12 SR 76 / Lilac Road

13 SR 76 / Cole Grade Road1 Design and construct improvements at the intersection of SR 76 with Cole Grade Road to the satisfaction of Caltrans (either a signal or roundabout as determined through a review under the I.C.E. Policy).

Yes4

Source: Appendix M. Notes: 1 The identified improvements are not included in the County’s TIF program and are outside of the jurisdiction and control of the County.

Caltrans has no funding program in place into which the project could pay its fairshare, and it would be disproportionate to require the project to provide this improvement therefore, the cumulative impacts would remain significant and unmitigable.

2 Less than desirable levels of service have been disclosed and accepted for this portion of roadway in the recently adopted Mobility Element even after completion of the SR 76 East section improvements to a 4 lane expressway


December 2016 6653


3 It is anticipated that the currently approved TIF Program will be updated by the County to accommodate the land use changes that would result from the project’s approval. This update would revise fee rates associated with incorporating the project’s land uses to the program. The TIF program enables County new development to pay its “fair share” by providing a mechanism to mitigate their cumulative impacts in accordance with CEQA requirements.

4 See correspondence with Caltrans in Appendix M.

Table 2.11-18

Fair Share Percentages

Roadway Segment

Existing Total

Cumulative Growth Project Fair Share

ADT ADT ADT ADT % of

Growth

State Route 76

I-15 NB Ramp to Pankey Road1 11,031 33,575 22,544 2764 12.3%

1 This is the information on which to base the fair share contribution to the unfunded improvements at the I-15/SR 76 interchange. The payments would be collected proportionally to the permits issued for the project.


December 2016 6653


INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Project Study AreaFIGURE 2.11-1

WARNER RANCH PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

SOURCE: Shapouri

Project Site


December 2016 6653



^

^

^

^

^

§̈¦15

UV395

UV76

Old H

ighway 395

Old

Hw

y 39

5

Couser Canyon Rd

Lila

c Rd

Cole GradeRoad

PankeyRoad

Adams DriveSR-76 - Existing4 Lane Section

Pala DelNorte

SixthStreet

AdamsDrive

ColeGradeRoad

PALA-PAUMA MOBILITY ELEMENT NETWORKPROPOSED AMENDMENT

LegendWarner Ranch

SANGIS Parcels

SR-76 - Pala Road SegmentsFrom Pala Del Norte to SR-76 Existing 4 Lane Section 3.1 Miles

From Adams Drive to Cole Grade Road 1.9 Miles

From sixth Street to Pala Del Norte 2.2 Miles

From Sixth Street to Pala Del Norte 2.2 Miles

General Plan Accepted LOS F Segment

O0 0.5 10.25

MilesDate: 12/18/2015

From Pala Del Norte to the Existing 4 Lane Section East of Pankey Road

3.1 Miles

Proposed General Plan LOS F Segment

From Adams Drive to Cole Grade Road 1.9 Miles

Proposed General Plan LOS F Segment

Proposed Mobility Element Network AmendmentFIGURE 2.11-2


SOURCE: Shapouri


December 2016 6653



Direct Impact LocationsFIGURE 2.11-3


SOURCE: Shapouri

Project Site


December 2016 6653



Cumulative Impact LocationsFIGURE 2.11-4


SOURCE: Shapouri

Project Site


December 2016 6653



2.11 transportation and traffic - sandiegocounty.gov€¦ · 2.11 transportation and traffic ......

Documents