Directories
Quick Searches
Find a Job
Quick Search
For Employers
Yahoo! HotJobs Local Search
Merriam Mountains impact report out
By: QUINN EASTMAN - Staff Writer | ∞
DEER SPRINGS -- Building 2,700 homes and a shopping center northwest of Deer Springs Road and Interstate 15 north of both Escondido and San Marcos would transform the rugged area and increase traffic as far away as Sycamore Avenue in Vista, a draft environmental report from county planners says.
The public has until Oct. 15 to comment on the thousand-page report, which was released last week after years of preparation by the developer of the project known as Merriam Mountains.
The developer, NNP-Stonegate Merriam, has already faced off against local critics, who have argued that the project would clog Deer Springs Road with traffic and make it difficult to evacuate residents quickly in a wildfire.
In a recent interview, project manager Joe Perring said his company would widen Deer Springs Road to four lanes and improve the I-15 interchange before any homes would be occupied.
Perring said firefighter-reviewed plans calling for the latest fire-resistant building materials and extensive brush thinning in the development's common areas would help reduce fire threats.
The two main roads to the project would exit onto Deer Springs, with another exit on Lawrence Welk Court to the northeast. There would be an emergency gated exit on Camino Mayor to the west.
Perring said the Merriam Mountains project could offer a substantial amount of housing for people who work in San Diego County and might otherwise commute from Temecula.
Apartments and town homes would be built close to the gas station just west of Deer Springs and I-15, with more spread-out, single-family houses to the north and almost 1,200 acres of open space at the north end. The homes will be built in four phases over a decade, with 270 units designated as affordable.
The environmental report identifies air quality, traffic and noise as significant impacts that "cannot be avoided" and prescribes dozens of mitigation measures, such as barrier walls and extra turn lanes.
Several people who live near Twin Oaks Valley or Deer Springs Road said this week they were alarmed by part of the report that outlines five phases of drilling and blasting lasting 280 to 320 days each.
"If it happens to be near you, it would get old pretty fast," said Gil Jemmott, chairman of the Twin Oaks Valley Sponsor Group, which advises the county on land use in the area.
Jemmott identified traffic as another major concern.
Last year, the Board of Supervisors approved a road plan that would eventually have Deer Springs Road widened to six lanes, but the environmental report says that might not be enough if future growth is considered.
The traffic section of the report says that in 2030, a six-lane Deer Springs Road across I-15 can be expected to carry 49,000 cars and trucks per day, even without Merriam Mountains motorists. It now carries about 20,000 vehicles per day.
Building the project would add 9,500 more vehicles, tipping that part of Deer Springs from a traffic rating of D to the worst rating of F, the report says.
The Board of Supervisors is expected to hold a public hearing on the project and the environmental report next year.
The report is available online at http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/docs/PR/10-15-07/0408028.html
Copies are available at the county Department of Planning and Land Use, 5201 Ruffin Road, Suite B in San Diego, at the San Marcos Library, 2 Civic Center Drive and the Escondido Public Library at 239 S. Kalmia St.
-- Contact staff writer Quinn Eastman at (760) 740-5412 or qeastman@nctimes.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
Floyd wrote on Sep 7, 2007 2:11 AM:When the issue of insufficient evacuation capacity was last discussed for the Stonegate "Merriam Mountain" project, we discovered it would take 1.5 hours to remove everyone from the development on four outbound lanes. However, the projected warning time of an approaching fire is a short 15 minutes, which is one-sixth of the calculated evacuation time. Considered another way, five-sixths of the Stonegate residents would be unable to evacuate before the fire arrived. More details can be found in "County's 'Shelter in place' policy neglects critical human factors considered elsewhere" at http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/04/23/perspective/9_52_414_20_07.txt
More greed, more mess wrote on Sep 7, 2007 7:29 AM:Another blow to the quality of life in San Diego County, another layer of wealth for developers, another helping of political support of our elected representatives - life goes on in Southern California. We all suffer as pollution, traffic and general crowding choke us in an ever increasing mess.
Desmond's Duty to Pay Back wrote on Sep 7, 2007 8:43 AM:The next in the Desmond Cabal "obligatory" yes votes will be this absurd project. The numb skull logic opined in passing the obviuosly dangerous Palomar Station project by this Council has shown that they will sell out the residents of San Marcos in favor of developers...no matter what State expert testifies against it's safety. This, in spite of quite possibly smothering to death in a smokey fire while huddled up in your experimental interior fire proof "coffin." Horrific traffic considerations not withstanding, this project has it backers and they have taken over this City Staff and Council. More evidence that the Slow Gowth Initiative MUST be voted on by the residents of San Marcos.
Absurd wrote on Sep 7, 2007 9:46 AM:This proposal is absurd beyond belief. Creating an "F" traffic rating and not have adequate time to evacuate in case of a fire is simply unacceptable and demonstrates the developer's greed. 2700 homes is way, way too many for the rugged area. And blasting for a year at a time? Beyond absurd.
What Supervisor owns land nearby ? wrote on Sep 7, 2007 10:28 AM:Who is kidding who here. We might want to take a look at what County Supervisor owns a great deal of vacant land in that area. Will that Supervisor have to recuse himself from the entire proceedings. AB 1234 is pretty clear. He will have to leave the hearings. Of course we will never know what happens behind closed doors.
Upper Twin Oaks ? wrote on Sep 7, 2007 10:30 AM:The map of the Stonegate project shows it crossing upper Twin Oaks Valley Road. Does it ? What existing homes will be threatened by this project. There cannot possibly be enough water, sewer, etc.
KMB wrote on Sep 7, 2007 12:27 PM:To: Desmond's Duty to Pay Back: This is a County project. Not City. Yet, I do believe the City of San Marcos will want to annex it, since it is in their "squere of influence".
SD_Ocean wrote on Sep 7, 2007 2:07 PM:It's about time us SanDiegans have a place to live IN SAN DIEGO rather than drive up to Riverside...
Desmond/Horn =Political Poison wrote on Sep 7, 2007 2:31 PM:The long arm and the short brain of Jim Desmond will be evident again as he spends yet more time kissing Bill Horn's derriere endorsing this monstrosity happily hoping these homeowners will all troop down Twin Oaks Valley Road to shop San Marcos and spend spend spend. Without even reading the EIR I can tell you right now there's no way those traffic figures are correct. Since when does 2,700 homes generate 9,500 ADT's? Let's see, Palomar Station's 333 condo plus shopping generate 7,300 ADT's AFTER they cut 1,300 ADT's as an homage to the Sprinter and the myth of "smartgrowth". This shopping center and 2,700 homes will only create 3 ADT's per household. I don't think so. Of course with Bill Horn at the helm counting on Slippery Jim to build his roads for him at the expense of the San Marcos residents, they just make it up as they go along anyway.
ORB wrote on Sep 7, 2007 3:29 PM:San Diego County is growing – its job growth is projected to outpace the state and nation over the next decade. These employees will need places to live, and the best place to locate new housing is next to transportation corridors and employment. Merriam Mountains is doing just that. I hope that there will be a place for my children to live instead of sending them out of Southern California. Thank you for this great plan
Reardon wrote on Sep 7, 2007 7:58 PM:This project is vastly overpopulated. It is currently zoned for 200+ homes, but it is obviously possible to shoehorn more into the property: Just not 2,700 homes plus a commercial area. There is a reasonable number of homes for this area -- but that number may not be profitable, and it the “right” number certainly would not support a commercial center nor require major road widening. That is the developers problem, but creating an urban center in a rural area with some extreme grades will change the character of the entire area. This plan needs to be scaled to more nearly approximate the existing developments in the area, and even push that local character a bit in the name of providing needed housing for San Diego County -- but this plan is excessive. Terribly excessive.
OsideNative wrote on Oct 11, 2007 7:57 AM:This sucks. Why don't we just develop every open space in the entire area? While we're at it let's close the beaches and make it illegal to stand on anything but pavement? Why is there such a rush to turn San diego county into Orange County (aka a concrete jungle)? Isn't there anyone else out there that enjoys hiking and exploring the natural landscape? I'm so sick of rich developers selling everyone on their ideas of what a "great place to live" these developments are, then wresting the land away from the public to the tune of huge profits, and then not having to deal with the traffic or congestion while they live in their gated mansions somewhere else. I wish everyone that wanted to move here would just stay away...-
Reardon wrote on Oct 11, 2007 12:01 PM:Oside Native: You probably live in a home a developer built -- in an area a developer built -- and certainly on land that was once "natural landscape" where people hiked and little animals scurried! Tear down your home and return it to nature, and we will pay attention to you! As to "profits" I assume you will eventually sell your home for what you paid for it plus the cost of living? (In a pig's eye!) This is a terrible development, just not for the reasons you cite. The real reasons to oppose this poorly planned project are the inability to evacuate, the lack of proper response time for fire and emergency, the traffic in case of a problem, the terrain for fire-fighting, the density -- too many to list. All development is not good or bad; some are good, some bad. This one needs severe modification if it is to be built at all.
Advertisement
Videos
Advertisement