Rancho Santa Fe to Sue Encinitas Over Road Issue

Charging that the recently adopted Encinitas General Plan does nothing to alleviate Rancho Santa Fe’s traffic problems, the elite community’s governing association has decided to sue its neighboring city for failing to deal with the region’s increasing traffic congestion.

The Rancho Santa Fe Assn., which serves as the unincorporated area’s governing body, decided Thursday to execute their longstanding plans to file a lawsuit against the city of Encinitas, said Gene Freeland, an association board member.

The association had been mounting a futile campaign to persuade Encinitas to include proposed county highway 680 in its General Plan, which was adopted March 29. The legal action is a direct result of Encinitas’ decision to abandon the highway, which would have helped alleviate traffic congestion in Rancho Santa Fe, Freeland said.

Made Every Effort

“We made every effort through discussion and by correspondence to have Encinitas reconsider,” Freeland said. “But, if they refused, we were prepared to begin litigation. Encinitas has declined to address our concern.”

“The basic thrust of the litigation is a result of the removal of highway 680,” he said. “The Encinitas General Plan (without the highway) fails to consider what kind of environmental impact it will have on Rancho Santa Fe and the region.” The lawsuit will be filed by the end of the month, he said.

Under state law, a city’s general plan--a blueprint for land use and future growth--must take into account its impact on surrounding communities and provide solutions to mitigate that impact.

East-West Link

The proposed four-lane highway, which would cross Escondido Creek and link Interstate 15 and Leucadia Boulevard, was abandoned after concerned neighbors said it would leave an ugly scar through residential areas of Encinitas.

Encinitas council members also said other road expansions included in the General Plan would eliminate the need for highway 680.

But the Rancho Santa Fe Assn. had hoped the highway proposal would remain intact, because its creation would divert traffic away from the rural community’s winding, two lane roads.

“They’ve threatened to sue us for the last several months,” said Encinitas City Atty. Roger Krauel. “But, so far, we haven’t received any lawsuit. The city, the staff and the council made every effort to address their concerns.”

Encinitas Councilwoman Marjorie Gaines said the city has done more than its share to address regional traffic concerns.

“We have done our job,” Gaines said. “We spent 2 1/2 years developing our General Plan and paid particular attention to traffic. Now, if the Ranch feels that we haven’t done that, well then, that’s their choice (to sue us). We will address that at that time.

“We have made that decision (not to include route 680) based on evidence that the road was not necessary.”

The Rancho Santa Fe Assn., however, disagrees.

“Encinitas has some creative ways of looking at traffic volumes,” said Walt Ekard, the association’s general manager. “The bottom line is that we have a problem with their analysis.”

“The deletion of highway 680 is a tremendous concern to us,” Ekard said. “What that means is that there will be significant traffic increase on Ranch roads, that quite simply, are not designed for and cannot handle such traffic.”

Although highway 680 was discarded, Gaines said the newly adopted General Plan calls for adding roads and widening others.

Plans include the construction of a direct link between Leucadia Boulevard and El Camino Real, and the addition of lanes to Manchester Avenue, Gaines said.

“The link between Leucadia and El Camino Real was bitterly opposed (by residents), and it was a very difficult decision for us,” Gaines said. “But we did it as part of our responsibility to accommodate future growth.”

Countering the association’s lawsuit, Gaines said Rancho Santa Fe has done little to help solve traffic problems.

“The Ranch has these two-way roads, but they haven’t tried to add any lanes or make plans to augment their roads,” Gaines said. “Many of us do not like the idea that we are growing rapidly, but we all have to take some share of that burden. The Ranch is only willing to take a very small share.”