Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Escanido keeps original fair‑share traffic condition for 7‑Eleven project after heated public hearing
Summary
After a lengthy public hearing focused on safety at Rock Springs Road and Lincoln Avenue, the council voted to retain its December 2024 decision requiring a maximum developer contribution (up to $560,000) for a new traffic signal, rejecting a reduced offer from the applicant.
The Escanido City Council voted to uphold its earlier decision and keep the prior condition requiring a maximum contribution of $560,000 from the developer toward a traffic signal at Rock Springs Road and Lincoln Avenue, rejecting a request from the applicant for a substantially reduced contribution.
Development Services Director Kevin Snyder reminded the council that the project at 900 W. Mission was originally approved in January 2021 with multiple conditions, including street-front improvements and a requirement for a traffic signal. That 2024 council action set a maximum contribution of $560,000 by the applicant. The applicant, identified in the hearing as Mr. Golce, asked council in 2026 to reconsider and reduce the requirement, proposing $50,000 cash plus $50,000 in assigned traffic plans or, alternately, a different lesser package; he described pandemic-era delays and rising costs as reasons for the requested reduction.
Residents and neighbors urged the council to keep the signal condition and to move more quickly on safety improvements. Stuart Ray said fast‑moving traffic and unsafe crossings at Rock Springs, Seven Oaks and Lincoln create daily danger for students and residents and asked the city to provide an update and expedite improvements. James Lockheart, a 20‑year homeowner near the intersection, suggested alternative solutions such as a roundabout and noted a recently relocated utility pole that may have worsened sightlines.
Council members weighed safety urgency against fairness to the developer. Council Member Fitzgerald said she had advocated a fair‑share approach from the outset and favored moving the project forward as quickly as possible; she noted that if the developer withdrew, city‑led construction could take 12–16 months and cost more than relying on developer contributions. After discussion, the council adopted the staff‑recommended Option 1 (retain the prior contribution requirement and conditions). The motion passed on the record as the council’s direction for the minutes.
What happens next: Staff will continue to track options for the intersection as part of traffic-safety planning and the capital program; if the developer proceeds, his contribution remains subject to the previously adopted terms. If the applicant withdraws, staff said the city could design and build the signal but that would be costlier and take significantly longer.
