Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGreg Ramirez NOP GREENLIGHT PO Box 3362 Newport Beach, CA 92659 (949) 721-1272 February 23, 2006 Mr. Greg Ramirez, Senior Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 References: 1.) City of Newport Beach, General Plan Update, Notice of Preparation/Initial Study (NOP) 2.) Draft Circulation Element 01232-28b.doc Dear Mr. Ramirez: The following eight points need to be addressed in the EIR prepared on the basis of Ref. 1. NOP. Importantly the EIR must assess its proposed mitigation measures for the traffic growth created by the General Plan Update and its handling by the city along with traffic growth permitted under the current General Plan and planned huge traffic growth in the Irvine Business Complex. As a baseline, the latest city traffic studies currently show that six intersections in the city are unsatisfactory i.e. operate at LOS E or above. This means that the city does not have the funding to correct current discrepancies in its Circulation System. (1.) The NOP projects major and expensive intersection and in some cases roadway improvements that are totally unfunded. The proposed improvements, whose funding is highly questionable as further described below, still leave four intersections remaining that are not operating at a satisfactory level (LOS D or below). These four intersections are shown in the Ref.2.) Traffic Study to operate at LOS E and above and therefore are in violation of the state requirement that the Land Use Element match the capacity of the Circulation Element. An even larger problem presents itself in the proposed mitigation of the 13 intersections and/or arterials named in the NOP. Newport Beach City Law (The Traffic Phasing Ordinance) was changed to meet constitutional rulings that developments can be charged only for their proportional share of the cost of mitigating unsatisfactory traffic created by their project. While many of the developments authorized by the General Plan Update will be built within a few years of its approval, it will take many years for additional developments to be built that will furnish sufficient additional funding to actually enlarge an intersection and/or roadway. It will also be that in many cases very close to a full additional load will be placed upon an intersection but the funds to complete the improvements will be lacking. During that interim period, that is indeterminate in length, the roadways will be more congested than would bee indicated by the false assumption that all the intersections were improved as of the date of the EIR study. (2.) A further problem presents itself in the city’s proposed plan to enlarge 13 intersections. Most of these proposed improvements require widening of the intersection to add more turn lanes or through lanes. This widening will require expensive condemnation of land. Where is the funding for these actions plus noise abatement walls and the actual construction of the additional lanes? (3.) Therefore, the EIR must examine a phased implementation of Circulation system improvements and the resultant traffic congestion until the time in the future when the city will be able to accumulate sufficient funding to actually improve all intersections. A summary of the proposed thirteen intersection and arterial street improvement costs is needed along with a timeline display of when the improvements will actually be made along with the projected construction rate of the proposed developments. (4.) Also of great concern, the widening of intersections will place traffic closer to residential areas. Noise mitigation that is acceptable to the homeowners is also required. (5.) Has the traffic generated by the huge residential dwelling complex in the City of Irvine on Jamboree Road near Campus Drive been included in the traffic calculations? (6.) The City of Irvine has changed its General Plan and completed an EIR to permit the construction of approximately 10,000 more dwelling units in the Irvine Business Complex. The Circulation system traffic numbers and subsequent proposed mitigation must include provisions for a good portion of this excess traffic that will unquestionably use Newport Streets in the Airport Area, and Bristol, Campus, McArthur and Jamboree Roads. While the city of Newport Beach has announced it is looking into measures to block or mitigate this City of Irvine plan at this late date, the Newport EIR must contain provisions for this traffic even if only as an alternate case. (7.) The intersection of Goldenrod and PCH has been shown in traffic studies conducted over the last five years to operate at unsatisfactory levels. Recently, a statement was issued that this intersection would operate at LOS F because it couldn’t be mitigated. An explanation is needed as to how the traffic in this intersection was claimed to have been recalculated and the problem eliminated. (8.) The impacts of summer traffic need to be studied and mitigation measures proposed. In particular, given the proposed 245 units of housing plus mixed use commercial projected for the Mariner’s Mile section of Pacific Coast Highway, what will be the summer season impacts on Pacific Coast Highway, Newport Blvd and impacted arterials between the freeways and beach access locations. Given the 3300 housing units proposed for the airport area, how will summer traffic mix with those units plus the 10,000 additional city of Irvine Dwelling Units? Thank you, Greenlight Philip Arst