Facts rosier than Greenlight allows

TOD RIDGEWAY

Traffic issues rank among the highest concerns of residents living

throughout the Southern California region. The residents of Newport

Beach are no exception to this concern. We as elected officials must

balance our responsibility to accommodate the changes in population

both regionally and locally with future traffic impacts.

Transportation in Newport Beach is affected by circumstances not

experienced by most communities. Specifically, the city’s geography

is divided by the Upper and Lower Bay. This creates longer journeys

and barriers to normal traffic movements. Most communities have four

to five east-west connections across the approximate 5-mile length of

the Upper Newport Bay, which cannot be crossed.

Despite these challenges, traffic movement in Newport Beach is

generally good a majority of the time. This is due to an aggressive

circulation system improvement program. Established years ago, the

program is supported financially by gas tax funds, regional programs

(like Measure M), the city’s traffic phasing ordinance (for new

projects) and the city’s fair share fee ordinance (for

intensification of uses on existing projects). Societal changes can

affect traffic levels -- duel earner families, more automobiles per

household and younger drivers to name a few. Traffic projections are

less reliable under these circumstances.

If current levels of traffic service were to be maintained or

improved, logic would dictate that additional improvements are

necessary. Completion of the existing plan would be the initial step.

Newport Beach currently has a population of 80,800 people and will

grow to 89,528 by 2010, according to William Gayk, director of the

Center for Economic Research at Cal State Fullerton. Huntington Beach

will grow by 14,000 and Costa Mesa by 3,500 during this same time

frame. These are projected to be natural child birth over death rate

and minimally attributable to increases from migration. We have a

responsibility to accommodate this growth both from a societal and

legal perspective. The current plan is not adequate to accommodate

these changes. In some areas, such as the Coast Highway and Bristol

Street, more significant improvements will need to be identified.

No one on the City Council is proposing a change to the coastal

zone except perhaps Banning Ranch, which is on the outskirts of

Newport Beach and has a current entitlement much higher than the

proposed 1,700 units. However, the area at the airport should be

studied to accommodate the changing society we live in. When I made

comments during a study session that the city should look at adding

more housing to the proposals being studied by the general plan

update, it was specifically in the John Wayne Airport area that would

not impact the coastal zone.

The current general plan provides for growth, principally in the

older commercial and residential areas (so-called infill

development). Other than an approved expansion for the Fashion Island

retail center, both Newport Center and the newer office areas near

the airport are mostly built out. However, we as a City Council must

respect the real property rights of the properties that will

accommodate change. The residents of this community in a poll

supported real property rights by a 95% rating. The use changes that

have occurred in the Jamboree corridor in the city of Irvine could be

accommodated in the airport area without impacting traffic in the

coastal zone. These use issues need further study on a comprehensive

basis.

Change is inevitable. No change is not an option, especially in

today’s dynamic world. On balance the quality of life in Newport

Beach is higher than anywhere in the United States. We have beautiful

parks, 11 miles of ocean frontage, an estuary/ecological preserve of

more than 700 acres in the Back Bay, an updated road infrastructure,

water and public works infrastructure that is state of the art,

fantastic shopping areas in close proximity to our homes and some of

the most expensive and beautiful homes in the world.

Phil Arst and Rick Taylor of the Greenlight Steering Committee

have taken one comment and skewed it to scare the residents of our

beautiful city (“Facts point to future with traffic,” Thursday).

Further, they attempted to use facts that are not supported in any

document I have read or studied. Arst and Taylor state that the

current general plan will support 170,000 average daily trips per

day. I do not for the life of me know where that number came from.

Our current inventory of housing units (homes and apartments) is

41,851 units. If we assume that a single family residential detached

home creates 9.57 trips per day (from the Institute of Traffic

Engineers Manual, 7th edition) and blend that with 5.86 trips for

attached housing, Arst and Taylor would create 22,034 new units in

our built-out city. This would equate to a new city in south Orange

County.

Further, if Arst and Taylor think that the capacity for infill

increases in commercial areas will be realized to the full extent

possible in the current general plan intensity limits, the traffic

mitigation measures that are part of the Newport Beach codes will

prevent this from happening. Also, I do not think anyone on council

would allow this to happen based upon our understanding of the

surveys that do not support uncontrolled growth.

Neither the residential increases nor the commercial potential

will happen in Newport Beach.

* TOD RIDGEWAY is a Newport Beach City Councilman.