YORBA LINDA : Proposed Traffic Light Irks Neighbors

The proposed installation of a traffic signal on Imperial Highway at Prospect Avenue has raised the ire of nearby residents who are convinced that traffic will increase significantly in their neighborhood.

The residents also claim that the city’s environmental impact report for the proposal does not address the impact the project will have on air quality, noise and public safety on surrounding neighborhoods.

And while the City Council agreed that the environmental report does not address all the steps the city can take to lessen the signal’s impact on neighborhoods, the council on Tuesday certified the EIR as “complete and adequate.” Councilman Mark Schwing was the lone dissenter.

During the past 14 months, dozens of residents have complained about the project to the Planning Commission and the City Council.

Prospect is a predominantly residential, two-lane street connecting Imperial Highway to Yorba Linda Boulevard. According to the city, there were 35 accidents at the intersection of Prospect and Imperial from 1988 through 1991. The city attributes those accidents in part to the absence of a signal at the intersection.

Residents, however, fear that a signal at the intersection would encourage motorists to use Prospect as a shortcut.

Steven E. Brunette, whose house is on the corner of El Cajon Avenue and Prospect, said the city’s environmental study contains discrepancies in projected traffic volume. In the section that addresses the impact on air quality and noise, the report says the project will not increase traffic volume on Prospect and will therefore not affect air quality or noise.

But the report also states that traffic eventually will increase from 900 vehicles a day to 8,000 vehicles a day on Prospect north of Imperial Highway and from 3,000 to 5,000 per day on Prospect south of Imperial.

“The EIR fails to reconcile estimates of additional traffic with statements that traffic won’t increase,” Brunette said. “We have a serious problem: The EIR is not sufficient.”

Roy Stephenson, director of public works, said the projected figures reflect the traffic volume when the area is developed to capacity, estimated to be in the year 2010.

“The (immediate) increase as a result of the signal will be nominal,” Stephenson said.

By certifying the EIR, the council eliminated the last roadblock to the project. The city must award a contract by July 1 or risk losing state funding for the $407,000 project. The state funding does not cover the cost of the environmental report, about $40,000, or the $35,000 for the project’s design.

The city must also pay for any stop signs or speed bumps it installs to slow traffic on Prospect.

Because of the July 1 deadline, the council rejected requiring the Traffic Department to finish a supplemental study of other steps the city might take before construction begins. The council could also have required another environmental study to include those measures, which Schwing advocated.

“Based on testimony, it’s clear that the EIR has not adequately addressed the issue” of increased traffic on Prospect, Schwing said. “Questions about (other mitigation factors) should be addressed, should be in the EIR.”

However, after Stephenson told the council that further study could put state funding in jeopardy, the council decided the project could commence before the study was completed.

“I don’t have a problem with breaking up the study if it allows us to get $400,000 for the project,” Mayor John M. Gullixson said.