Following is my letter to the editor, as submitted to the Grunion Gazette:
I would like to follow up on some of the particularly poignant letters to the editor last week.
I am in receipt of the Second and PCH estimated traffic trip numbers for the AM peak period, PM peak period, weekend peak period, and overall average daily trips. I compared these numbers with Lennar's estimated traffic trip generation for the same time periods, as identified in the Lennar EIR. The Second and PCH development has an associated 11.9% more cars in the AM peak than Lennar proposed, 26.8% more cars in the PM peak, 14.1% more cars in the weekend peak and 11.8% more cars as an overall daily average.
That the Second and PCH traffic numbers well exceed those estimated under Lennar's project isn't even remotely surprising as the Second and PCH development is larger, in square footage, than Lennar's project, and it is correspondingly expected that the associated traffic would be greater. Nor does it surprise me that Second and PCH can't viably mitigate that traffic; they are generating a lot of it and the existing situation is already very bad.
What does surprise me, however, is that it seems as though the Second and PCH development team has chosen to ignore the fundamentally fatal flaws inherent with Lennar's failed project: traffic and over-proposing development for the area. Instead of learning from Lennar's "mistakes," they repeated them. Actually, they didn't just repeat those mistakes, they amplified them.
That the current Seaport Marina hotel is a multi-colored eyesore and needs to be redeveloped is without question. What I do question is why someone can't simply propose something that is built relatively consistent with the surrounding area (i.e. not 12 stories), exclusively gives the area what it so very desperately needs (just an upscale hotel), and doesn't saddle the residents with an obscene amount of traffic that just can't be mitigated.