Laserfiche WebLink
AF,MORANDT_ M ,r� ►R� <br />Transportation Advisory �I <br />Co: Committee f Ilia t` I Date: <br />George varez, ra Eng. Jj[v <br />Public Services Agency CCC JJJ <br />December 6, 1985 <br />subject: MAJOR THURUU(iHr Aht RNU nrcl US2L rLa rnv�-i rwi. Y -• <br />AND FOOTHILL /EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS BACKGROUND <br />MEMORANDUM <br />It can no longer be expected that facilities such as the San <br />Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) and Foothill /Eastern <br />Transportation Corridors (F /ETC) can be fully funded from the <br />traditional revenue sources used to construct southern <br />California's existing freeway network. Supplemental funding <br />sources must therefore be developed if these important components <br />of Orange County's transportation system are to be developed to <br />provide relief to existing congested facilities and support <br />orderly development within cities and unincorporated areas. <br />Development fees represent a potential supplemental funding source <br />and as such have been under consideration for some time. <br />The development fee program is based upon Government Code Sections <br />50029, 66484.3 and California Constitution Article 11, .Section 7. <br />The concept is furthermore based on the general principal that <br />future development within prescribed benefit areas will benefit <br />from the construction of the transportation facilities and should <br />pay for them in proportion to projected corridor traffic demand <br />attributable to the development. Future development within the <br />benefit areas is expected to account for 488 of the cost of the <br />SJHTC and F /ETC. The remaining cost of the corridors, <br />representing benefits derived by existing development within the <br />benefit areas and corridor users outside the benefit areas, is <br />proposed to be funded through traditional transportation funding <br />sources such as existing federal and state programs. No <br />assessment of existing developed property is proposed. Corridor <br />usage projects for several hundred traffic analysis zones within <br />the County were developed as a tool to assist in defining the <br />proposed benefit areas. Traffic analysis zones with -4% nor more of <br />their total trip making utilizing the corridor formed -a fairly <br />dense pattern. Identifiable physical features closely <br />approximating the pattern were used to describe the-boundaries of <br />the benefit areas. Two fee zones within each area..of benefit were <br />established based upon direct use of the corridors.`; Traffic <br />analysis zones with 8% or more of their total trip making <br />utilizing the corridor were defined in the higher 'fee zone* (A). <br />The remainder of the zones were defined in the lower fee zone (B). <br />Assessment of fees on a traffic related basis was determined to be <br />equitable. Trip ends were selected as the least common <br />denominator and fees were established by dividing the proportion <br />of corridor cost attributable to each fee zone by the total number <br />of projected daily trip ends within each fee zone. Adjustments <br />were made to trip ends between neighborhood commercial -and <br />residential land uses to reflect the relative benefit of <br />C. _ <br />