Laserfiche WebLink
City Manager 1 4 March 6, 1985 <br />Until recently, other portions of the plan were also funded. The widening <br />of the Santa Ana Freeway and the Newport /Costa Mesa Freeway, and the <br />improvement of the 5/55 Interchange were all included in the State's <br />Transportation Improvement Program. Now, however, we have learned that <br />without a gas tax increase or some alternative financing, these <br />improvements may not cone about. Attachment F through J include recent <br />documentation that these projects are now in jeopardy. <br />On the transit side, Santa Ana's developers have been strongly behind a <br />transit solution. Santa Ana will be the focus of the County's transit <br />network if a financing plan can be developed to put it in place. <br />Currently, Santa Ana's developers are paying for local arterial <br />improvements through our City's Transportation Area Fee program. The <br />County's Corridor fee program would add a second assessment to'pay for new <br />freeways in the south County. To attain a transit solution, Santa Ana <br />developers would need to pay a third or fourth assessment, which is quite <br />unlikely. <br />Significant opportunities exist to invest Santa Ana developer fees in <br />highway solutions serving central Orange County and the Santa Ana <br />developers. Harbor Boulevard is designated as a super street but there is <br />no County financing plan for super street construction. As an alternate, <br />the Santa Ana River has been envisioned as the extension of the 57 Freeway <br />from Orange to Costa Mesa serving developnents in Santa Ana. No financing <br />is being considered for this project. Finally, the east -west access to <br />downtown Santa Ana on a regional basis needs upgrading. Staff has proposed <br />a joint highway /transit investment in the Pacific Electric Corridor between <br />the Garden Grove Freeway and the downtown, combining joint use of Santa Ana <br />Boulevard and Civic Center Drive for highway and transit solutions. No <br />financing plan for this improvement has been proposed. <br />After considering the proposed Corridor fee program, the equity of <br />assessment, the unresolved solutions to the County's system of <br />transportation, and financing commitments to existing needs, staff is <br />reommending against participation in this program as currently presented <br />by the Transportation Cm nission. Should a more equitable financing plan <br />or County -wide solution to transportation needs be developed by the <br />Commission or the County of Orange, staff would reconsider our <br />recommendation for participation. <br />other agencies have also had a difficult time with the proposal in its <br />current format. Attachment K summarizes available information for <br />affected cities as of this date. The City of Irvine, the Irvine Company <br />and the Mission Viejo Company are the obvious beneficiaries of the <br />Corridor Fee Program as currently structured. Irvine's Council action <br />supporting this 'program is included as Attachment L as transmitted to all <br />potential assessment cities. <br />Consideration of the proposed Corridor fee program is scheduled for the <br />Transportation Advisory Committee meeting of March 14, 1985 and the <br />Planning Commission on March 11, 1985. Results of these actions will be <br />presented at your meeting. <br />David Grosse <br />Attachments <br />DHG /am <br />