Laserfiche WebLink
MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM <br />FOR <br />SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR <br />AND <br />FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS <br />Executive Summary <br />It can no longer be expected that facilities such as the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor <br />( SJHTC) and Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors (F/ETC) can be fully funded from the <br />traditional revenue sources used to construct southern California existing freeway network. <br />Supplemental funding sources must therefore be developed if these important components of <br />Orange County's transportation system are to be developed to provide relief to existing <br />congested facilities and support orderly development within cities and unincorporated areas. <br />Development fees represent a potential supplemental funding source. <br />The development fee program is based upon Government Code Sections 50029, 66484.3 and <br />California Constitution Article II, Section 7. The concept is furthermore based on the general <br />principle that future development within prescribed benefit areas will benefit from the <br />construction of the transportation facilities and should pay for them in proportion to projected <br />corridor traffic demand attributable to the development. Future development within the benefit <br />areas is expected to account for approximately 48% of the cost of the SJHTC and F/ETC. The <br />remaining cost of the corridors, representing benefits derived by existing development within the <br />benefit areas and corridor users outside the benefit areas, is proposed to be funded through <br />traditional transportation funding sources such as existing federal and state programs, and <br />additional, non - traditional sources, such as toll resources. No assessment of existing developed <br />property is proposed. <br />Corridor usage projections for several hundred traffic analysis zones within the County were <br />developed as a tool to assist in defining the proposed benefit areas. Traffic analysis zones with <br />4% or more of their total trip making utilizing the corridor formed a fairly dense pattern. <br />Identifiable physical features closely approximating the pattern were used to describe the <br />boundaries of the benefit areas. Two fee zones within each Area of Benefit were established <br />based upon direct use of the corridors. Traffic analysis zones with 8% or more of their total trip <br />making utilizing the corridor were defined in the higher fee zone (A). The remainder of the <br />zones were defined in the lower fee zone (B). <br />Assessment of fees on a traffic related basis was determined to be equitable. Trip ends were <br />selected as the least common denominator and fees were established by dividing the proportion <br />of corridor cost attributable to each fee zone by the total number of projected daily trip ends <br />within each fee zone. Adjustments were made to trip ends between neighborhood commercial <br />and residential land uses to reflect the relative benefit of neighborhood commercial development <br />223512_2.DOC <br />