HomeMy WebLinkAboutOB 1 M.T. & B.F.P. 10-01-84AGENDA
DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 1984
OLD BUSINESS
NO. 1
10-1-84
Inter-Corn
FRClK:
$IJSJECT:
WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
BOB LEDENDECKER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER
PROPOSED MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM (M.T. & B.F.P.)
FOR EASTERN/FOOTHILL CORRIDORS - FILE #629.5
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Tustin City Council, at their meeting of October 1, 1984, adopt the three
generalized policy statements as]outlined below subject to the implementation of
the four areas of concern outlined within this report.
BACKGROUND:
The County of Orange has been working with the involved local agencies over the
past two years to develop a fee program to facilitate the construction of the
Eastern and Foothill Transportation Corridors. This program develops an area of
benefit in which Tustin and six other Cities and the County are requested to
participate as follows:
Development Fees
Jurisdiction in O00's dollars %
County $353,258 70
Anaheim 8,638 2
Irvine 98,446 20
Orange 4,717 1
San Clemente 6,334 1
Santa Aha 2,686 1
Tustin 17,602 3'
Yorba Linda 12,441 2
$504,121 ~
This fee program is only scheduled to fund 67 percent of the total cost which is
estimated at $755,238,000.00. There is an additional right-of-way cost of
$157,000,000.00 which is expected to be dedicated by developers.
Preliminary developer fee amounts have been developed in the proposed program and
are recapped as follows:
Single family detached units ...................... $1,550.O0/Unit
Condominium units .................................... 910.O0/Unit
Detached-Estate dwelling units ...................... 1,820.O0/Unit
Warehouse ............................................. 455.00/1,000 sq.ft.
Commercial .......................................... 4,500/1,000 sq.ft.
SEPTEMBER 20, 1984
PAGE 2
In addition to the ~ee program, it is proposed that any developer within the area
of corridor alignment would be required to:
1. Dedicate.right-of-way.
2. Grade corridor right-of-way in accordance with schematic plans.
3. Construct arterial overcrossings for internal arterials within
the development.
4. Construct corridor travel lanes and interchange ramps required
immediately for access to proposed development.
At the present time there isno proposed means of funding the remaining 33 percent
of the project costs.
DISCUSSION:
Staff feels there is a need for clarification or implementation of the following
items prior to any City action to officially participate within the M.T. & B.F.P.
for the Eastern/Foothill Corridors:
1. Local agency ability for decision making on all fee program matters.
2. Deve!opment of a program to provide corridor construction phasing.
3. Development of a progra~ to provide a 100% revenue source in lieu of
the current 67%.
Development of a modified program with the Arterial Highway Financing
Program (A.H.F.P) to provide additional/earmarked funding for the seven'
cities and the county that would participate in the M.T & B.F.P. These
additional/earmarked funds could be limited t~ use within the areas
of benefit.
Item No. 1 - Could be attained with the appointment of an Executive Committee made
up of Councilpersons or City Managers. This committee could assess and oversee
the administration, the M.T. & B.F.P. by O.C.T.C., if needed, a technical advisory
sub-committee made up of personnel from the participating agencies.
The areas of benefit for each of-the corridors, Foothill/Eastern and San Joaquin
Hills, should be handled separately with an Executive Committee for each. Eight
members in the Foothill/Eastern and seven members in the San Joaquin Hills
corridor.
Item No. 2 - Prior to participating in the M.T. & B.F.P., each City should be
provided a tentative construction phasing schedule. This schedule, at best guess,
should build from existing corridor/freeway facilities and not create a series of
gaps that. place a burden on local street systems.
September 20, 1984'
Page 3
Item No. 3 - Needs to be resolved with respect to how the remaining 1/3 of the
Foo~nlll/L'wstern corridor will be funded. Additionally, we need to address how
the corridor can be constructed prior to or concurrently with the collection of
fees. There will most likely be a great heed to construct portions of the
facility prior to an adequate amount of funds being collected for construction of
same.
A clarification needs to be made with respect to who will collect and hold the
fees. It may be more palitable to the developer to pay the fee to the local
agency in lieu of the County.
Item No. 4 - If implemented, may take some of the pressure of the local agency and.
developer tor local arterial highway construction and help reduce the double
obligations within the areas of benefit for both corridor and arterial highway
funding.
Both-the Orange County Board of Supervisors and the Orange County Transportation
Commission (OCTC) have adopted the following policy statementS:
1. Based on existing and future traffic volumes and emerging development
patterns, the O.C.T.C. and the Board acknowledges the need for the Eastern and
Foothill Transportation Corridors.
2. Considering financial constr'aints facing road builders today, the O.C.T.C. and
the Board recognizes that transportation development fees paid by land
developers are necessary and appropriate part of a financing mix for
construction of the Eastern and Foothill Corridors.
3. The Eastern and Foothill Transportation Corridors are regional in nature and
must be planned, financed, and constructed as a cooperative effort by Cities,
the County of Orange, State and Federal governments, and other responsible
representatives of the private sector. Both O.C.T.C. and the Board agrees to
.pqay an active part in this regional transportation effort.
These policy statements are general enough in nature and can certainly be
supported if the City Council so desires. However, any support of these policy
statements should be conditioned with the implementation of the four previously
mentioned items concerning:
1. Local agency ability for decision making on all fee program matters.
2. Development of a construction phasing program.
3. Development of a 100% revenue, source.
4. Development of a modified A.H.F.P. program for participating agencies.
Bob Ledendecker
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
BL:jr
oram]e county chapter
buildin~J indust~'~J association o1: southern california, inc.
September 13, 1984
The Honorable Ursula E. Kennedy
Mayor, City of Tustin
Tustin City Hall
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
Dear Mayor Kennedy:
The Tustin City Council currently has under consideration
three important transportation policy statements concerning
the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors. The purpose
of this letter is to indicate the Building Industry Associ-
ation of Southern California, Orange County Chapter's
support for the adoption of these policy statements.
The BIA has not abandoned its traditional opposition to
new development fees. Such fees raise the cost of housing
and narrow the market of eligible housing consumers, while
creating an equally chilling effect on commercial-industrial
development.
However we concur with the general finding by the
Orange County Board of Supervisors and the Orange County
Transportation Commission that building permit fees are a
"necessary and appropriate" part of the, financing mix for
the Foothill/Eastern and San Joaquin Hills Transportation
Corridors.
The Foothill/Eastern Corridors~will be essential to the
continued production of needed housing, commercial-industrial
development, and the general economic vitality of North
Orange County. Adopting the proposed transportation corridor
policy statements is a fundamental first step towards
ensuring that some identifiable plan is proceeding that will
allow this economic growth to occur.
2001 East Fourth Street, Suite 224
Santa Ana. CA 92705 (714) 547-3042
-2-
.We must emphasize, parenthetically, that. we feel the
county's formula for allocation of fees' is inequitable with
respect to commercial-retail uses, and we will continue to
work with the Board of Supervisors and OCTC to achieve a
more equitable fee scale. Larger commitments of federal and
state fu2ds and untraditional funding mechanisms such as
toll roads, should also be pursued as part of OCTC's ongoing
financing study, in order to reduce or.eliminate development
fees as these other sources are identified.
Thank you for your consideration of our input. Please
do not hesitate'to contact me, or BIA/OCC Executive Director
John Erskine if ygu have any questions regarding our position
on this matter.
President
RFO/jc
cc: BIA/OCC Board of Directors