Correspondence - Item 26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Macarthur is already the de facto alternate for issues on the 405. This is in an area that already has some of the busiest intersections in the County. Between Thanksgiving and Lunar New Year, the area is already frequently gridlocked. There is a development under construction now at Macarthur and the 55 freeway. THE VILLAGE (adjacent to this proposal, and across from South Coast Plaza) has already been presented. Think what a project like this would do to the area where you live. The Development Agreement must contain more mitigation for the area. Remember, the owners of this property also own property on the East side of Bristol. Parts of this could contain modified right turn / access -egress provisions to mitigate the issues. "PUBLIC BENEFIT FUNDS" $22,000,000 has been suggested for "Public Benefit". Considering the current costs of just about everything, this is absurdly inadequate. What does it cost to fully reconstruct 2 miles of Macarthur Blvd? ( Hint: roadway reconstruction costs have been rising by 24% per year; UP 69% since December of 2020. One intersection, Spruce and Segerstrom, will cost $800,000.00 today; what will things cost in another 2-5-10 years? )* The increase in construction traffic alone will accelerate the need for work on Macarthur and other arterials, already in jeopardy. This will need to be done before the RELATED project is fully contributory. Traffic on Flower, Sunflower, Macarthur, and Fairview will greatly increase, with a need for increased maintenance. The proposed funds will be exhausted just maintaining** what we have, and nothing will improve or be mitigated. The majority of the funds proposed need to be allocated to the area that will be most impacted by the development. There needs to be local citizen input, with full voting on how funds would be used. The developer has touted the economic boon (sales tax, real estate taxes / valuation, increased economic activity) this will be for the City. That "largess" is in the future: 10-15 years. But the area will suffer and degrade in the interim. There will be an immediate decrease in funds from businesses, and increase in infrastructure deterioration. The investment of the Public Benefit funds in the immediate area is needed to off -set this impact, AND to ensure that the area is prepared and attractive to future residents, investors, and retail customers. If this does not happen, if the funds are parsed throughout the city on short-term pet projects and feel -good promotions, the development will not deliver the future projected gains. We must maintain the long view on the investment of the area. Remember the pain, economic impact, and ongoing traffic issues of the trolley? And how we were hamstrung by the County? The City needs to utilize the funds to offset the issues, anticipated and unanticipated, for the local area. This project impact will be an order of magnitude greater in volume and duration; in the area that is a large (largest?) contributor to the City budget. The project will undoubtedly impact that budget when we can least afford it, the next 2-6 years. *hat s://enotrans.org/ rticl /frr -hi hwa -construction-costs-continued-to- .raw- **hat s://www.santa-ana.orb/.42!;_um._�!l s./daft-2122-pavement-plan "the arterial network will change from "Good" to "Fair" condition from FY 2022123 to FY 2028129 ...level of funding is insufficient to stabilize the backlog since the unfunded deferred M&R projects will increase by 43 percent for the arterial network and increase by 35 percent for the local network. Fil