Orange County Grand Jury • 2024-2025

Photos credit: Octa Octa: It Takes a Lot to Keep Us Moving Grand Jury

Published: June 06, 2025 27 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 14 findings

F1
There is no consensus on the causes of environmental disruptions resulting in track closures on the San Clemente Railroad corridor, which significantly hinders Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) from finding an agreed-upon solution.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Orange County Transportation Authority has made good faith efforts to listen to input from all interested parties in San Clemente on the railroad and beach environmental issues and has made substantial adjustments in its proposed solutions based on these discussions.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Experts agree that there is abundant sand available for replenishment from inland sources, as well as offshore sources; both could help with track stabilization.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Despite significant obstacles to sand replenishment, OCTA should dedicate sufficient assets to investigating solutions whereby sand can be sourced and transported more quickly so that it can be a larger component of railroad track fortification. This investigation should begin by September 30, 2025. (F3)
F4
The California Coastal Commission (CCC) and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) determine what is classified as an “emergency.” OCTA must abide by their decisions. As a result, it is very challenging for OCTA to proactively address future environmental disruptions, which are almost certain to occur.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Orange County Transportation Authority should prioritize its lobbying of State and federal agencies to create an intermediate-level environmental permit designed specifically for public infrastructure that is between “Standard Coastal Development” and “Emergency.” (F4, F5, F6) OC Streetcar Project
F5
There are only two types of permits for projects within the coastal zone: Emergency and Standard Coastal Development. Limited to these categories, it is extremely difficult for OCTA to be proactive in addressing impending environmental disruption to rail service.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Orange County Transportation Authority should prioritize its lobbying of State and federal agencies to create an intermediate-level environmental permit designed specifically for public infrastructure that is between “Standard Coastal Development” and “Emergency.” (F4, F5, F6) OC Streetcar Project
F6
The Standard Coastal Development permit does not differentiate between public infrastructure and private development. Therefore, projects that impact public transport and safety are not afforded an expedited process over hotels or other private development. OC Streetcar Project
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Orange County Transportation Authority should prioritize its lobbying of State and federal agencies to create an intermediate-level environmental permit designed specifically for public infrastructure that is between “Standard Coastal Development” and “Emergency.” (F4, F5, F6) OC Streetcar Project
F7
The Grand Jury cannot determine Santa Ana residents’ and merchants’ level of support and enthusiasm for the OC Streetcar when it was first proposed, or even currently.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
Projects of the financial magnitude of the OC Streetcar (now over $600,000,000.00 and counting) should be planned and executed to benefit a significantly larger portion of Orange County. This should begin with all projects currently underway. (F7, F10)
R4
For major transportation projects such as the OC Streetcar, OCTA should improve public outreach, including education about each project’s origin, need, expected benefit, timeline, cost, and funding sources. This should begin with all projects currently underway. (F7, F8)
F8
Orange County Transportation Authority is relying on outdated OC Streetcar Project ridership analyses from 2015, resulting in unrealistic expectations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
For major transportation projects such as the OC Streetcar, OCTA should improve public outreach, including education about each project’s origin, need, expected benefit, timeline, cost, and funding sources. This should begin with all projects currently underway. (F7, F8)
F9
Despite significant cost overruns and delays in the construction of the OC Streetcar Project, OCTA has failed to mitigate significant interruptions and lost revenue experienced by Santa Ana businesses.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Orange County Transportation Authority should establish a Business Interruption Fund (BIF), through a third party, like that of Los Angeles Metro Transit Authority, to assist business owners whose livelihoods are disrupted by major transportation projects such as the OC Streetcar Project. BIF to be established by December 31, 2025. (F9)
F10
The estimated reduction of 12,500 daily vehicle miles of travel projected to be a benefit of the OC Streetcar Project is a tiny fraction of the daily miles traveled in the entire County. This calls into question the efficacy of the OC Streetcar Project. Other OCTA Topics
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Projects of the financial magnitude of the OC Streetcar (now over $600,000,000.00 and counting) should be planned and executed to benefit a significantly larger portion of Orange County. This should begin with all projects currently underway. (F7, F10)
F11
Orange County Transportation Authority is making a responsible effort to comply with the State-mandated zero emission bus pilot program. It has purchased fuel cell and battery electric buses and related infrastructure to determine which type will be the bus of the future.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
Orange County Transportation Authority’s decision to fully self-insure for liability runs the risk that a catastrophic loss could severely deplete its financial reserves.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
Orange County Transportation Authority should consider reentering the liability insurance market to reduce the potential cost of a catastrophic loss. Staff report to OCTA Board about reentering the market by December 31, 2025. (F12) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the Findings and Recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933 (c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. 933.05. (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. (d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release. (e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental. (f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report. (Amended by Stats. 1997, Ch. 443, Sec. 5. Effective January 1, 1998.)
F13
As mitigation for expedited freeway project approvals, OCTA has purchased approximately 1,300 acres of open space, restored 350 acres of habitat, and established an endowment to manage these properties. This benefits the health of wildlife and residents of Orange County.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
Measure M2 sales tax (now referred to as OC Go) benefits Orange County by providing significant funding for transportation projects.
No recommendations for this finding

Agency Responses 1

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.