⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 3 findings
F1
As lead agency, the City Council’s minimal action from 2011 to 2015 and their January 2016 vote to rescind approval of the engineering design contract unnecessarily delayed the Lower Ortega Project and cost the county millions of dollars.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
OCTA should continue to actively work to resolve future traffic concerns on Ortega Highway.
F2
Traffic will continue to increase in South Orange County and Ortega Highway is one of the main arterial roads on which this traffic will travel. Until the Lower Ortega Project is complete congestion and safety concerns will remain.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
City staff should prepare a report for presentation to the City Council and the citizens of San Juan Capistrano by September 1, 2017, assessing any fiscal consequences to the City incurred by their withdrawal from the active participation on the Lower Ortega Project so that citizens are advised of the full impact of actions taken with respect to the Project. This includes fiscal damages, claims, and penalties.
F3
The costs for completion of the Lower Ortega Project have escalated and are probably still understated. Further delay will result in additional costs for the taxpayers of Orange County. Penal Code §933 and §933.05 require governing bodies and elected officials to which a report is directed to respond to findings and recommendations. Responses are requested, from departments of local agencies and their non-elected department heads. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2016-2017 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.” Based on the investigation titled, “Ortega Highway: Unnecessary Delays Have Cost Us Millions” in Orange County, the OCGJ makes the following three recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The County should continue to work towards timely completion of the Lower Ortega Project. REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code §933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected County official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) 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 therefore. (b) 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 time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame 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 time frame 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 therefore. (c) 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. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section §933.05 are required from: Responses are required from the following governing bodies of the date of the publication of this report: 1. Orange County Transportation Authority Board of Directors (F.2., F.3., R.1.) 2. Orange County Board of Supervisors (R.3.) 3. San Juan Capistrano City Council (F.1., F.3., R.2.) Responses are requested from the following non-elected agency or department heads of the date of the publication of this report: 1. Orange County Public Works (F.2., F.3., R.3.) REFERENCES Caltrans. (2015). 2015 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways. Sacramento: Caltrans, Division of Traffic Operations. City of San Juan Capistrano & Rancho Mission Viejo, LLC. (2013, October 15). Funding Assistance Agreement. San Juan Capistrano, CA. City of San Juan Capistrano. (2015, December 15). Minutes - San Juan Capistrano City Council Regular Meeting, Item E2a. San Juan Capistrano, CA: City of San Juan Capistrano. City of San Juan Capistrano. (2016). Minutes - San Juan Capistrano City Council Regular Meeting, Action Item 2. San Juan Capistrano, CA: City of San Juan Capistrano. City of San Juan Capistrano. (2017). http://www.sanjuancapistrano.org/index.aspx?page=3. Retrieved March 23, 2017, from City of San Juan Capistrano: http://www.sanjuancapistrano.org/index.aspx?page=3 May, S. P. (2017, February 7). San Juan Capistrano City Council Agenda Report. Retrieved May 1, 2017, from http://sjc.granicus.com: http://sjc.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=1426&meta_id=80602 Maze, T. (2007, May 17). Access Management Handbook. Iowa State University. Ames: Center for Transportation Research and Education. Orange County Board of Supervisors. (2016, October 11). Resolution No. 16-097, Item 20. Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California. Santa Ana, CA: County of Orange. Orange County Public Works. (2016, October 21). Ortega Highway Widening Improvement - PA & ED Phase. OCTA - M2 Regional Capacity Program, Arterial Capacilty Enhancement. Santa Ana: Orange County Public Works. Orange County Transportation Authority. (2013). 2013 Measure M2 Regional Capacity Program Call for Projects - Programming Recommendations. Retrieved May 1, 2017, from http://www.octa.net: http://www.octa.net/pdf/2013RCPAllocationSummary.pdf Orange County Transportation Authority. (2017). OCTA. Retrieved March 22, 2017, from http://www.octa.net: http://www.octa.net/News-and-Resources/Open-Data/MPAH- Overview/ Stipulated Judgement, 30-2009-00328947, (Superior Court of California, Orange County, Case No. August 11, 2011). Swegles, F. (2017, February 14). San Juan Capistrano to Repay OCTA $705,095 from Canceled Road Project. Retrieved May 1, 2017, from http://www.ocregister.com: http://www.ocregister.com/2017/02/14/san-juan-capistrano-to-repay-octa-705095-from- canceled-road-project/ APPENDICES
Conclusions 1
-
CL1Traffic congestion in South Orange County will continue to be impacted by population growth as well as residential and commercial development. Ortega Highway is one of the main east-west traffic corridors in the area. Caltrans is ultimately responsible for managing the operations of state highways. Public Works, in accordance with Caltrans and OCTA, is responsible for resolving Orange County traffic corridor issues. Both agencies prefer, but are not required, to work through local city governments on such projects. The City Council’s January 2016 reversal on executing the design engineering contract for the Lower Ortega Project took the City out of the role of lead agency and cost San Juan Capistrano residents $185,170 in ineligible expenditures and interest. In rejecting the role as lead agency, the City also lost an advantage of having some influence over potential design aspects that could be tailored to the particular aesthetics and culture of San Juan Capistrano. Continued delays and an inability to move forward with the Lower Ortega Project is a detriment to the mobility of the citizens of South Orange County. Regardless of the agency that takes the lead role in the Project, the following fact is inescapable: Since 1997, when Caltrans initiated the planning for the Lower Ortega Project, roadway construction costs have increased significantly. While Project cost estimates prepared subsequent to the 2011 Settlement Agreement totaled approximately $25 to $30 million for design, right-of-way, and construction, the current Project estimate by Public Works for these same project components totals more than $52 million. This increase is directly attributable to the over five year delay of the Project by the City.
Agency Responses 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Orange County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office