HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 - Measure M Funding ApplicationsAgenda Item No. 5
November 22, 2011
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Public Works Department
Stephen G. Badum, Public Works Director
949 - 644 -3311, sbadum @newportbeachca.gov
PREPARED BY: Andy Tran, Senior Civil Engineer
APPROVED: A
TITLE: Adopt a Resolution to Submit Funding Applications to Orange
County Transportation Authority for Funding Under the Measure M2
Comprehensive Transportation Funding Program
ABSTRACT:
In accordance with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)
Comprehensive Transportation Funding Program (CTFP) guidelines, local agencies are
required to adopt a Resolution in order to participate in the current Measure M2 call for
projects. Staff recommends submitting funding applications for four possible separate
projects.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. 2011 -104 approving the submittal of four funding applications to
OCTA in accordance with the CTFP guidelines as part of the current Measure M2 call
for projects.
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
There required funding needed at this time for adoption of the Resolution to support
project applications. Should the project applications be successful and awarded
Measure M2 grant funds for the project(s), the City of Newport Beach will be required to
provide match funds of at least 50 percent for the arterial capacity enhancement
projects and 20 percent for the traffic signal synchronization projects. Total project cost
and required City matching funds for these projects will be determined as part of the
project design. Funding for the projects would be allocated in the FY 2012 -2013 Capitol
Improvements Program except for the Newport Coast Drive Corridor Traffic Signal
Modernization Project, which is planned for FY 2013 -2014.
Adopt a Resolution to Submit Funding Applications to Orange County Transportation
Authority for Funding Under the Measure M2 Comprehensive Transportation Funding
Program
November 22, 2011
Page 2
DISCUSSION:
OCTA is currently administering a call for projects as part of the Measure M2 CTFP. In
order to participate, agencies are required to submit project applications by December
2, 2011. The CTFP is a competitive funding program. All project applications received
by OCTA will be evaluated and scored. Measure M2 funds will only be allocated to
successful project applications. If successful, the City will be required to provide the
necessary local matching funds.
Staff recommends submitting four funding applications for the following possible
improvements:
1. Coast Highway Widening at Old Newport Boulevard
2. Newport Boulevard Widening from Via Lido to 30th Street
3. Traffic Signal Modernization of the San Joaquin Hills Road Corridor (Phase 6A)
4. Traffic Signal Modernization of the Newport Coast Drive Corridor (Phase 6B)
Project No. 1 involves possibly adding a third westbound through lane, bike lane and a
right turn pocket on Coast Highway at Old Newport Boulevard. Old Newport Boulevard
would also be realigned to improve roadway geometry and provide parking mitigation
for the A Market and Restaurant property should the project be approved and
constructed.
Project No. 2 involves possibly adding one southbound through lane between Finley
Avenue and 32nd Street which will terminate as a right -turn lane at 32nd Street and an
additional northbound through lane from 30th Street to 32 "d Street. Construction of
landscaped medians would also be included as part of this project. Staff was
successful in obtaining CTFP funding for the engineering phase during the previous call
for projects and will be applying for CTFP funding for the right -of -way phase during this
current call for projects.
Project Nos. 3 and 4 involve upgrading the traffic signal system along the San Joaquin
Hills Road Corridor and the Newport Coast Drive Corridor as continuation of the
Citywide Traffic Signal Modernization Project. Both corridors are listed in the Traffic
Signal Modernization Master Plan as the sixth phase. In order to be eligible for
Measure M2 funding, the corridors have been separated into as phases 6A and 6B.
Additionally, the Newport Coast Drive corridor includes intersections within the City of
Irvine and an intersection within Caltrans jurisdiction. As the lead agency and to qualify
for Measure M2 funding, the City of Newport Beach will apply for funding for the entire
Adopt a Resolution to Submit Funding Applications to Orange County Transportation
Authority for Funding Under the Measure M2 Comprehensive Transportation Funding
Program
November 22, 2011
Page 3
corridor, including improvements for these jurisdictions. Both the City of Irvine and
Caltrans will be required to fund the matching cost of their respective improvements to
complete the project.
Location maps for each of the four projects have been attached.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff recommends the City Council find this action is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will
not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378)
of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it
has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or
indirectly.
NOTICING:
The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of
the meeting at which the City Council considers the item).
Submitted by:
Y �
i ,,Stephen G. Badum
r ` Public Works Director
Attachments: A. Resolution
B. Location Maps (4 Total)
RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF
VARIOUS PROJECT APPLICATIONS TO THE ORANGE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR FUNDING
UNDER THE COMPREHESIVE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach desires to implement the
following four projects:
1. Coast Highway Widening at Old Newport Boulevard
2. Newport Boulevard Widening from Via Lido to 30th Street
3. Traffic Signal Modernization of the San Joaquin Hills Road Corridor (Phase 6 A)
4. Traffic Signal Modernization of the Newport Coast Drive Corridor (Phase 6B);
FTiTI
WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has been declared by the
Orange County Transportation Authority to meet the eligibility requirements to receive
Measure M "Fair Share" funds; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has adopted a
General Plan Circulation Element that is consistent with the County of Orange Master
Plan of Arterial Highways; and
WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach will provide matching funds for
the project as required by the Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Funding
Program Procedures Manual; and
Attachment A
Y
m
ti
o
Z
COAST HIGHWAY WIDENING AT
OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD
LOCATION MAP
Ja
do
.r
V P
COAST
0
l/
PJ�
AVON
�- ST
HWy
WEST
z
z
Li
'IAyN J
W
V
W
7 PROJECT LOCATION
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
C -XXXX I R- XXXX -S I
Attachment B 1 of 4
r�
:, rt :% I I
i
4
e
i
0
PROJECT
LOCATION
NEWPORT BOULEVARD WIDENING
VIA LIDO TO 30TH-STREET
2of4
i
W
r
O.
P f/
L ti
� / 7
Y (�
P
J/
� /
L
l
Community Center io
SAN '` QUfN Mf.[,S
s J Fire
pJ�I Sfn[ion
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD LEGEND
TSSP IMPROVEMENTS
TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODERNIZATION ® SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
PHASE 6A
_.kzol'
4 of 4 1�
M
OCTA
FtyytIFrrj:f.nraj,Rytxj
Orange County
Trani( District
twat Transportation
Authority
swvice Authority for
Freeway Emergencies
Consolidated Tmnsporn6on
Se
rvim Agency
Congestion Management
Agency
service Authority for
Abandoned Vehicles
October 4, 2011
Mr. Dave Kiff
City Manager
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
I am pleased to inform you that on September 26, 2011, the Orange County
Transportation Authority Board of Directors conducted a public hearing and
approved an amendment to the Measure M Ordinance No. 2. The purpose of the
amendment was to allow agencies which qualify as an "Eligible Jurisdiction"
under Ordinance No. 3 (Measure M2) to also be an "Eligible Jurisdiction" under
Ordinance No. 2 (Measure M). This change reduces the level of administrative
efforts for our respective agencies and allows us to direct more of our resources
toward transportation improvements.
This amendment will go into effect on October 26, 2011, and a copy of the
amended Ordinance No. 2 is attached for your records. Should your agency
have any questions regarding the amendment, please contact Kia Mortazavi,
Executive Director, Planning, at (714) 560 -5741 or kmortazavi @octa.net.
Sincerely,
Will Kempton
Chief Executive Officer
WK:ar
Attachment
c: Public Works Director
ORANGE COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
ORDINANCE NO.2
AMENDED:
September 23, 1991
November 25, 1991
May 23, 1994
May 13, 1996
June 9, 1997
December 10, 2001
September 13, 2004
September 24, 2007
March 8, 2010
September 26, 2011
Measure M Amendments
Ordinance Amendment
1. September 23, 1991
• Procedures and Recommendation for Amendments to the Measure M
Ordinance
2. September 26, 2011
• Agencies which qualify as an `Eligible Jurisdiction" under Ordinance No. 3
(Measure M2) to also be an `Eligible Jurisdiction" under Ordinance No. 2.
(Policy Resolution No. 3, Section 11 C1, subsection b)
Expenditure Plan Amendments
1. November 25, 1991
• Reallocation of Funds Within Freeway Program
2. May 23, 1994
• Reallocation of Freeway Program Funding Between 1 -5 and SR- 911SR -55
3. May 13, 1996
• Cost Savings Transferred to CURE Accounts
• Amendments to Local Streets and Road Component
5. December 10, 2001
• Amend Freeway Program to Add SR -22 at $203 Million
6. September 13, 2004
• Amend Freeway Program to Advance SR -22 and Additional $123.7 Million
7. September 24, 2007
• Modify SR -57 Description Consistent with Project G in Measure M2
and Increase Funding by $22 Million
• Expand Limits of SR -22 to Include the West County Connection
Improvements and Increase Funding by $10 Million
8. March 8, 2010
• Decrease SR -57 Funding by $22 Million
Revised 9/29/10
I Local Transportation Ordinance Number 2
2 The Revised Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance
3
4 PREAMBLE
5 A. Pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 180050, the Orange County
6 Transportation Commission has been designated as the Orange County Local Transportation
7
8 Authority (the "Authority") by the Orange County Board of Supervisors.
9 B. There has been adopted a countywide Traffic Improvement and Growth
10 Management Plan, dated May 22, 1989, pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section
11 180206 (the "Plan ") which will be administered by the Authority.
12 C. The Plan provides for needed countywide facility and service improvements
13
which will be funded, in part, by a retail transaction and use tax of one -half (1/2) of one percent
I4
16 SECTION 1. TITLE
17 This Ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the Revised Orange County Traffic
18 Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance.
19
SECTION 2. SUMMARY
20
21 This Ordinance provides for the establishment and implementation of a retail transaction
22 and use tax (the "Retail Tax") at the rate of one -half (1/2) of one percent (1 %) for a period of
23 twenty years (20) and for the Authority to issue bonds for transportation purposes.
24 SECTION 3. IMPOSITION OF RETAIL TRANSACTION AND USE TAX
25 A. Subject to approval of same by the electors, the Authority hereby imposes, in the
26
27 incorporated and unincorporated territories of the County, in accordance with the provisions of
28 Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the California Revenue and Taxation
29 Code and Division 19 (commencing with Section 180000) of the California Public Utilities
30 Code, the Retail Tax at the rate of one -half (1/2) of one percent (1 %) for a period of twenty (20)
31 years commencing April 1, 1991.
I
I B. The Retail Tax shall be in addition to any other taxes imposed by law, including
2
any existing or future state or local sales tax or transaction and use tax. The provisions of
3
4 California Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 7261 and 7262 are hereby incorporated by
5 reference as if fully set forth herein.
6 SECTION 4. AGREEMENT WITH STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
7 A. Prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, the Authority shall contract with the
8 California State Board of Equalization (the "State Board of Equalization ") to perform functions
9
10 incident to the administration and operation of this Ordinance.
11 B. The relationship between the Authority and the State Board of Equalization shall
12 be specified in a companion Ordinance which shall be adopted when the electors approve the
13 Retail Tax.
14 SECTION 5. INTENT AND PURPOSES
15
16 A. All of the gross revenues generated from the Retail Tax plus any interest or other
17 earnings thereon (collectively, the 'Retail Tax Revenues ") after deduction of amounts payable
18 to the State Board of Equalization pursuant to Section 4 hereof and after deduction of costs for
19 the administration of the Plan as provided herein, shall be used solely for the transportation
20 projects and programs described in the Plan.
21
22
B. The speck projects and programs to be implemented pursuant to this
23 Ordinance as well as the Growth Management Program (as hereinafter defined) required by
24 this Ordinance are described in the Plan. As used herein , the term "Growth Management
25 Program" shall mean and refer to the Orange County Division, League of California Cities,
26 Countywide Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Program, Countywide Growth
27
28 Management Plan Component, dated June 15, 1989, which is hereby incorporated by
29 reference as if fully set forth herein.
30 C. All local jurisdictions and special jurisdictions in Orange County (the "County ")
31 are encouraged to seek all available funding from private and public sources to further the
purposes of the Plan and this Ordinance.
2
I D. It is the intent of the Authority to provide a forum for the discussion and resolution
2 of countywide transportation planning and related issues.
3
4 SECTION 6. BONDING AUTHORITY
5 A. "Pay as you go" financing is the preferred method of financing transportation
6 improvements and programs under this Ordinance. However, the Authority may use bond
7 financing as an alternative method if the scope of planned expenditures makes "pay as you go"
8 financing unfeasible.
9
10 B. Upon approval by the electors of the ballot proposition described in Section 15
11 herein (the "Ballot Proposition "), the Authority shall be empowered to issue bonds (the
12 "Bonds "), pursuant to the provisions of Division 19, Sections 180250 through 180265, of the
13 California Public Utilities Code, for the transportation purposes described in Section 12 herein.
14 The Bonds shall be payable from the Retail Tax Revenues.
15
16 SECTION 7. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT REQUIREMENTS
17 A. . It is the intent of the Legislature and the Authority that the Retail Tax Revenues
18 allocated pursuant to this Ordinance for local street and road projects be used to supplement
19 and not replace existing local revenues being used for transportation improvements and
20
programs.
21
22 B. Under state enabling legislation (Public Utilities Code Section 180200), a local
23 jurisdiction cannot redirect monies currently being used for transportation purposes to other
24 uses and replace the redirected funds with Retail Tax Revenues. To meet said requirement of
25 State law, each local jurisdiction is hereby required to maintain a minimum level of local streets
26 and roads expenditures in conformance with the following requirements (the "Maintenance of
27
28 Effort Requirements "):
29 1. The minimum annual level of local streets and roads expenditures for
30 each jurisdiction shall be based upon an average of the expenditures in each jurisdiction for
31 the purposes of local street maintenance and construction over the five (5) year period from
Fiscal Year 1985 -86 through Fiscal Year 1989 -90.
3
1 2. Within six months after approval of the Retail Tax by the electors, the
2
3 Authority shall, through a cooperative process with all affected jurisdictions, adopt a method for
4 calculating minimum expenditures including a means for taking into account. extraordinary
5 expenses or special circumstances, including, but not limited to, state and federal grants,
6 redevelopment and bond financing.
7 3. Within six months after approval of the Retail Tax by the electors, the
8 Authority, through a cooperative process with all affected jurisdictions, shall adopt a method for
9
10 determining minimum expenditures in newly incorporated cities, areas annexed to existing
11 cities, and for making corresponding, appropriate adjustments to the County's minimum
12 expenditures because of such incorporation(s) and/or annexation(s).
13 C. An annual independent audit may be conducted by the Authority to verify that the
14 Maintenance of Effort Requirements are being met by the local jurisdictions.
15
16 D. Any local jurisdiction which does not meet the Maintenance of Effort
17 Requirements in any given year shall not receive any Retail Tax Revenues in such year. Any
18 Retail Tax Revenues withheld because of failure of an otherwise eligible jurisdiction to comply
19 with the Maintenance of Effort Requirements shall be redistributed pro rata to remaining
20 eligible jurisdictions.
21
22 SECTION 8. POLICY RESOLUTIONS
23 A. Statements of policy ( "Policy Resolutions ") may be adopted by the Authority and
24 be affixed to this Ordinance by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Authority. These Policy
25 Resolutions shall have the same authority as other provisions of this Ordinance.
26 B. Policy Resolutions shall be consistent with the Plan adopted May 22, 1989, and
27
28 shall be designed to clarify this Ordinance. However, the Policy Resolutions may elaborate or
29 expand upon the generalized statements included in this Ordinance C. Policy Resolutions
30 clarifying this Ordinance, numbered consecutively and in resolution format, shall require at
31 least two readings and one public hearing before the Authority before becoming effective.
4
I D. The intent of each Policy Resolution shall be to provide clear operating
2 instructions for the administration of this Ordinance and the Plan. In the event of any conflict,
3
4 the provisions of the Plan shall supersede the provisions of this Ordinance and any Policy
5 Resolution, and the provisions of this Ordinance shall supersede the provisions of any Policy
6 Resolutions.
7 SECTION 9. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
8 A. Retail Tax Revenues may be expended by the Authority for salaries, wages,
9
10 benefits, overhead, auditing, and those services, including contractual services, necessary to
11 administer the fiscal aspects of this Ordinance; however, in no case shall the annual
12 expenditures for the salaries and benefits of the staff of the Authority exceed one percent (1 %)
13 of the Retail Tax Revenues.
14 B. Costs of performing or contracting for project- related work shall be paid from the
15
Retail Tax Revenues allocated to the appropriate purposes as set herein.
16
17 C. The Authority may contract with any public agency or private firm for planning or
18 programming purposes.
19 D. An annual independent audit shall be conducted to ensure that the Retail Tax
20 Revenues expended by the Authority under this Section 9 are necessary and reasonable in
21
22 carving out its responsibilities under this Ordinance.
23 SECTION 10. ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT
24 A. Pursuant to Section 4 of Article XIIIB of the State Constitution, the appropriations
25 limit for the first year of the Authority has been established as $500,000,000.
26 B. Such appropriations limit shall be subject to adjustment as provided by law, and
27
28 all expenditures of Retail Tax Revenues are subject to such appropriations limit
29 SECTION 11. EFFECTIVE AND OPERATIVE DATES
30 A. This Ordinance and all of its Resolutions shall become effective on April 1, 1991,
31 only if a majority of electors voting at the election requested to be held November 6, 1990, vote
to approve the Ballot Proposition.
5
B. The Authority may begin work on the projects and programs described herein
when a majority of the electors voting November 6, 1990, vote to approve the Ballot
Proposition.
SECTION 12. USE AND SAFEGUARDS OF USE OF REVENUES
A. Retail Tax Revenues shall be used solely for transportation purposes, including
(i) the costs and expenses provided herein, (ii) legal actions related hereto, (iii) the
construction and improvement of state and federal highways, (iv) the construction,
maintenance, improvement, and operation of local streets, roads and highways, and the transit
services and facilities (including bus, light rail, rapid transit and commuter rail services and
facilities) described in the Plan.
B. The following safeguards are hereby established to ensure strict adherence to
the limitation on the use of Retail Tax Revenues set forth in Section 12.A. above:
1.
A transportation
trust
fund ('Trust Fund ")
shall be established by
the
elected County
Auditor - Controller
(the
"Auditor- Controller")
to maintain all Retail
Tax
Revenues.
2. Interest earned on the Retail Tax Revenues deposited into the Trust Fund
shall be maintained in the Trust Fund and added to the Retail Tax. Revenues for purposes of
allocation pursuant to this Ordinance.
3. The Auditor - Controller shall certify annually whether the expenditures from
the Trust Fund have been spent on the specific transportation purposes identified in the Plan.
4. Timelines shall be established by the - Authority for each major project
detailed in the Plan and quarterly reports on meeting these timelines shall be brought before
the Authority in public meetings.
5. The Authority may contract for planning services and services for
developing a countywide transportation model. No more than five percent (5 %) of all Retail
Tax Revenues shall be used for planning services or for services for developing such
countywide transportation model.
6
1
2
3
4
4
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
?3
14
?5
?6
!7
,g
'.9
io
;1
6.- No Retail, Tax': Revenues_shall be used by a. local jurisdiction .for other than
transportation purposes. Any jurisdiction which violates this. provision shall be deemed
ineligible to receive Retail Tax Revenues for a period offive:(5).years.
SECTION 13. AMENDMENTS
.A. Amandments:to Plan.
1. The Authority may annually: review and propose amendments to the Plan
to provide for the .use.:of additional federal, state and local funds .to account for unexpected
revenues, or to take into consideration unforeseen circurnstances.
2. The Authority shall establish a procees.to propose amendment(s) to the.
Plan wNdh shall ensure that all affected agencies participate in the development of the
proposed amendment(s). The Authority shall hold a public hearing on .proposed amendments
prior to adoption...
3:. No . amendments 'to the Plan which change the :funding categories,
programs or projects, identified on page 18 of the Plan shall lie. made unless they are first
approved by a two4hirds vote of the Citizens Committee..
4. In addition to Section 13A3 above, any proposed changes in expenditures
among the four major funding categories of freeway projects; regional street and -road projects,
local street and road - projects; and transit projects identified 6n ,page 18 of the Plan shall `be
.ratifiedbythe electors before going into effect: The Authority.shall.call for a special election to
place the matter before the electors.,
5. Amendments to the .Plan `must be . passed, by a roll call vote of the
Authority members, must be entered .into the minutes of the Authority, and must have a . .
majority of the .members . concurring with the proposed . amendment(s)..: Subsequently, the
Authority shall give written notice to the County Board of Supervisors and the city council of
each city in the County and. shall provide. each entity _,with a copy of the proposed
amendment(s) pursuantto California Public Utilities Code Section 180207.
7
2 6. Proposed. amendments to the Plan shall become effective 45 days after,
3 notice-is given.
4. B. Amendments to Ordinance.
5
1. Ail -amendments subsequent to the effective date of this Ordiniince.to Part
6
I of Division 2 of the California Revenue. and Taxation Code ralating4o Sales and use taxes
7
and which are not inconsistent with Part 1.6,of Division of the Calffbmia Revenue and
9 Taxation Code, and all amendments to Part t6 of Division 2 of the. California Revenue and. -
10 TaxatiOn'Code, shall automatically . become a part of thi's Ordinance; provided, however, that
11 no such amendments shall operate so as to affect the rate of. tax Imposed bythis"Ordinance.
12
2. The Authority.. shall establish a process to propose amendment(s) to this
13
14 Ordinance which ensures that -the affected agencies receive notice of proposed Ordinance.
amendments.
16 & Amendments to. this Ordinah ce must be -passed by a roll -call Vote of the
17 members of the Authority, must be entered into the minutes of the Authority, and must have a
19 majority of the members of the Authority concuning.wit h the proposed amendments.
19.
let 4. Proposed Amendments to this Ordinance . shall become effective 30 days
21 after notice _is given to affected agencies.,
721 .-SECTION 14. SEVEMBILITY
23 A. If any section, part, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held
invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the.remaini ng p ortions shall not
be affected but shall remain in full force and affect.
16
27 B. If a state, law is passed. , in the future which -s prevents local jurisdictions, from
281 establishing standards for. any of the growth management performance standards specked in
29
the Plan ("Performance Standards"), the Authority. may . elect to delete or modify. the
30
requirements for those Performance` Standards.
31
8
SECTION 15. REQUEST FOR ELECTION
A. Pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 180201, the Authority hereby
requests that the County Board of Supervisors call a special election to be conducted by the
County on November 6, 1990 to place the imposition of the Retail Tax before the electors.
B. To avoid any misunderstanding or confusion by Orange County electors, the
Local Transportation Authority requests that the matter being placed before voters be identified
as "Measure M ".
C. The proposition to be placed before the County electors on the November 6,
1990 ballot shall contain a summary of the projects and programs in the Plan and shall read
substantially as follows:
THE REVISED TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT. The
purpose of this measure is to improve the quality of life, relieve traffic congestion, and improve
air quality in Orange County by:
0 Expanding the present Los Angeles to San Diego commuter rail service throughout
Orange County;
0 On I -5, the Santa Ana Freeway, adding up to three lanes in each direction from the
Los Angeles County line to San Clemente;
0 Rebuilding the 1 -5 /1 -405, El Toro "Y" Interchange;
0 On State Route 91, adding an additional lane in each direction and improving major
interchanges from Los Angeles to Riverside;
0 On State Route 55, the Costa Mesa Freeway, adding a new lane in each direction
between the Riverside and Santa Ana Freeways;
0 Synchronizing traffic signals on major streets throughout Orange County;
0 Improving maintenance and rehabilitation of streets and roads;
0 Requiring each city and the County to adopt a growth management program to
require a balance between land development and traffic impacts;
9
0 Increasing transit service and providing discount fares for senior citizens and the
disabled;
0 Empowering an independent Citizens Oversight Committee with a chairman elected
by all Orange County voters to guarantee that all funds generated by this measure shall be
used only for transportation purposes;
0 Requiring that any proposed change in the amount of funds for rail transit, freeway,
regional and local street improvement expenditures be brought back to the voters for their
approval;
Shall the Orange County Local Transportation Authority be authorized to (1) establish by
ordinance, a one -half (1/2) of one (1) percent retail transaction and use tax for a period of
twenty (20) years with an appropriations limit of $500 million dollars, with the proceeds placed
in a trust fund to be used solely for traffic improvement and growth management and (11) issue
bonds payable solely from the proceeds of such retail transaction and use tax?
1 V -•t
Dana W. Reed, Chairman
Date: j1' .Z —10
Approved as to form:
Parker and Covert
BY
Attop6qs for Orange County
Transportation Coi n�
10
POLICY RESOLUTION NO. 1
CITIZENS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
This Policy Resolution No. 1 is adopted by the Orange County Local Transportation Authority pursuant
to Section 8 of the Revised Orange County Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance
(the "Ordinance "). Except as otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms contained herein shall have
the same meaning as in the Ordinance.
I. PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION A citizens committee is hereby established for the
purpose of overseeing compliance with the Plan, specifically the duties and responsibilities set forth in
Section V hereof (the "Citizens Committee "). The Citizens Committee shall be organized and convened
before any Retail Tax Revenues are collected pursuant to the Ordinance.
II. COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS The Citizens
Committee shall consist of nine (9) members. The composition of the Citizens Committee membership
shall be subject to the following requirements and/or restrictions:
A. Geographic Balance. The membership of the Citizens Committee shall be
geographically balanced at all times as follows:
1. There shall be at least one (1) member of the Citizens Committee
appointed from each of the County's supervisorial districts (individually, a "District" ); and
2. There shall be no more than two (2) members of the Citizens Committee
appointed from any one District.
3. The elected Orange County Auditor- Controller (the "Auditor- Controller")
shall be a member and chairman of the Citizens Committee,
B. Reappointment: Maximum Term.
1. Citizens Committee members who have resigned, been removed, or
whose terms have expired may be reappointed; provided, however, that no person other than the
1
Auditor - Controller shall serve as a member of the Citizens Committee for a period in excess of six (6)
consecutive years.
2. Upon the resignation or removal from office of any Auditor - Controller and
upon the expiration of the elected term of any Auditor - Controller, the successor Auditor - Controller shall
serve as a member of the Citizens Committee.
III. COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP SELECTION PROCESS. The members of the Citizens
Committee shall be selected and appointed in accordance with this Section III hereof.
A. Membership Recommendation Panel.
1. The Authority shall contract with the Orange County Grand Jurors
Association for the formation of a committee membership recommendation panel (the "Panel" to
perform the duties set forth in this subsection III A. If the Orange County Grand Jurors' Association
refuses or fails to act in such capacity, the Authority shall contract with another independent
organization selected by the Authority for the formation of the Panel.
2. The organization contracted by the Authority shall form a five (5) member
Panel to screen and recommend potential candidates for Citizens Committee membership in
accordance with this Section iii A.
3. The Panel shall be charged with soliciting, collecting and reviewing
applications from potential candidates for membership on the Citizens Committee. No currently elected
or appointed city, district,, county, state or federal official will be eligible to serve as a Citizens
Committee member, except the elected Auditor- Controlter. Subject to the foregoing restriction, the
Panel shall evaluate each potential candidate on the basis of the following criteria:
a. Commitment and ability to participate in Citizens Committee
meetings;
b. Demonstrated interest and history of participation in community
activities, with special emphasis on transportation- related activities; and
2
Tax Revenues,
C. Lack of conflicts of interest with respect to the allocation of Retail
4. The Panel shall recommend to the Authority at least three (3), and no
more than five (5) candidates from each District for initial membership on the Citizens Committee.
Thereafter, the Panel shall recommend to the Authority at least three (3) and no more than five (5)
candidates for filling each vacancy on the Citizens Committee.
B. Initial Members.
1. Membership Tenn. Three (3) of the initial Citizens Committee members
shall be appointed for a term of three (3) years; three (3) of the initial Citizens Committee members
shall be appointed for a tens of two (2) years; and two (2) of the initial Citizens Committee members
shall be appointed for a term of one (1) year.
2. Anoointment. The initial members of the Citizens Committee shall be
appointed by the Authority in the following manner. The Authority shall place the names of the
candidates recommended by the Panel on equally -sized cards which shall be deposited randomly in a
container. In public session, the chairman of the Authority will draw a sufficient number of names from
said container to allocate Citizens Committee membership in accordance with the membership
requirements and restrictions set forth in Section II hereof and otherwise in the order of the names
drawn as follows:
a. The first person whose name is drawn from each District shall be
appointed to serve a three (3) year tens until all three (3) year terms have been allocated. Thereafter,
the first person whose name is drawn from each District shall be appointed to serve a two (2) year tens.
b. After one (1) candidate from each of the five (5) Districts is
appointed to serve as a Citizens Committee member pursuant to subsection (i) above, the remaining
members of the Citizens Committee shall be appointed in the order of names already drawn, but not
previously assigned a term and thereafter in the order of names drawn by the chairman of the
3
Authority, with the remaining two (2) year terms to be filled first and the one (1) year terms to be filled
thereafter.
C. Vacancies. Vacancies on the Citizens Committee, however caused, shall be filled by
the Authority in accordance with this Section III C. Said vacancies shall be filled annually on or about
July 1 to replace members whose terms are expiring, and at such other times as are necessary to
replace members who have resigned or been removed.
1. Membership Term. Each new member of the Citizens Committee shall be
appointed for a tern of three (3) years; provided, however, that any new member appointed to replace
a member who has resigned or been removed shall serve only the balance of such member's
unexpired term, unless reappointed thereafter.
2. Appointment. The Authority shall place the names of the candidates
recommended by the Panel for filling vacancies on equally -sized cards which shall be deposited
randomly in a container. In a public session, the chairman of the Authority will draw one (1) name from
said container for each vacancy on the Citizens Committee. The persons whose names are so drawn
shall be appointed by the Authority to fill said vacancies.
IV. RESIGNATIONS: REMOVAL.
A. Resignations. Any member of the Citizens Committee may, at any time, resign
from the Citizens Committee upon written notice delivered to the Authority; provided, however, that
such resigning member may continue to serve on the Citizens Committee until a successor member is
appointed to serve such member's unexpired term.
B. Removal. Any Citizens Committee member who has three (3) unexcused
absences from meetings of the Citizens Committee shall be removed from serving as a member of the
Citizens Committee. An absence from a Citizens Committee meeting shall be considered unexcused
unless, prior to or after such absence (1) the absent member submits to each of the other members a
written request to excuse such absence, which request shall state the reason for such absence and
4
1
2 any special circumstances existing with respect to such absence; and (it) a majority of the other
3 Citizens Committee members have agreed to excuse such absence.
4 C. Acceptance of any public office as referred to in Section IIIA3 hereof or the filing
5 of an intent to seek public office by a member of the Citizens Committee, including a filing under
6 Califomia Government Code Section 85200, shall constitute such member's automatic resignation
7 from the Citizens Committee.
8
9 V. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. The Citizens Committee is hereby charged with
10 the following duties and responsibilities:
11 A. Promptly after being appointed to the Citizens Committee, the initial members
12 shall convene to adopt such procedural rules and regulations as are necessary to govern the conduct
13 of Citizens Committee meetings, including, but not limited to, those governing the calling, noticing and
14
location of Citizens Committee meetings, as well as Citizens Committee quorum requirements and
15
16 voting procedures. The Citizens Committee may select its own officers, including, but not limited to, a
17 Citizens Committee co- chairman who will be the primary spokesman for the Citizens Committee.
18 B. The Citizens Committee shall approve, by a 2f3 vote, any material amendments
19 to the Expenditure Plan or any portions of the Plan proposed by the Authority which change the funding
20
categories, programs or projects identified on page 18 of the Plan.
21
22 C. The Citizens Committee shall review the growth management plan for each
23 jurisdiction solely to determine if the plan prepared and certified by each includes the elements
24 specified in the countywide Growth Management Program.
25 1. The Citizens Committee shall use a checklist to determine if the Growth
26 Management Element of each jurisdiction, if and when required by the Growth Management Program;
27
has:
28
29 a. Specified traffic level of service standards;
30 b. Adopted planning standards for fire, police, library, flood control,
31 parks and open space, and other locally determined needs;
5
and
C. Adopted a development mitigation program;
d. Adopted a development phasing program
e. Developed a seven -year capital improvement program;
f. Participated in inter - jurisdictional planning forums;
g. Addressed a balancing of housing options and job opportunities;
h. Adopted a transportation systems management ordinance.
2. A Growth Management Element, as required by the Growth Management
Program, shall be adopted by each local jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of the California
Government Code, which governs procedures for adopting elements of a general plan. Neither the
Authority's nor the Citizens Committee's review hereunder shall include a determination as to the
adequacy of such Growth Management Elements and components thereof. Each jurisdiction shall
determine the adequacy of its Growth Management Element, and any legal challenge to such
adequacy shall be brought against such jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of statutes and
case law governing legal challenges to the adequacy of general plan elements.
3. Once the Citizens Committee has reviewed the growth management
checklist as described in Section VC1 above, it shall forward its finding to the Authority. If the Authority
determines that the checklist is fulled, and the requirements of the Policy Resolutions and the
Ordinance are met, the Retail Tax Revenues shall be allocated to the jurisdiction pursuant to the
Ordinance.
4. The Citizens Committee shall hold an annual public hearing to determine
whether the Authority is proceeding in accordance with the Plan. In addition, the Citizens Committee
may issue reports, from time to time, on the progress of the transportation projects described in the
Plan.
D. The Citizens Committee shall place priority on each jurisdiction's development of
a seven -year capital improvement program and shall ensure that all expenditures proposed in a
a
Jurisdiction's seven -year capital improvement program conform with the transportation purposes
identified in Policy Resolution No. 3.
E. Except as otherwise provided by the Ordinance, the Citizen's Committee may
contract, through the Authority, for independent analysis or examination of issues within the Citizens
Committee's purview, including a performance audit of the Authority. The Citizens Committee may
also, through the Authority, hire staff to assist the Citizens Committee in discharging its duties
hereunder.
F. The Citizens Committee may submit a written request to the Authority to explain
any perceived deviations from the Plan. The Authority's chairman must respond to such request, in
writing, within sixty (60) days after receipt of the same.
By:
Dana W. Reed, Chairman
Date: F' A - 4740
Approved as to form:
Parker and Covert
By.
Att qs for Orange County
Transportation Com=iv on
1
2 POLICY RESOLUTION NO.2
3 GROWTH MANAGEMENT
4 Amended May 23, 1994
5 This Policy Resolution No. 2 is adopted by the Orange County Local Transportation Authority pursuant
6 to Section 8 of the Revised Orange County Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance
7
(the "Ordinance "). Except as otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms contained herein shall have
8
9 the same meaning as in the Ordinance.
10 I. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREAS
11 A. in order to receive Retail Tax Revenues from the Authority, local jurisdictions must meet
12 the requirements of the Plan and specifically those requirements relating to growth management which
13 are described in the Growth Management Program. As a prerequisite to receiving Retail Tax Revenues
14
15 from the Authority, local jurisdictions, working through the City-County Coordination Committee
16 designated by resolution of the County and the League of Califomia Cities, Orange County Division (the
17 "Coordination Committee "), or a successor, shall adopt administrative requirements to implement the
18 Growth Management Program in each local jurisdiction. Any amendments to the adopted
19 administrative requirements, including guidelines and administrative procedures, shall be prepared and
20
21 approved by the Authority. [Amended May 23, 1994]
22 B. As a further prerequisite to receiving Retail Tax Revenues from the Authority, within six
23 months after approval of the Retail Tax by the electors, local jurisdictions, working through the
24 Coordination Committee, shall approve growth management areas ( "GMAs ") to facilitate multi -
25 jurisdictional cooperation on traffic projects and improvements within GMAs ("GMA Improvement
26 Projects "). The boundaries of each GMA shall be designed to focus on multi - jurisdictional, high - volume
27
28 traffic impact areas. Following establishment of the GMAs, changes in GMA boundaries may be made
29 by an agreement approved by the affected local jurisdictions and approved by the Authority. [Amended
30 May 23, 1994]
31 C. If the local jurisdictions, working through the Coordinating Committee, are unable to
establish GMAs within six months after_ the approval of the Retail Tax by the electors, the Authority
I
1 may determine alternate provisions relative to the allocation of Retail Tax Revenues under this Policy
2
Resolution.
3
4 D. The Authority shall consider a regional, countywide geographic balance in allocating
5 1 Retail Tax Revenues to GMA Improvement Projects. Factors which shall be considered in determining
6 the allocation of such funds shall include, but not be limited to, regional significance /benefit, amount of
7 local matching funds, and any existing or new development traffic mitigation fee program.
8
E. The procedure for allocation of Retail Tax Revenues to local jurisdictions for GMA
9
10 Improvement Projects shall require the jurisdictions to participate in the following Process to receive
11 these funds:
12 1. Jurisdictions within each GMA shall participate in multi - jurisdictional forums
13 convened by the Coordination Committee to examine regional improvements needed within the GMA.
14 2. The GMA -based multi jurisdictional forums shall recommend to the Authority a
15
16 list of GMA Improvement Projects that will be implemented cooperatively participating jurisdictions to
17 ensure that traffic impacts from new development are mitigated.
18 F. The Authority shall allocate Retail Tax Revenues for GMA Improvement Projects to the
19 jurisdictions which will perform the project work.
20 H. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLANS.
21
22 A. In order to minimize duplication, the Growth Management Program shall be reconciled
23 with the state mandated Congestion Management Plan CCMP ") through a cooperative process
24 involving local jurisdictions, the Coordination Committee, and the local agency charged with
25 implementing the CMP.
26 B. No reconciliation of the Growth Management Program and the CMP shall prevent a local
27
28 jurisdiction from establishing, for the purposes of the jurisdiction's own growth management plan, a
29 level of service standard which is stricter than the levels mandated by the CMP.
30
31
K
III. DEVELOPMENT PAYS ITS FAIR SHARE
Notwithstanding any other provision of the Ordinance or this Policy Resolution, each new
development project shall be conditioned to require payment of the project's fair share of traffic
improvement programs and projects implemented by the local jurisdiction as a development mitigation
or congestion management measure. A project's fair share shall be determined in accordance with the
requirements of California Government Code Sections 66000 et. seq.
By: it JIVV- i "
III V Dana W. Reed, Chairman
Date: J'' .t — `lo
Approved as to form:
Parker and Covert
BY
Atto eys for Orange County
Transportation C= =is on
3
POLICY RESOLUTION NO. 3
EXPENDITURES AND ALLOCATIONS
Amended May 23,1994; Amended June 9,1997
This Policy Resolution No. 3 is adopted by the Orange County Local Transportation Authority pursuant
to Section 8 of the Revised Orange County Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance
(the "Ordinance "). Except as otherwise defined here, all capitalized terms contained herein shall have
the same meaning as in the Ordinance.
I. REQUIREMENTS FOR ALLOCATIONS OF RETAIL TAX REVENUES.
The allocation of Retail Tax Revenues by the Authority shall be subject to the following
requirements:
A. For State Highway Proiects
1. The Authority shall make every effort in allocating Retail Tax Revenues to
maximize state and federal funding to the County in the following manner:
a. No Retail Tax Revenues shall be allocated in any year from any State
Highway Project as defined in Section Vlll hereof until the Authority has made findings at a public
meeting that:
(i) the County is receiving, at a minimum, its fair share of funds from
state and federal sources for Freeway Projects, Transit Projects, Highways and Arterials and Local
Street and Road Projects (each as defined in Section VIII hereof); and
(ii) the state has not reduced any allocations of state funds to the
County as the result of the addition of any local revenues.
b. In determining whether the County has received its fair share of such
funds the Authority shall consider. all relevant factors including:
(i) the degree to which the County is receiving its statutory County
minimum funding for all budgeted, expended and programmed state and federal transportation funds,
and
I
(ii) the policies and project approval actions of the California
Transportation Commission, the State Department of Transportation ("Caltrans ") and divisions of the
Federal Department of Transportation.
C. If the Authority is unable to make the findings described above, the
Authority may amend the Plan to maximize the receipt of state and federal funds received within the
County.
d. The Authority shall annually report on progress in obtaining state and
federal transportation funding and on progress in completing the transportation projects described in
the Plan.
2. All state improvements to be funded with Retail Tax Revenues, including project
development and overall project management, shall be a joint responsibility of Caltrans, the Authority,
and the affected local jurisdiction(s) or special district(s). All major project approval actions including
the project concept, the project location, and any subsequent change in project scope shall be jointly
agreed upon by Caltrans, the Authority, and the project sponsors, and where appropriate, by the
Federal highway Administration and/or the California Transportation Commission.
3. The Authority may allocate 'the Retail Tax Revenues to accelerate projects
described in the Plan which are anticipated to be funded through the State Transportation Improvement
Program if:
a. Caltrans demonstrates that a significant acceleration can be
accomplished using Retail Tax Revenues; and
b. The state commits to refunding those Retail Tax Revenues through cash
reimbursements or by accelerating or completing other Plan projects and programs.
2
4. If the refund of acceleration funds pursuant to subsection A 3 of this Resolution
would significantly impact the implementation of any project or program described in the Plan, the
Authority may seek to amend the Plan.
5. Prior to the allocation of Retail Tax Revenues for construction or improvements
of any State Highway Project, the Authority shall obtain written assurances from the appropriate state
agency that once the State Highway Project is constructed to at least minimum acceptable state
standards, the state shall be responsible for the maintenance and operation of such State Highway
Project.
6. Construction of State Highway Projects identified in the Plan shall be the number
one priority of the Authority.
B. For Transit Projects:
Prior to the allocation of Retail Tax Revenues for construction of any Transit Project, the
Authority, in cooperation with affected transit operators and agencies, shall determine the entity to be
responsible for the maintenance and operation thereof.
C. For Local Street and Road Proiects:
Prior to the allocation of Retail Tax Revenues for any Local Street or Road Project, the
Authority, in cooperation with affected agencies, shall determine the entity(ies) to be responsible for
the maintenance and operation thereof.
D. For Other Local Transportation Pmiects:
In addition to Local Street and Roads Projects, jurisdictions may use Local Revenues
(as defined in Section II C1 below) for any transportation purpose allowed for expenditure of tax
3
revenues under Article XIX of the California Constitution, if the Authority has found that the jurisdiction
has satisfied the following requirements:
1. The jurisdiction has included the transportation expenditure in its approved
seven -year capital improvement program.
2. The jurisdiction makes a finding that streets and roads within the jurisdiction are
adequately maintained and not in need of rehabilitation or reconstruction.
IL ALLOCATION OF RETAIL TAX REVENUES:
A. Subject to the provisions of the Ordinance and Section I above, the Retail Tax
Revenues shall be allocated as follows:
1. First the Authority shall pay the State Board of Equalization for the services and
functions contracted for pursuant to Section 4 of the Ordinance.
2. Second, the Authority shall pay the administrative expenses of the Authority
pursuant to Section 9 of the Ordinance.
3. Third, the Authority shall satisfy the debt service requirements of all bonds issued
pursuant to the Ordinance that cannot be satisfied out of separate allocations.
B. After providing for the allocations described in Section A hereof, and subject to the
averaging provisions of Section E hereof, the Authority shall allocate annually the remaining Retail Tax
Revenues (the "Net Tax Revenues ") as follows:
1. 43% to Freeway Projects;
2. 11 % to Regional Street and Road Projects;
3. 21 % to Local Street and Road Projects; and
4. 25% to Transit Projects.
4
C. The allocation of 21 % of Net Tax Revenues to Local Street and Road Projects pursuant
to Section II B3 above shall be made as follows:
1. An annual allocation, equal to 14.6 percent of Net Tax Revenue (the "Local
Revenues°) shall be made available. to Eligible Jurisdictions (as defined in Section 11 C1b) for Local
Street Maintenance and Improvements (as defined in Section VII below).
a.. The allocation of the Local Revenues to each Eligible Jurisdiction shall be
determined as follows:
(1) 50 percent to each Eligible Jurisdiction based on the ratio of each
Eligible Jurisdiction's population for the immediately preceding calendar year to the total County
population (including incorporated and unincorporated areas) for the immediately preceding calendar
year, both as determined by the State Department of Finance. [Amended May 23, 1994)
(ii) 25 percent to each Eligible Jurisdiction based on the ratio of each
Eligible Jurisdiction's existing County Master Plan of Arterial Highways ( "MPAH ") miles to the total
existing MPAH miles within the County as determined annually by the County; and
(iii) 25 percent to each Eligible Jurisdiction based on the ratio of each
Eligible Jurisdiction's total taxable sales to the total taxable sales of the County for the immediately
preceding calendar year as determined by the State Board of Equalization.
b. The County and/or any city within the County shall be an "Eligible
Jurisdiction" if the Authority has found that the County or such city has satisfied and continues to satisfy,
either the requirements of Orange County Local Transportation Ordinance No. 3
(Measure M2), or -all of the following requirements:
(i) Adopted the provisions of the Growth Management Program.
P]
(ii) Adopted a Local Transportation Demand Management Program
(as described in the Growth Management Program) approved by the Authority.
(iii) Agreed to expend all Net Tax Revenues received within three
years of receipt. The Authority may grant an extension of the three -year limit, but extensions shall not
be granted beyond a total of five years from the date of the initial funding allocation. Failure to expend
Net Tax Revenues within the time limits set forth above will make an otherwise Eligible Jurisdiction
ineligible to receive additional Net Tax Revenues until reinstated as an Eligible Jurisdiction by the
Authority.
(iv) Adopted a Traffic Circulation Plan consistent with the MPAH.
(a) Within six months after approval of the Retail Tax by the
electors, the Authority, through a cooperative process involving the County and all of the cities within
the County, shall adopt a definition of, and a process for, determining consistency of each jurisdiction's
Traffic Circulation Plan with the MPAH.
(b) If the County and two-thirds of the cities cannot agree to a
definition of, and a process for determining, the consistence of each jurisdiction's Traffic Circulation
Plan with the MPAH, Retail Tax Revenues shall nevertheless be allocated to each Eligible Jurisdiction.
In that event, each Eligible Jurisdiction may spend Retail Tax Revenues on Local Street Maintenance
and Improvements as each Eligible Jurisdiction deems appropriate on Highways and Arterials which
Eligible Jurisdiction determines to be consistent with those shown on the MPAH. In any case, Net Tax
Revenues may not be spent in a manner which is inconsistent with or obstructs the implementation of
the MPAH.
6
funded the same.
Section 7 of the Ordinance.
(v) Adopted a Local Pavement Management Plan and adequately
(vi) Satisfied the Maintenance of Efforts Requirements set forth in
(vii) Adopted a seven (7) year capital improvement program that
includes all transportation projects programmed by the Eligible Jurisdiction for receipt of Retail Tax
Revenues.
C. The Authority may phase the requirements in subparagraphs (ii), (iv) and
(v) of this subsection 1.b pursuant to a comprehensive streets and roads eligibility program to be
adopted by the Authority in order to give cities and the County reasonable time over a period of up to
five years to comply with such requirements.
d. A determination of non - eligibility shall be made only after a hearing has
been conducted before the Authority and a determination has been made by the Authority that the city
or County is not an Eligible Jurisdiction as provided hereinabove.
2. An allocation of Net Tax Revenues shall be made available to Eligible
Jurisdictions solely for expenditure on improvements to-the roadways shown on the MPAH. Distribution
and expenditure of these Net Tax Revenues shall be consistent with Division 19 of California Public
Utilities Code and, unless such Division 19 otherwise requires, shall be governed by the policies and
guidelines of the Combined Transportation Funding Programs as appropriate. [Amended June 9, 1997;
Amended May 23, 1994]
3. An allocation of the lesser of 3.2 percent or $5 million of Net Tax Revenues,
which annual allocations in the aggregate shall not exceed $100 million during the tens of the
7
Ordinance, shall be made available to Eligible Jurisdictions for GMA improvement Projects (as defined
in Policy Resolution No. 2 to the Ordinance). . [Amended June 9, 1997]
D. The award to Eligible Jurisdictions of the 11 percent of Net Tax Revenues allocated to
Regional Street and Road Projects shall be determined pursuant to a countywide competitive
procedure adopted by the Authority and patterned after those contained in the Federal Aid Urban,
OCUTT and the AHFP programs as follows:
1. The Authority shall set allocations annually for regional competition in areas,
including, but not limited to, the following categories:
a. Smart Streets; [Amended May 23, 1994]
b. Regionally significant interchanges;
C. Intersection improvement programs;
d. Traffic signal coordination; and
e. Programs encouraging Transportation Demand Management or
Transportation Systems Management.
2. In determining the allocation of Net Tax Revenues to each competitive category,
the Authority shall establish criteria for determining priority including, but not limited to:
a. Inclusion of a project in an adopted Seven -Year Capital Improvement
Plan, as defined in the Growth Management Program;
b. Nomination of the project by more than one GMA;
C. Nomination of a project by a single GMA; and
d. Nomination of a project by an individual city or the County.
8
E. With the exception of funding for Local Street and Roads Projects, in any given year, the
Authority may allocate Net Tax Revenues on a different percentage basis than required by Section II B
hereof in order to meet short -tern needs and to maximize efforts to capture state, federal, or private
transportation dollars, provided the percentage allocations set forth in Section II B hereof shall be
achieved during the twenty -year term of the Retail Tax.
III. PRIVATE SECTOR FUNDING. Retail Tax Revenues shall not be used to replace private
developer funding which has been or will be committed for any project
IV. ALLOCATION OF REPLACED FUNDS:. If additional funds become available for a specific
Project or projects described in the Plan, the Authority may allocate the. Retail Tax Revenues replaced
by the receipt of those additional funds, in the following order of priority: first, to Plan projects and
Programs which provide congestion relief in the geographic region which received the additional funds;
second, to other projects and programs within the affected geographic region which may be placed in
the Plan through the amendment process described in Section 13 of the Ordinance; and third, to all
other Plan projects.
V. TIMING OF DISBURSEMENTS AND SEPARATE ACCOUNTING OF FUNDS. [Amended May
23,19K
A. The ,Authority shall disburse Net Tax Revenues to Plan projects and programs as
necessary to meet contractual and program obligations, and the Authority may withhold disbursements
until needed' to meet contractual project or program obligations, except that Net Tax Revenues
Allocated for Local Street and Road Projects pursuant to Section 11 C1 above shall be paid to Eligible
Jurisdictions within 60 days after receipt by the County.
B. Each agency receiving Net Tax Revenues shall maintain a separate accounting of such
funds. Any interest earned on such Net Tax Revenues shall be expended only for those purposes for
9
which the Net Tax Revenues were. allocated or shall be returned to the Authority. The Authority shall
have the right to audit such accounts. [Amended May 23, 1994]
VI. IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES. Upon approval by the electors of the Retail Tax, the
Authority shall adopt ordinances, rules and administrative procedures in addition to the local rules
required to be provided pursuant to this Ordinance, and shall take such other actions as may be
necessary and appropriate to carry out its responsibilities to implement the Plan and this Ordinance.
VII. DEFINITIONS.
A. Eligible Jurisdiction. "Eligible Jurisdiction" shall mean the County or a city in the County
which satisfies the requirements of Section II C 1b hereof.
B. Freeway Projects. "Freeway Projects" shall mean all construction and improvement of
freeways and usable portions thereof described in the Plan.
C. Highways and Arterials. "Highways and Arterials" shall mean the design, right -of -way
acquisition, and construction of highway and arterial street facilities, including all interstate highway
routes and any other facilities so designated in the Plan, and all purposes and activities necessary and
convenient thereto.
D. Local Pavement Management Plan. "Local Pavement Management Plan" shall mean a
system to monitor the condition of and perform periodic maintenance and rehabilitation of streets,
roads and highways.
E. Local Street Maintenance and Improvements. "Local Street Maintenance and
Improvements" shall mean the maintenance, operation and construction of local streets and roads and
all activities and purposes necessary and convenient thereto, including all purposes allowable under
Article XIX, Section 1(a) of the State Constitution.
to
F. Local Street and Road Proiects "Local Street and Road Projects" shall mean those
street maintenance and local road projects as defined in the Plan.
G. Local TSM Program. "Local TSM Program" shall mean those projects and programs to
increase the capacity of the transportation system as described in the Plan.
H. Regional Street and Road Proiects "Regional Street and Road Project" shall mean
those streets and projects defined in the Plan.
I. State Highway Proiects. "State Highway Projects" shall mean projects for the
construction or improvement of any State Highway as described in Section 24 of the California Streets
and Highways Code,
J. State Transportation Imorovement Program "State Transportation Improvement
Program" shall mean the transportation capital improvement program adopted by the California
Transportation Commission pursuant to California Government Code Section 14529.
K. Smart Streets. "Smart Streets" shall mean the 220 mile network of arterial streets
described in the Plan. [Amended May 23, 1994]
L. Traffic Circulation Plan. 'Traffic Circulation Plan" shall mean the Traffic Circulation
Element of a local general plan as defined under Calffomia Government Code Section 65302.
M. Transportation Demand Management "Transportation Demand Management" shall
mean those programs and projects to reduce demand on the transportation system as defined in the
Plan.
N. Transportation Svstems Management 'Transportation System Management" shall
mean those programs and projects to increase capacity on the transportation system as defined in the
Plan.
11
0. Transit. "Transit" shall mean all expenditures necessary and convenient to the
construction, operation, and maintenance of transit services and facilities including the acquisition of
vehicles and right -of -way. Transit services include, but are not limited to, bus, light rail, rapid transit,
commuter rail services and facilities, and carpools and ridesharing in private vehicles.
P. Transit Facilities. 'Transit Facilities" shall mean all transit facilities constructed,
maintained or improved pursuant to this Ordinance and Plan.
Q. Transit Proiects. 'Transit Projects" shall mean all projects described in the Plan for the
construction, maintenance, improvement and operation of Transit Facilities.
By: If 1% v.1 - '
Dana W. Reed, Cbairman
Date: �' •� - 9�
Approved as to form:
Parker and Covert
VI . •
12
ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION, LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM:
COUNTYWIDE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN COMPONENT
ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION, LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT
AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM:
COUNTYWIDE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN COMPONENT
Revised 6 -15.89
Amended 9 -23 -91
Amended 5 -23 -94
INTRODUCTION
The Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Program is designed to achieve a
cooperative process among Orange County's local jurisdictions to promote traffic
improvement and stronger planning on a countywide basis. The program is also
fashioned to maintain local authority over both land use decisions and the
establishment of specific performance standards while considering regional impacts.
In recognition of differing needs, the program is structured to distinguish between
developed and developing communities. While a future sales tax for transportation is
intended to alleviate existing transportation problems, the program also is designed to
assure the mitigation of the future residential, business, and commercial on the need
for new facilities.
The Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Program reflects the intent of the
Cities and the County of Orange to create a process that results in the maintenance of
the quality of life in Orange County through sound planning for growth. The program
envisions each jurisdiction adopting a Growth Management Element to their General
Plan as a high visibility means to demonstrate a commitment to maintaining Orange
County's quality of life.
GROWTH OF THE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PROCESS
The goals of the Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Program shall be to:
• Outline each agency's plans and efforts to develop multi - jurisdictional traffic
solutions through well - defined cooperative planning process;
• Specify traffic level of service standards;
• Promote alternative forms of transportation and overall system efficiency by
maximizing use of the existing transportation network through Transportation
Demand Management (TDM); [Amended September 23, 1991]
• Provide funding for construction and maintenance of street, road and highway
facilities;
• Require a locally collected and administered traffic mitigation fee to guarantee that
new development pays its fair share toward dealing with traffic generated by the new
development;
• Foster a better balance of jobs and housing and attempt to reduce the length of
commuter trips through careful planning;
• Provide that local jurisdictions, where applicable, establish performance standards
for fire, police, library, flood control, and other infrastructure services based on local
criteria;
• Require the phasing of new development to insure that service level goals are
achieved;
• Envisions the creation of a deficient intersections program to promote funding
matches between local fees and proceeds from the sales tax corrected deficiencies.
LOCAL STREET MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS
Portions of the monies received from future transportation sales tax will be returned to
local jurisdictions (the Cities and the County) for use on local, subregional, and regional
transportation improvements and maintenance projects. The intent of this program is to
condition receipt of all such funds on compliance with a Traffic Improvement and
Growth Management Program as described below.
ALLOCATION OF FUNDS
The Orange County Local Transportation Authority' will annually review local
jurisdictions' Seven -Year Capital Improvement Programs and allocate transportation
sales tax funds to cities, the County, and other eligible agencies as provided in the
Countywide Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Program. [Amended
September 23, 1991]
At its option to receive local street maintenance and improvement funds from the
Authority, each jurisdiction shall submit a statement of compliance with the Traffic
Improvement and Growth Management Program. The Authority shall conduct an
administrative review and distribute funds based on a jurisdiction's certification of
compliance regarding the Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Program. The
Authority shall review this statement at a minimum of every five years and make
findings regarding the jurisdiction's efforts. If the jurisdiction's efforts are found in
compliance, the jurisdiction will be allocated its share of local street maintenance and
improvement funding. [Amended September 23, 1991]
' The Orange County Transportation Commission is currently designated by the Board of
Supervisors as the Transportation Authority responsible for administering the proceeds of an
Orange County sales tax for transportation. Due to ongoing discussions regarding the nature of
regional and subregional transportation planning, including transportation consolidation issues
and the possible formation of the Orange County Council of Governments, it is possible that a
different or expanded transportation planning agency could assume the Transportation Authority
function in the future.
Because of great variation among jurisdictions, it is expected that the Authority will need
some flexibility in determining compliance with the Traffic Improvement and Growth
Management Program. Generally, this flexibility may take the form of the Authority
establishing speck deadlines for achieving one or more requirements as a condition of
receiving local street maintenance and improvement funds. Nothing in this program,
however, shall be construed to imply that the Authority may interfere with the land use
decisions of local jurisdictions.
The Authority's flexibility in determining eligibility to receive funding is limited solely to
determining if a jurisdiction has adopted, if and where required by this plan, the
jurisdiction's method of applying: traffic level of service standards; planning standards
for fire, police, library, flood control, parks and open space and other locally- determined
needs; a development mitigation program; a development phasing program; a seven -
year capital improvement program; and is participating in inter jurisdictional planning
forums; has addressed housing options and job opportunities; and has adopted a
transportation demand management ordinance. [Amended September 23, 1991]
TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Program recognizes that Orange
County contains both developed and developing communities. Generally, existing
developed communities already contain public facilities necessary to support general
plan land use elements, but may require new or improved additional transportation
facilities to implement circulation elements and the regional system. Developing
communities still need additional public facilities to bring their general plans into
balance.
The Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Program also recognizes the need
to promote multi jurisdictional forums to implement facilities, which support several
jurisdictions. The Program envisions the establishment of Growth Management Areas
(GMAs) based upon groupings of local jurisdictions. The GMAs will enable local
jurisdictions to focus their mutual concerns, coordinate improvements, and implement
those improvements cooperatively through inter - jurisdictional forums. The GMAs are to
be defined in terms of developed or developing communities for purposes of the Traffic
Improvement and Growth Management Program requirements. Inter - jurisdictional
forums, consisting of officials within identified GMAs are to be convened annually to
discuss developments with multi jurisdictional impacts and to promote dialogue on
appropriate mitigation measures. Nothing in the Traffic Improvement and Growth
Management Program shall be construed to limit any jurisdiction's ability to coordinate
or cooperate with other jurisdictions not contained in the same Growth Management
Area. [Amended May 23, 1994]
To receive its local street maintenance and improvement funds, each jurisdiction must,
except where otherwise specified:
Adopt a Growth Management Element
Each jurisdiction is to adopt a Growth Management Element of its General Plan to be
applied in the development review process.
Developed GMAs shall include within their element, sections 1, 3, and 4. Developing
GMAs shall include within their elements section 1 through 4 inclusive. In addition, all
jurisdictions must comply with, but not necessarily include with their element, sections
5, 6, 7 and 8 below unless otherwise specked.
The City - County Coordination Committee, or successor agency, shall prepare
guidelines and administrative procedures to aid local jurisdictions in the development of
Growth Management Elements. Local jurisdictions shall develop their Growth
Management Element within one year after receipt of the guidelines which shall be
prepared within six months of an election containing a sales tax measure for
transportation improvements or implementation appropriately taken through the City -
County Coordination Committee.
1. SPECIFY TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARDS to implement
local jurisdiction service level goals.
Each jurisdiction shall determine how traffic LOS standards are to be applied to
their General Plan land use and circulation elements and specific land use
categories. Each jurisdiction shall comply with its adopted standards.
The general target standard for each jurisdiction should be LOS(D) for
intersections, but it is recognized that jurisdictions may establish lower LOS
standards for certain intersections in urbanized areas.
Level of Service (LOS) would be measured by the Traffic Level of Service Policy
implementation Manual established by the Authority, as reviewed and approved
by the City - County Coordinating Committee or successor agency. Any issues
with respect to the application of the Traffic Level of Service Policy
Implementation Manual shall be referred to the County Transportation
Commission's Technical Advisory Committee, or successor committee, for
review and recommendation to the Authority. In the event that an intersection(s)
exceed(s) the applicable Traffic Service standards, local jurisdictions, in
consultation with inter jurisdictional forums, shall establish appropriate mitigation
measure or determine that a given intersection is subject to a finding of special
circumstances.
Any intersection that presently exceeds the local Traffic Service standard and
which will be brought into compliance in the most current Seven -Year Capital
Improvement Program shall be considered to be in compliance with the
applicable standard. In cases where an intersection is not brought into
compliance in the most current Seven -Year Capital Improvement Program, for
reasons beyond the control of the governing jurisdiction (e.g. ramp metering
effects, traffic generated outside the jurisdiction or state highway designation), it
shall be added to a Deficient Intersection List. Projects located within the same
GMA as the projects contributing cumulatively, or individually, 10% or more of the
traffic using an intersection will be assessed a mitigation fee determined by the
involved local jurisdictions and locally administered as part of their Seven -Year
Capital Improvement Program. [Amended September 23, 1991]
The Authority, jointly with affected local jurisdictions, shall determine and
periodically review the application of Traffic Level of Service Standards on
routes or regional significance such as Smart Streets. The review will take into
account traffic. originating outside the County or jurisdiction, environmental issues
and financial considerations. Local jurisdictions, through the inter - jurisdictional
forums with the Authority, shall jointly determine the appropriate measures and
programs for mitigation of regional traffic impacts within their boundaries.
[Amended May 23, 1994]
Transportation Capital projects necessary to meet and maintain the Traffic
Service standards are to be included in the required Seven -Year Capital
Improvement Program. [Amended September 23, 1991]
ADOPT PLANNING STANDARDS, maintained through capital projects, for the
following items, based on local criteria (required for developing GMAs only).
a. fire d. flood control
b. police e. parks and open space
C. library f. other items as determined by
each jurisdiction
Capital projects necessary to meet and maintain the Service standards are to be
included in the required Seven -Year Capital Improvement Program.
3. ADOPT A DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION program to ensure that new growth is
paying its fair share of the costs associated with that growth.
Local jurisdictions, for the most part, already impose fees for a variety of
purposes, including site specific traffic improvements. Only a few jurisdictions
impose fees for regional traffic mitigation. To meet the requirements of this
section, each jurisdiction shall:
A. Adopt a development mitigation program to ensure that development is paying its
share of the costs associated with that development. The program will be
coordinated through inter jurisdictional forums within the GMAs.
B. Each jurisdiction shall impose or continue an existing traffic impact mitigation fee
for improvements within its boundaries and GMAs. Inter jurisdictional planning
forums shall determine minimally acceptable impact fee levels for application
within their specific GMA. Such fee levels will serve as a base amount for impact
fees for jurisdictions within a GMA, but individual jurisdictions may impose
greater levels if they so desire.
C. Ensure that new revenues provided by a sales tax increase measure shall not be
used to replace private developer funding which has been committed for any
project.
In addition, the Authority, in cooperation with inter - jurisdictional forums and local
jurisdictions, shall:
A. Develop a program of regional traffic mitigation projects needs as
determined in, but not limited to, the 20 -Year Master Plan for
Transportation Improvements.
B. Determine the most feasible methods of mitigating regional traffic impacts.
Existing traffic impact fees shall be taken into consideration by the
Authority.
4. ADOPT A DEVELOPMENT PHASING AND ANNUAL MONITORING PROGRAM
to ensure that service goals are achieved.
Jurisdictions shall prepare, in conjunction with the Seven -Year Improvement
Program, a phasing and monitoring program for development entitlements and
circulation improvements within their jurisdictions. These phasing and
monitoring programs shall also ensure that infrastructure is added and
development proceeds so that balance between public facilities demand
continues. The program shall provide reasonable lead time (five years from first
grading permit or three years from first building permit) to design and construct
improvements. In developed GMAs, phasing programs shall be limited to
development entitlements tied to transportation improvements only. The annual
monitoring program would also serve to provide a performance monitoring
mechanism to identify potential deficiencies and corrective measures. The costs
of the annual monitoring program may be an eligible expense from the proceeds
of the annual increase in the sales tax for transportation improvements.
[Amended September 23, 1991]
5. PARTICIPATE IN INTER - JURISDICTIONAL PLANNING FORUMS TO REDUCE
CUMULATIVE REGIONAL TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT.
Local jurisdictions, in cooperation with the City- County Coordination Committee
or successor agency, shall establish inter jurisdictional forums at the GMA level
to cooperate in easing cumulative traffic impacts and coordinating improvements
in transportation and other facilities at the inter jurisdictional level. The Authority
will support these efforts by an ongoing countywide comprehensive
transportation planning process in which all jurisdictions shall assist in developing
and participate.
As part of this process, a uniform database of traffic impacts will be created
based on a countywide transportation computer model developed using
proceeds from an increase in the sales tax for transportation improvements. It is
recognized that, in consultation with local jurisdictions, the existing transportation
computer model maintained by the County would serve as the basis for this
process.
Small area models used to determine the impacts of development of the
circulation system shall be based on the countywide models and shall use
standardized modeling assumptions and conventions. Standardized modeling
would provide an opportunity to test proposed amendments to individual
jurisdictions' General Plan Transportation and Land Use Elements and to assist
cities and the County in determining the impacts of development projects
proposed for General Plan Amendments. This also provides for the development
of common standards with which to calculate traffic impacts across the
jurisdictional boundaries.
Input for the model should include such items as each jurisdiction's Seven -Year
Capital Improvement Program of transportation projects (see Section 6) and the
projects of Federal, State and regional agencies such as Caltrans, transit
operators, and the Southern California Association of Governments. In addition,
the computer model database should include each local jurisdiction's anticipated
land use development projects reasonably expected to be constructed within the
next five years. [Amended September 23, 1991]
6. DEVELOP A SEVEN -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM to meet and
maintain both its adopted Traffic Service and Performance Standards.
Each jurisdiction shall determine the capital projects needed to meet and
maintain both its adopted Traffic Level of Service and Performance Standards
Capital financing programming will be based on proposed development to be
constructed during (at a minimum) the following seven -year period. The Capital
Improvement Program shall include approved projects and an analysis of the
costs of the proposed project as well as a financial plan for providing the
improvements. [Amended September 23, 1991]
7. ADDRESS HOUSING OPTIONS AND JOB OPPORTUNITIES as related to
transportation demand on a city, subregional, and countywide basis. [Amended
September 23, 19911
B. ADOPT A TRANSPORATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) ORDINANCE
or alternative mitigation to reduce single occupancy automobile travel.
To promote carpools, vanpools, alternate work hours, park and ride facilities,
telecommuting and other traffic reduction strategies, the Authority recognizes the
model Transportation Demand Management Ordinance developed by the
Orange County Congestion Management Program Technical Advisory
Committee, for use by local jurisdictions in developing local ordinances for
adoption and implementation. Cities with a small employment base, as defined
in the model ordinance, may adopt alternative mitigation measures in lieu of
adopting a TDM ordinance. [Amended September 23, 1991]
Revised Improvement
and Growth Management Plan
t�
ORANGE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION
March 2010
Revised Traffic Improvement and Growth
Management Plan Expenditure Plan (1988 $ x million)
111 iW9
TOTAL $ 3,100
* Pursuant to Resolution No. 94 -03 dated 4111194, these projects shall be first in priority
for State Transportation Improvement Program funds.
*' Measure M project budget, assuming a 2004 construction date, is $327 million.
Pursuant to Resolution No. 04 -roc dated 9/1312004, OCTA shall pursue reimbusement
of $123.7 million in Transporation Congestion Relief Funds
This page replaces the previous page 18, in accordance with the OCTA Board action dated 318/10
Amendment March 8, 2010
18
Freeway Projects
Cost
$ 1,325
Project
Cost
1 -5 (Santa Ana Freeway) between 1-405 (San Diego Freeway) and 1 -605 (San Gabriel Freeway)
$ 743
1 -5 (San Diego Freeway) between 1 -5/1 -405 Interchange and San Clemente
$ 52
1 -5/1 -405 Interchange
$ 66
S.R. 55 (Costa Mesa Freeway) between 1 -5 and S.R. 91(Riverside Freeway)
$ 44
S.R. 57 (Orange Freeway) between 1 -5 and Lambert Road
$ 22
S.R. 91 (Riverside Freeway) between Riverside County Line and Los Angeles County Line
$ 95
S.R. 22 (Garden Grove Freeway) between S.R. 55 and Valley View Street
$ 303
Freeway Sub -total
$ 1,325
TOTAL $ 3,100
* Pursuant to Resolution No. 94 -03 dated 4111194, these projects shall be first in priority
for State Transportation Improvement Program funds.
*' Measure M project budget, assuming a 2004 construction date, is $327 million.
Pursuant to Resolution No. 04 -roc dated 9/1312004, OCTA shall pursue reimbusement
of $123.7 million in Transporation Congestion Relief Funds
This page replaces the previous page 18, in accordance with the OCTA Board action dated 318/10
Amendment March 8, 2010
18
Regional Street • Road •
Pro ect
Cost
d
Smart Streets
$ 120
Regionally Significant Interchanges
$ 70
Intersection Improvement Program
$ 100
Traffic Signal Coordination
$ 50
Transportation Systems Management and Transportation Demand Management
$ 10
Streets and Roads Sub -total
$ 350
TOTAL $ 3,100
* Pursuant to Resolution No. 94 -03 dated 4111194, these projects shall be first in priority
for State Transportation Improvement Program funds.
*' Measure M project budget, assuming a 2004 construction date, is $327 million.
Pursuant to Resolution No. 04 -roc dated 9/1312004, OCTA shall pursue reimbusement
of $123.7 million in Transporation Congestion Relief Funds
This page replaces the previous page 18, in accordance with the OCTA Board action dated 318/10
Amendment March 8, 2010
18
Local Street and Road Projects
Project
Cost
$ 650
Master Plan of Arterial Highway Improvements
$ 100
Streets and Roads Maintenance and Road Improvements
$ 450
Growth Management Area Improvements
$ 100
Local Street and Road Sub -total
$ 650
TOTAL $ 3,100
* Pursuant to Resolution No. 94 -03 dated 4111194, these projects shall be first in priority
for State Transportation Improvement Program funds.
*' Measure M project budget, assuming a 2004 construction date, is $327 million.
Pursuant to Resolution No. 04 -roc dated 9/1312004, OCTA shall pursue reimbusement
of $123.7 million in Transporation Congestion Relief Funds
This page replaces the previous page 18, in accordance with the OCTA Board action dated 318/10
Amendment March 8, 2010
18
Projects Transit
Project
Cost
Pacific Electric Right -of -Way
$ 15
LOSSAN Intercity Rail Program
$ 20
LOSSAN Commuter Rail
$ 215
Riverside Commuter Rail
$ 40
High - Technology Advanced Rail Transit
$ 340
Elderly & Handicapped Fare Stabilization
$ 20
Transitways
$ 125
Transit Sub -total
$ 775
TOTAL $ 3,100
* Pursuant to Resolution No. 94 -03 dated 4111194, these projects shall be first in priority
for State Transportation Improvement Program funds.
*' Measure M project budget, assuming a 2004 construction date, is $327 million.
Pursuant to Resolution No. 04 -roc dated 9/1312004, OCTA shall pursue reimbusement
of $123.7 million in Transporation Congestion Relief Funds
This page replaces the previous page 18, in accordance with the OCTA Board action dated 318/10
Amendment March 8, 2010
18
Orange County Freeway Projects
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ S.R. 55 (Costa Mesa Freeway)
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ S.R. 57 (Orange Freeway)
• • • 0 • 0 S.R. 91 (Riverside Freeway)
IRVINE 1 -5 &1 -405 Inlamhange
9
BREA
■
MISSION
VIEJO
57
U
9
_ O FULLERTON ■
91
■• ■■■o ■ • ■■■■ ••
DO
■91
O ANAHEIM ■
■■:
O
l
SANJUAN
O ■
O
CAPISTRANO
O
O •
❑
o
405
O
O
GARDEN O ■
CI
CLEVELAND
GROVE O ■
o ORANGE
O
22
00 0
NATIONAL
O
?,
O
FOREST
SANTA ANA
O
O
O00
ORANGE
55
1N4.
405
HUBEIACH N
00
COUNTY
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ S.R. 55 (Costa Mesa Freeway)
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ S.R. 57 (Orange Freeway)
• • • 0 • 0 S.R. 91 (Riverside Freeway)
IRVINE 1 -5 &1 -405 Inlamhange
9
o o o 0 0 0 1 -5 (Santa Ana Freeway)
1 -5 (San Diego Freeway)
1 -5 & 1 -405 Interchange
MISSION
VIEJO
U
l
l
SANJUAN
CAPISTRANO
o o o 0 0 0 1 -5 (Santa Ana Freeway)
1 -5 (San Diego Freeway)
1 -5 & 1 -405 Interchange
Orange County Freeway Project Descriptions
Santa Ana Freeway Improvement for the
San Diego Freeway (1-405) to the Los
Angeles County Line
Description:
Rebuilding of the Santa Ana Freeway is critical to the
county's continued mobility. This project forms the
centerpiece of the 20 -Year Master Plan of Transporta-
tion Improvements. Fifty percent of all Orange County
residents live within three miles of this facility and two -
thirds of all jobs lie in this transportation corridor. The
staged improvements call for the addition of up to three
lanes in each direction, rebuilding the freeway -to-
freeway interchanges, and providing soundwalls and
environmental mitigation. The project begins where 1 -5
separates from the I -405 and continues north to the Los
Angeles County line. Two of the new travel lanes will
be dedicated to carpools.
Within this length of freeway is the I -5 1SR 57 /SR 22
interchange. This is the nation's seventh busiest
interchange. This interchange and all other intermediate
interchanges will be improved as pan of this project.
Traffic on I -5 north of 1 -405 was 160,000 vehicles per
day in 1988 and in the future the vehicular demand is
expected to increase to over 260,000 daily.
Costs:
The overall cost of the I -5 project is estimated to be $1.6
billion. Existing state and federal resources are expected
to fund $1.1 billion with the sales tax revenue providing
the additional $550 million to complete the project.
Implementation:
Construction will start immediately. Sales tax revenue
would be used to augment funding, alleviate cash flow
constraints, and accelerate project delivery by 10 years.
San Diego Freeway (1 -5) from the
I -5/I -405 Confluence to San Clemente
Description:
Current plans for I -5 south of the confluence call for
adding one carpool lane in each direction, building
soundwalls and other environmental amenities. This
project includes the segment of I -5 from the I.405
confluence to San Clemente near the San Diego County
line, a distance of approximately 12 miles. In 1988, the
freeway carried approximately 170,000 vehicles per day
and forecasts show demand to increase to over 230,000
daily.
Costs:
The estimated capital cost for this section of the 1 -5
improvement is about $80 million.
Implementation:
Project construction is scheduled to begin during the
first l0 -year period of the plan.
1 -5/1 -405 Interchange
Description:
The need for improving one of the county's busiest
interchanges has been identified in numerous studies. In
1988 over 260,000 vehicles a day traveled through this
interchange and forecasts show this demand will grow
to over 350,000 vehicles daily. This project calls for the
construction of bypass and feeder lanes along I -5 for the
"El Toro Y" interchange. This will greatly improve
traffic movement between the Santa Ana Freeway and
the San Diego Freeway, as these facilities are widened
to add three new lanes in each direction (including
carpool lanes) on the I -5, and carpool lanes to the San
Diego Freeway.
Costs:
The capital cost in 1988 dollars is estimated at $55
million.
Implementation:
Construction will begin within the first five years of the
20 -year program. This project plays a critical role in the
improvement of the I -5.
K11
Orange County Freeway Project Descriptions
Costa Mesa Freeway (SR 55) from the
Riverside Freeway to Interstate 5
Description:
The 20 -Year Master Plan of Transportation Improve-
ments calls for the addition of two new general purpose
lanes to the Costa Mesa Freeway for a distance of
approximately six miles. In 1988 Route 55 carried
about 180,000 vehicles per day and forecasts show
demand to exceed 190,000 in the future. Auxiliary lanes
are also planned, in addition to providing soundwalls
and other environmental mitigation measures.
Costs:
The current estimated capital cost (1988) is approxi-
mately $200 million.
Implementation:
Construction is scheduled for the second 10 -year period
of the plan.
Orange Freeway (SR 57) from the
Los Angeles County Line to Interstate 5
See Updated Project Description on
Page 21.a
Riverside Freeway (SR 91) from the
Los Angeles County Line to the
Riverside County Line
Description:
Long -range plans call for the addition of one carpool
lane in each direction on the Route 91 from Riverside
County line to Los Angeles County line. The first phase
of this project on Route 91 extends from the Riverside
County line and terminates at the Orange Freeway. The
second phase extends from Route 57 to the Los Angeles
County line. In addition to the carpool lanes, plans for
the freeway include rebuilding the freeway -to- freeway
interchanges and providing soundwalls and other
environmental mitigation features. About 210,000
vehicles used this freeway in 1988 and forecasts show
demand to exceed 240,000 in the future. Both Los
Angeles and Riverside counties have plans to improve
SR 91 within their jurisdictions.
Costs:
The capital cost for these improvements is $400 million.
Implementation:
Construction of Phase I improvements is scheduled for
the first 10 years of the plan and Phase II improvements
will occur during the second 10 years.
Additional Information for the Orange Freeway (SR 57) from the Los Angeles County Line to Interstate 5 is on page 21.a, in
accordance with the OCTA Board action of 3/8/2010
Amendment March 8, 2010 21
Orange Freeway (SR 57) from the Los Angeles County Line to Interstate 5
Description:
The 20 -Year Master Plan for Transportation Improvements calls for the addition of
one carpool in each direction to the orange Freeway for it entire length within
Orange County. This covers a distance of about 12 miles. In addition, soundwalls
and other environmental amenities will be added. In 1988, this freeway carried over
210,000 vehicles per day and forecasts estimate this demand to grow to over
280,000 daily. Los Angeles County plans for additional lanes that extend the
improvements north to Route 60 in Diamond Bar.
The 2007 Renewed Measure M Transportation Investment Plan lists additional
improvements for this corridor under "Project G — Orange Freeway Improvements."
Use of available Measure M1 funds will enable Orange County to leverage state
funds and deliver the improvements earlier should any additional M1 funds become
available.
Costs:
The 1988 capital cost estimate for this improvement is $22 million. The - costae
constmetien work on the eady aetion Renewed Measure M improvements OR the
Orange FFeeway is $16 millien (on 1988 dollaFs).
Implementation:
The current schedule slates the Orange Freeway improvements for the first five -year
period of the plan.
begin in 200:7 and GGnStFUGtiGA is seheduled to begin in 20 Design and
environmental clearance of the latest Orange Freeway improvements are nearly
complete and construction is expected to begin in late 2010
References:
1. Renewed Measure M Transportation Investment Plan, July 2006.
2. Renewed Measure M Early Action Plan, Draft Report, Orange County
Transportation Authority, July 16, 2007.
Add:
3. Renewed Measure M Early Action Plan Review, December 14 2009
This page is a revision in accordance with the OCTA Board action of 3/8/2010
Amendment March 8, 2010 21.a
Garden Grove Freeway (State Route 22) from Route 55 to Interstate 605
Including West County connection improvements
Description:
State Route 22 is the last major freeway in Orange County slated for measure M- funded
improvements. In 2000, over 174,000 vehicles a day traveled on this freeway and
forecasts show demand increasing to over 212,000 daily. At the west end, SR -22
connects with Interstate 405 and Interstate 605 — "West County Connection." This
freeway segment carries over 430,000 cars today and future demand is projected to
reach 526,000. Plans call for the addition of carpool lanes in each direction along with
auxiliary lanes, freeway -to- freeway carpool connectors, interchange improvements, and
environmental mitigation.
Costs:
The Measure M contribution for this project shall not exceed $303 million in 1988
dollars. These funds will leverage existing Federal, State, and Local sources that are
providing over $235 million for improvements. In 2007, an additional $400 million of
new state and federal funds were made available to the West County Connection.
Implementation:
Design of the project will begin immediately. Construction is targeted to begin by 2004.
Sales Tax revenues would be used to augment funding from other sources. Design of
the West County Connection improvements will begin in 2007 and construction is
scheduled to begin on 2009.
References:
State Route 22NVest County Connection Project Report, Caltrans, March 2003
This page replaces the former page 21.5, and is a revision in accordance with the OCTA Board action dated 9/2412007
Amendment September 24, 2007 21.b
Fact Sheets
SR- 22/405/605
HOV Connectors
Project Description:
This project proposes to construct direct HOV connectors from SR -22 to 1 -405 (between
Seal Beach Blvd. and Valley View St.) and from 1 -405 to 1 -605 (between Katella Ave.
and Seal Beach Blvd.) with a second HOV lane in each direction on 1 -405 between the
two direct connectors. This project is Phase II of the SR- 22NVOCC widening project.
Phase I added an HOV on SR -22 between Glassell Avenue in the City of Orange and
Valley View Street in the city of Garden Grove, plus auxiliary lanes between SR -55 and
Valley View Street.
Corridor Description:
State Route 22 (SR -22) is an east -west transportation corridor that provides
connections to five major Interstate 5, 405 and 605, and State Routes 55 and 57 and
that crosses most of the major north -south arterial corridors in Central Orange County.
Funding:
Total project Cost: $400,000
CMIA Funds Recommended: $200,000
Local Match; $200,000
Project Schedule:
Ready for advertisement: Mid 2009
Construction award: Early 2010
Construction complete: Mid 2012
This page is a revision in accordance with the OCTA Board action dated 9/24/2007
Amendment September 24, 2007 21.c
IRVINE
Super Streets
SANJVAN
CAPISTRANO
Freeways
Please note: The following projects are included under Orange County Street and Road Projects but not shown on map:
1. Regional Interchanges 5, Master Plan of Arterial Highways for Orange County
2, Intersection Improvement Program 6. Streets Maintenance and Local Roads Projects
throughout Orange County 7. Growth Management Area Improvements
3. Signal Coordination throughout Orange County
4. Local Transportation Systems Management and
Transportation Demand Management Plans (TSM/TDM)
22
IMPERIAL
Y!yy
STATE
¢
COLLEGE BLVD.
-.
y 5
..
_
A
0 7
$
F
FULLEflTON
9
OPANCETHOPPE
AVE.
A
--
ANAHEIM
9t
405
KATFLLA
AVE.
GARDEN
GROVE
ORANGE
CLEVELAND _.
22
55
NATIONAL
of
BOLE A AVE
/gVINE
FOREST
WARNER
�TO
SANTA
AVE
ANA
ORANGE
..
U
N BEACH N qp5
BEACH
PEE
pq,.I
...,
O
COUNTY
IRVINE
Super Streets
SANJVAN
CAPISTRANO
Freeways
Please note: The following projects are included under Orange County Street and Road Projects but not shown on map:
1. Regional Interchanges 5, Master Plan of Arterial Highways for Orange County
2, Intersection Improvement Program 6. Streets Maintenance and Local Roads Projects
throughout Orange County 7. Growth Management Area Improvements
3. Signal Coordination throughout Orange County
4. Local Transportation Systems Management and
Transportation Demand Management Plans (TSM/TDM)
22
Orange County Streets and Roads Project Descriptions
Super Streets Throughout Orange County
Description:
The Super Street Program for Orange County is a 220.
mile network of arterial streets targeted for improve-
ments designed to increase their ability to carry traffic.
These improvements consist of traffic signal synchroni-
zation, restriping /widening roadways to increase the
number of travel lanes, intersection grade separations,
bus turnouts, removal of on- street parking, and intersec-
tion improvements. The Super Street Network includes
21 major arterial streets throughout Orange County such
as Beach Boulevard, Katella Avenue and El Toro Road.
Costs:
$120 million of sales tax revenue is targeted for Super
Street improvements.
Implementation:
Improvements would be phased over the 20 -year
Program, and coordinated with other local improve-
ments.
Regional Interchanges
Description:
The goal of the program is to further enhance the local
street interchanges at key freeway junctions such as the
interchanges of I-405 and Warner Avenue, and Route 22
and Beach Boulevard. The program also would direct
connections between the transitway system and local
streets, for example at Route 57 and Cerritos Avenue.
Local agencies would be required to provide dollar-
for-dollar. matching funds. All freeway and major street
junctures throughout Orange County are eligible.
Improvements will be coordinated with other freeway
projects and phased in over 20 years.
Costs:
$70 million of sales tax revenue is targeted for this
program.
Intersection Improvement Program
Throughout Orange County
Description:
The 20 -Year Master Plan of Transportation Improve-
ments recommends that 100 of the county's most
congested street intersections such as the intersections
of Bristol/MacArthur Boulevard, El Toro Rond/
Rockfield and State College Boulevard/Imperial
Highway be identified and scheduled for improvement.
This program will help alleviate traffic bottlenecks
present in Orange County. The schedule shows these
improvements to span the full period of the plan.
Costs:
$100 million over a 20 -year period is recommended for
this program.
Signal Coordination Throughout
Orange County
Description:
With 29 cities in Orange County, the number of
jurisdictions can complicate the coordination of traffic
signals between city boundaries. This element of the
20 -Year Master Plan of Transportation Improvements
calls for financial assistance to cities and the County of
Orange in timing traffic signals where streets cross city
boundaries.
23
Costs.
$50 million over a 20 -year period is targeted for these
improvements.
Master Plan of Arterial Highways for
Orange County
Description:
The County of Orange currently provides $4 million
annually to complete the construction of major streets
countywide. Over 80 percent of the county's road
system has been constructed. Additional funding is
proposed that, when combined with county and other
local funds, will help complete the system. Construction
will occur throughout the 20 -year program.
Costs:
$100 million is allocated to construct and improve local
streets and roads.
Orange County Streets and Roads Project Descriptions
Local Transportation Systems Manage-
ment and Transportation Demand Man-
agement Plans (TSM/TDK
Description:
Transportation system and demand management focus
on increasing the present capacity of the transportation
system for the movement of people rather than of
vehicles at a relatively low capital cost. Thus, these
strategies center on increasing the occupancy of vehicles
and spreading the demand for travel to times when
facilities have excess capacity. These measures include
carpooling and vanpooling programs, park- and -ride
service development, removal of on- street parking,
parking management, and controlling delivery and
operations of commercial vehicles. Also included are
bicycling, alternative work hours, development of site
amenities to encourage high occupancy use, such as
transit shelters and preferential parking, and reversible
traffic lanes to add capacity to the peak direction. This
element of the 20 -Year Plan for Transportation Im-
provements calls for each city to develop and implement
TSM/TDM strategies. Implementation of these im-
provements will occur throughout the life of the 20 -year
program.
Costs:
$10 million is required for this program.
Growth Management Area Improvements
Description:
An important component of the plan is the formation of
Growth Management Areas that will blend local and
regional planning perspectives and traffic control tech-
niques. These areas will be established by grouping
local jurisdictions with similar land use and transporta-
tion characteristics. This program element will focus on
addressing cumulative regional traffic impacts of devel-
opment. Specifically, funds will be used to complete
traffic improvements crossing city/county boundaries.
Under no circumstances may local government use
funds from the program to subsidize costs which should
be bome by developers.
Costs:
$100 million over a 20 -year period is targeted for this
program.
Streets Maintenance and
Local Roads Projects
Description:
This program element offers cities funds for street
maintenance and local traffic improvements. The
program is designed to supplement city and county
expenditures on road projects and will require continua-
tion of local investment in the street and road system.
Specifically, to receive these funds cities must:
• adopt a Growth Management Plan as called for in
the 20 -Year Master Plan;
• adopt a local Pavement Management System that
will eliminate the need for costly road reconstruc-
tion and adequately fund such a system;
• adopt a local Transportation Systems Management
plan to make better use of the road network;
• agree to complete improvements within three years
or return the funds; and
• adopt a local traffic circulation plan that is consis-
tent with the countywide Master Plan of Arterial
Highways.
This is a countywide program to maintain and improve
over 5,000 miles of local streets and roads and will
extend over the entire 20 -year program.
Costs:
Previous studies have indicated that an initial investment
of $200 million is needed to bring all deficient streets
into good repair, and an annual allocation of $36 million
for routine maintenance. It is proposed to allocate $450
million towards such needs that, when combined with
local resources, will provide substantial new funding for
Orange County streets and roads.
24
Orange County Transit Projects
i i 1 i F++ Existing Rail Right -of -Way
High- Technology Advanced Rail Transit
Transitway Development Program
Lossan Intercity Rail Program and
Lossan Commuter Rail
• e s e • e Riverside Commuter Rail
Please note: Included under Orange County Transit Projects but not shown on map is the Senior Citizens /Disabled Reduced
Fares Program.
25
BREA
7
00
9i
r FULLERTON
• -• y 91 • •••
ANAHEIM •
9i
1
°
4
•
GARDEN
ROVE
•
ORANGE
CLEVELAND
22
° 55
NATIONAL
0
S
FOREST
SANTAANA
L
} 3
yr
HUN TINGTON
ORANGE
BEACH
5
•'
��
COUNTY
4n 1
♦� ••
# F-
t' c5 4 s
IRVINE
L �
4
}F
EAgR�c OCEAN
4r..
a
-
i
MISSION
VIEJO
5
'
t
t �
SANJUAN
_
CAPISTRANO
N
M M)TTOWhE
i i 1 i F++ Existing Rail Right -of -Way
High- Technology Advanced Rail Transit
Transitway Development Program
Lossan Intercity Rail Program and
Lossan Commuter Rail
• e s e • e Riverside Commuter Rail
Please note: Included under Orange County Transit Projects but not shown on map is the Senior Citizens /Disabled Reduced
Fares Program.
25
Orange County Transit Project Descriptions
Rail Transit Right -Of -Way Protection
Description:
Right -of -way (ROW) protection on the Pacific Electric/
Southern Pacific West Santa Ana Branch from Santa
Ana to Los Angeles County line.
Location:
Central and west part of the county. Goes through the
cities of Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Stanton, Anaheim,
Buena Park, Cypress, and La Palma.
Technology and Ridership Estimates:
The future technology to be considered in this corridor
and on this alignment would be some type of rail transit.
Due to the long -term nature related to implementation of
service, revised ridership estimates are not available.
There are previous studies conducted by OCTC and
OCTD which do provide ridership estimates. Depend-
ing on the rail system the segment is connected to, the
daily ridership for the year 2000 is forecast at 10,000-
15,000.
Costs:
$50 million would be reserved for this project and used
by the OCTC to preserve the right -of -way opportunities
on this alignment.
Implementation:
It is assumed that the ROW would be purchased during
the first five years of the program.
IssueslComments:
1. The Southern Pacific (SP) right -of -way (ROW) from
Beach Blvd. to Downtown Los Angeles is being con-
sidered for abandonment by SP. This ROW along with
the existing ROW owned by OCTD could provide a
future rail transit connection to the Century Freeway rail
transit line and Los Angeles County's rail transit system.
The distance is approximately five miles.
2. The OCTD now owns the Pacific Electric (PE) ROW
from Santa Ana to Beach Blvd. (7 miles): The City of
Garden Grove proposes to develop parcels through their
redevelopment agency at future station locations at
Euclid and Brookhurst. The city proposes to purchase
approximately 6,100 feet of the ROW and provide an
acceptable financial package to OCTC and OCTD that
would not preclude the development of rail transit in the
future. The city also proposes to minimize the repur-
chase price of the ROW when needed for rail transit
development. The development of rail transit in this
corridor could be started within the next 20 years.
References:
1. Santa Ana Transportation Corridor, Transit Element,
Alternatives Analysis and Draft Environmental Impact
Report, OCTD, February 1984.
2. Santa Ana Transportation Corridor, Multimodal
Alternatives Analysis, Preliminary Findings Report,
OCTC, December 1984.
irp
Orange County Transit Project Descriptions
LOSSAN Corridor Intercity Rail Service
Description:
The LOSSAN corridor extends for 128 miles between
the downtown areas of Los Angeles and San Diego, and
is second only to the Northeast Corridor in ridership on
the Amtrak rail passenger system. This rail line
(Santa Fe) links communities in the counties of Los
Angeles, Orange, and San Diego. At this time, over six
million people reside within five miles of this rail. line.
There are currently nine stations with five of them in
Orange County. Amtrak's present service in the
LOSSAN corridor includes eight daily trains in each
direction. The future proposal calls for two additional
trains to be added.
Location:
The project uses the Santa Fe /Amtrak line from the San
Diego downtown to the Los Angeles Central Business
District (CBD), a distance of 128 miles with 47 miles in
Orange County.
Technology and Ridership Estimates:
The technology currently used for this service is diesel -
electric locomotives pulling up to six passenger cars.
The cars are approximately 85 feet long and can operate
at high or low platforms. Based on current usage and
the implementation of two new roundtrips, the ridership
is forecasted to be 8,000 riders per day.
Costs:
A capital development program that includes funding by
all three counties, Amtrak, the State of California, and
Santa Fe Railroad has been developed that will allow for
expansion of service to 10 trains per day in each direc-
tion. Orange County's share of this program is approxi-
mately $20 million. Any required operating assistance
would be paid by the State and Amtrak. These services
are very close to having full farebox recovery on
operating and maintenance costs and are therefore
priced for intercity type service and not priced to
encourage daily commuter use.
Implementation:
If the funding program can be put in place, service could
begin as early as 1993.
IssueslComments:
This program requires the cooperation of the three
counties, Caltrans, Amtrak, Santa Fe, and the local
communities to be implemented successfully.
References:
1. Los Angeles -San Diego ( LOSSAN) State Rail
Corridor Study, 1986 -1987, LOSSAN State Rail
Corridor Study Group, Consultants - Wilbur Smith &
Associates, Morrison - Knudsen Engineers, and Arthur
Bauer & Associates.
2. Los Angeles to San Diego ( LOSSAN) Corridor
Status Report and Proposed Commuter Rail Implemen-
tation Program, Report to Orange County Transporta-
tion Commission, June 16, 1988, staff consultant-
Sharon Greene & Associates.
3. LOSSAN Corridor Rail Status Report, OCTC,
September 29, 1988.
27
Orange County Transit Project Descriptions
LOSSAN Corridor Commuter
Rail Service
Description:
The proposed commuter rail service in the LOSSAN
Corridor specifically will be directed at the needs of
persons commuting on a daily. basis. Train schedules,
station locations, and fare policy will be set to accom-
modate the needs of these commuters. The initial
service calls for two peak period trains inbound from
San Clemente to Los Angeles on weekday momings
and two peak period trains outbound from Los Angeles
to San Clemente on weekday evenings. The service
calls for nine stations in Orange County and four in Los
Angeles County. The additional stations in Orange
County include Mission Viejo, North Irvine, and Buena
Park. The Irvine station (Spectrum area) is included in
the nine stations. The commuter trains would supple-
ment the intercity trains that are proposed and currently
operated by Amtrak.
It is also proposed that the project acquire the Santa Fe
right -of -way (ROW) from Fullerton to the San Diego
County line in cooperation with San Diego agencies.
Based on the activities proposed for this project, these
actions would constitute the fust.step in developing a
major backbone rail transit system for Orange County,
Location:
The project uses the Santa Fe /Amtrak line from the San
Clemente /Oceanside area to the Los Angeles central
business district.
Technology and Ridership Estimates:
The technology to be used for this service would be
similar to the current Amtrak service. It is estimated
that the initial service would attract 2,000 riders per day
in the peak periods. Ridership will increase over time as
additional commuter service is scheduled.
Costs:
A capital development program has been proposed that
would include the purchase of the Santa Fe ROW,
provision of equipment to provide the service, and the
development of three new stations at Mission Viejo,
North Irvine, and Buena Park. The service would
require operating assistance as the farebox is estimated
to fund 40 -50 percent of the annual costs. The capital
cost estimate for Orange County's share is $108 million
and for operating subsidy is $22 million for the balance
of the 20 -Year Plan period.
Implementation:
The service could begin as early as 1993, if funding is in
place.
IssueslComments:
The implementation of this project and this ROW as the
backbone rail transit corridor is dependent on the
successful negotiation and purchase of the Santa Fe
ROW south of Fullerton. This project, as well, needs
the.full cooperation of all three counties (L.A., Orange,
and San Diego).
References:
1. Los Angeles -San Diego ( LOSSAN) State Rail
Corridor Study, 1986 -1987, LOSSAN State Rail
Corridor Study Group.
2. Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Multirriodal
Alternatives Analysis, Commuter Rail Element, 1984,
Orange County Transportation Commission.
3. LOSSAN Corridor Status Report and Proposed
Commuter Rail Implementation Program, report to
OCTC, June 16, 1988.
4. LOSSAN Corridor Rail Status Report, OCTC,
September 29, 1988.
28
Orange County Transit Project Descriptions
Riverside Commuter Rail Service
Description:
This proposed project operating on Santa Fe trackage
would be a cooperative and jointly funded program with
the Riverside County Transportation Commission
(RCTC). The proposed commuter rail service would
begin in downtown Riverside and terminate at the Irvine
station (Spectrum). Four trains per day in each direction
are proposed. Of the four daily trains, two would be
routed directly to Irvine, while the other two serve
destinations in Placentia, Fullerton, and Anaheim before
rejoining the other route at the Chapman station in
Orange. Seven new stations /stops are proposed in
Orange County,
The initial directional service is proposed to begin
during the morning peak period and operate four south-
bound trains on 20- minute headways. A similar return
set of trips would be operated during the evening peak
period. The route going directly to Irvine would be
approximately 50 miles and the route through Fullerton
and Anaheim would be 56 miles long.
Location:
The project would use Santa Fe RO'W between River-
side and Irvine.
Technology and Ridership Estimates:
The technology to be used for this service would be the
same type as the current Amtrak service on the
LOSSAN corridor. It is estimated that the proposed
service would attract 6,400 riders per day in the peak
periods.
Costs:
The Feasibility Assessment study estimated Orange
County's share of the capital costs at $65 million and the
operating costs at $25 million (through the end of the
20 -Year Plan period). The Riverside County share will
be funded through their one -half cent sales tax that
passed in November 1988.
Implementation:
This service will be initiated during the second 10 years
of the plan.
Issues /Comments:
The key issues to be addressed by the two agencies
(OCTC and RCTC) are the financial arrangements,
priority of expenditures, and the funding splits.
References:
1. Riverside - Orange County Commuter Rail Service,
Feasibility Assessment, Interim Report, OCTC and
RCTC, July 1988, prepared by Schiermeyer Consulting
Service and Sharon Greene & Associates.
2. Riverside -Orange County Commuter Rail Service,
Feasibility Assessment, Final Report, OCTC and
RCTC, December 6, 1988, prepared by Schiermeyer
Consulting Service and Sharon Greene & Associates.
29
Orange County Transit Project Descriptions
High- Technology Advanced Rall Transit
Description:
This project would further develop the existing rail
right -of -way and initiate a high capacity urban rail
system in Orange County. This 20 -Year Plan element
will also provide matching funds to encourage local
development of extensions to major activity centers.
The primary improvements will be along the LOSSAN
rail corridor and designed to provide frequent train
service between south and north Orange County with
nine stops at San Juan Capistrano, San Clemente,
Mission Viejo, Irvine, North Irvine, Santa Ana, Ana-
heim, Fullerton, and Buena Park.
The extension will provide access between the primary
rail system and employment centers. Two of the
potential candidate projects are the Anaheim People
Mover Project and the Irvine Spectrum to John Wayne
Airport Fixed Guideway transit line that could ulti-
mately extend further west to the South Coast Metro
area and beyond.
Location:
This project would use the Santa Fe /Amtrak line from
San Clemente to Buena Park.
Technology and Ridership Estimates:
Selection of technology, ridership estimates and system
costs need further analysis and studies.
Costs:
The total capital cost.of the urban rail improvements
could exceed $800 million. Rail extension costs will be
determined pending selection of technology. It is
recommended that $340 million be allocated toward this
system. System connectivity, ridership /performance
and availability of matching funds will be used as
criteria to determine the relative priority of investment in
the system.
Implementation:
Planning work on this project will begin immediately.
The goal is to implement the project(s) during the
second 10 years of the plan.
Reference:
Transit Strategy Report, April 1989, Orange County
Transportation Commission, prepared by Parsons
Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
30
Orange County Transit Project Descriptions
Senior Citizens/Disabled Persons
Reduced Fares
Description:
This project would stabilize fares for senior citizens and
persons with disabilities on all forms of public transit
including OCTD bus and dial -a -ride programs, City of
Laguna Beach system, the Consolidated Transportation
Service Agency (CTSA) and any rail service that is
implemented.
The OCTD fare for seniors on the local fixed routes is
40 cents in the peak period (weekdays only) and 10
cents in the off -peak; the Handicapped fare is 85 cents
in the peak period and 40 cents in the off -peak; and on
the demand responsive system the fare is 80 cents at all
times. OCTD service accommodates approximately 80
percent of the current users.
Location:
This would apply to all of Orange County.
Technology and Ridership Estimates:
Based on today's usage of the public transit system,
there are about 10,000 daily transit rides.
Costs:
It is estimated that a fare stabilization program would
cost about $1 million per year, or $20 million over 20
years.
Implementation:
This could be implemented immediately if an additional
funding source is available.
References:
Short Range Transit Plans and Transportation Improve-
ment Programs for fiscal years 1989 -1993 and fiscal
years 1990 -1994 for OCTD, City of Laguna Beach, and
CTSA.
Transitway Development Program
Description:
The transitway development program is a 19.4 -mile
program for the I -5, SR55 and SR57 corridors from the
SR91 to the I.405 corridor. The program is made up of
freeway -to- freeway connectors and other projects which
can be implemented separately. In addition to these
projects, Park- and -Ride lots are needed to complete the
system. For the transitway program to function as
approved, all of the components should be in place to
receive maximum benefits, but substantial benefits are
attainable with each project.
Location:
Central county on the SR57, I -5, SR55, and 1405
freeways.
Technology and Ridership Estimates:
The transitway lanes would be used by buses and other
high occupancy vehicles such as carpools and vanpools.
The total expected usage of the transitway segment
would be 22,000 daily transit trips and 50,000 carpool -
user /daily- person trips.
Coss:
A portion of this program ($154 million) is funded using
existing resources and is incorporated into the I -5 (Santa
Ana Freeway) improvements. Forty -six million dollars
of federal funds is also assumed for the remainder of the
program. An additional $125 million in sales tax
revenues is targeted for direct freeway -to- freeway
connectors between Routes 57 and 91 and Routes 405
and 55, and Park- and -Ride facilities.
Implementation:
Projects will be implemented over the 20 -year program
in conjunction with freeway improvement projects.
References:
1. A Transitway Development Program for Orange
County, October, 1986, Orange County Transit District.
2. A Transitway Development Program for Orange
County, Concept Design Final Report, February, 1989,
Orange County Transit District.
3. A Transitway Development Program for Orange
County, Concept Design Final Report, Plans and
Profiles, May, 1988, Orange County Transit District.
4
Growth Management Plan
Description:
The Revised Traffic Improvement and Growth Man-
agement Plan requires each city and the county to adopt
a Growth Management Element of its general plan to be
eligible to receive new transportation revenue, if new
revenue is approved by Orange County voters.
Under this plan each local agency is required to:
• outline each agency's plans and efforts to
develop multijurisdictional traffic solutions
through a well - defined, cooperative planning
process;
• specify traffic level of services;
promote alternative forms of transportation and
overall system efficiency by maximizing use of
the existing transportation network through
Transportation Systems Management (TSM)
and Transportation Demand Management
(TDM);
require a traffic mitigation fee to guarantee that
new development pays its fair share toward
dealing with traffic generated by the new
development;
• foster a better balance of jobs and housing and
reduce commuter trips through careful plan-
ning;
• encourage local jurisdictions, where applicable,
to establish performance standards for fire,
police, library, parks, open space, flood control,
and other infrastructure based on local criteria;
require phasing of new development to ensure
that service level goals are achieved;
• . pursue additional revenue to upgrade recre-
ational areas and to acquire additional open
space.
The countywide Revised Traffic Improvement and
Growth Management Plan emphasizes good planning,
improved cooperation between neighboring cities, and
requires that development pays its fair share toward
dealing with traffic generated by that new development.
With this approach, new transportation revenue, in the
form of a one -half cent sales tax measure, would be
focused on curing existing transportation and traffic
deficiencies while a new traffic mitigation fee will help
pay a fair share of the cost of infrastructure required by
new residential, commercial and industrial growth.
32
Twal-
Staff Reports
September 23, 1991
Amendments to the Measure M Ordinance
October 28, 1991
Reallocation of Funds in the Measure M Freeway Program
November 25, 1991
Public Hearing on Revision to the Measure M Expenditure Plan
for the Freeway Program (Reallocation of Funds)
April 11, 1994
Amendments to Measure M Ordinance and Plan
May 23, 1994
Public Hearing on the Proposed Amendments to Measure M
Ordinance No. 2 (Reallocation of Freeway Program Funding
between 1 -5 and SR- 911SR -55)
March 25, 1996
Proposed Amendment to the Measure M Expenditure Plan
May 13, 1996
Public Hearing on Amendment to the Measure M Expenditure
Plan (Cost Savings Transferred to CURE Accounts)
June 9, 1997
Public Hearing for Amendment to Measure M Ordinance
(Amendments to Local Streets and Road Component)
December 10, 2001
Measure M Amendment Public Hearing to add SR -22
(Amendment to Freeway Program to add SR -22 at $203 Million)
September 13, 2004
Public Hearing to Amend Measure M Expenditure Plan to
Advance SR -22 an Additional $123.7 Million
September 24, 2007
Public Hearing to Amend Measure M Expenditure Plan Related
to SR -57 and SR -22
December 14, 2009
Renewed Measure M Early Action Plan Review —
Recommendation to remove $22 Million from SR -57
January 25, 2010
Request for Public Hearing to Amend Measure M Expenditure
Plan for the Freeway Program
March 8, 2010
Public Hearing to Amend Measure M Expenditure Plan for the
Freeway Program
August 22, 2011 Measure M Closeout Status and Ordinance Amendment —
Agencies which qualify as an "Eligible Jurisdiction" under
Ordinance No. 3, to be also an "Eligible Jurisdiction" under
Ordinance No. 2.
September 26, 2011 Measure M Ordinance Amendment Public Hearing
Revised 9/29/11