CITY OF SANTA ANA
2026 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
May, 2026
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... E-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1-1
2.0 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1 Inventory ........................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2 Planning ......................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.3 Data Collection ............................................................................................................... 2-2
2.4 Data Entry ...................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.5 Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 2-2
3.0 PAVEMENT NETWORK ..................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Functional Classifications ............................................................................................... 3-2
3.2 Pavement Condition Index ............................................................................................. 3-4
3.3 Existing Pavement Condition ......................................................................................... 3-5
4.0 MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION STRATEGIES .................................................. 4-1
4.1 Treatment Types and Associated Costs ........................................................................ 4-1
4.2 Funding .......................................................................................................................... 4-5
4.3 Budget Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 4-6
4.3.1 Existing Funding .................................................................................................... 4-7
4.3.2 Alternative Funding Levels Required To Maintain Existing PCI .......................... 4-10
4.3.3 Alternative Funding Levels Required To Improve PCI ........................................ 4-13
APPENDIX A: ENTIRE PAVEMENT NETWORK PCI REPORT
APPENDIX B: ARTERIAL STREETS 7-YEAR M&R PLAN
APPENDIX C: LOCAL STREETS 7-YEAR M&R PLAN
APPENDIX D: OCTA PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 2024 - Pavement Management Plan Certification
- Quality Assurance / Quality Control Plan
- Executive Summary
EXHIBIT 2
Table Of Contents
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program ii
FIGURES
Figure E-1: PCI Distribution for 2022, 2024 and 2026 .............................................................. E-1 Figure 2-1: Sample Pavement Deterioration Curve ................................................................... 2-3 Figure 3-1: Entire Pavement Network Summary ....................................................................... 3-1 Figure 3-2: Arterial Street ........................................................................................................... 3-2 Figure 3-3: Local Street ............................................................................................................. 3-3 Figure 3-4: Current PCI Distribution (Entire Pavement Network) .............................................. 3-5 Figure 3-5: Current PCI Distribution (Arterial Network) .............................................................. 3-6 Figure 3-6: Current PCI Distribution (Local Network) ................................................................ 3-7 TABLES
Table E-1: Funding Alternatives Summary ............................................................................... E-4 Table 3-1: Current Entire Pavement Network Summary ............................................................ 3-1 Table 3-2: Pavement Condition Index and Treatment Type ...................................................... 3-4 Table 3-3: PCI Distribution Comparison (2022, 2024 vs. 2026) ................................................ 3-5 Table 3-4: PCI Distribution ......................................................................................................... 3-8 Table 4-1: Cost by Condition (Arterial Network) ........................................................................ 4-3 Table 4-2: Cost by Condition (Local Network) ........................................................................... 4-3 Table 4-3: Existing Funding (Entire Pavement Network) ........................................................... 4-8 Table 4-4: Existing Funding (Arterial Network) .......................................................................... 4-8 Table 4-5: Existing Funding (Local Network) ............................................................................. 4-9 Table 4-6: Alternative Funding Levels Required To Maintain Existing PCI (Entire Pavement Network) .................................................................................... 4-11 Table 4-7: Alternative Funding Levels Required To Maintain Existing PCI (Arterial Network) ................................................................................................... 4-11 Table 4-8: Alternative Funding Levels Required To Maintain Existing PCI (Local Network) ...................................................................................................... 4-12 Table 4-9: Alternative Funding Levels Required To Improve PCI (Entire Pavement Network) .................................................................................... 4-14 Table 4-10: Alternative Funding Levels Required To Improve PCI (Arterial Network) ................................................................................................... 4-14 Table 4-11: Alternative Funding Levels Required To Improve PCI (Local Network) ...................................................................................................... 4-15
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program
ACRONYMS
AC Asphalt Concrete
ASTM American Society of Testing Materials
AV Avenue
BLVD Boulevard
CDBG Community Development Block Grant
CIP Capital Improvement Program
CIR Circle
CIR Cold In-Place Recycling
City City of Santa Ana
COMM Common
CT Court
CTB Cement Treated Base
DR Drive
EB East Bound
FDR Full Depth Reconstruction
FWY Freeway
FY Fiscal Year
GIS Geographical Information System
GN Glen
GPCE General Plan Circulation Element
HUTA Highway Users Tax Account
LN Lane
M&R Maintenance and Rehabilitation
MPAH Master Plan of Arterial Highways
NB North Bound
OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority
PCC Portland Cement Concrete
PCI Pavement Condition Index
PCIaw Average Area-Weighted Pavement Condition Index
PDC Pavement Deterioration Curve
PL Place
PMP Pavement Management Program
RD Road
RR Railroad
RSRP Residential Street Repair Program
SB South Bound
SF Square Feet
ST Street
WB West Bound
WY Way
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program E-1-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Santa Ana (City) Public Works Agency utilizes StreetSaver and geographical information system (GIS) to develop the Pavement Management Program (PMP) to provide an accurate inventory of the current and projected pavement condition of all public roadways and to implement a seven-year roadway maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R) program to maximize the return from available existing funding for street pavement. The PMP’s ultimate goal is to effectively strategize short and long-term usages of current and future limited funding to restore and maintain the entire street pavement network at “Good” condition or better.
The City currently manages 454 miles of streets for a total of approximately 93.4 million square feet (SF) of paved surfaces. To be consistent with the City General Plan Circulation Element Master Plan of Streets and Highways and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH), the entire street pavement network i s organized into two networks (arterial and local) depending on its functional classifications (i.e. major, primary, secondary, and collector arterial streets; residential and non-residential local streets). There are 129.3 miles (28% of entire pavement network) in the arterial network and 324.5 miles (72% of entire pavement network) in the local network. To assist planning maintenance needs, the streets are also arranged into over 4,170 sections and classified by surface types – Asphalt Concrete (AC) or Portland Cement Concrete (PCC).
Figure E-1: PCI Distribution for 2022, 2024 and 2026
Entire Network Arterial Network Local Network
EXHIBIT 2
Executive Summary
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program E-1-2 Pavement condition inspections are performed biennially for both the arterial and local networks.
Figure E-1 shows a comparison of the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) distribution between the 2022, 2024 and 2026 inspections. The PCI is a numerical value ranging from 0 for deteriorated pavement with virtually no remaining life to 100 for new or recently rehabilitat ed pavement.
Generally, the PCI value is expressed as an area -weighted PCI (PCI aw) to provide a more representative value. A PCI value is computed for each street section based on the pavement distresses found within that section during an inspection. Inspections provide the data utilized in analysis and surface treatment recommendations for each street section; however, the PCI values shall be utilized for planning purposes in determining the surface treatment types and are not intended to replace soun d engineering judgment. In general, the City’s strategies involve the utilization of surface seals, such as crack sealing or slurry sealing for preventive maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R) of streets in “Good” condition and major M&R plans typically co nsist of overlays, such as thin overlays, for “Fair” condition streets; resurfacing, such as structural overlays or cold-in-place recycling (CIR), for “Poor” condition streets; and reconstruction, such as cement-treated base (CTB) or full depth reconstruction (FDR), for “Very Poor” condition streets.
A fully integrated PMP has had a positive effect on improving the City’s entire pavement network by developing efficient M&R strategies and analyzing the effect of various funding alternatives on the pavement c onditions. The strategies include forecasting optimal time for M&R needs, providing cost-effective alternatives for halting the deterioration of existing pavement, improving the overall condition of the entire pavement network, and reducing the backlog of M&R work over the next seven years. To carry forward one of the City’s main objectives in providing a safe, reliable, efficient, and comfortable driving environment, this PMP report analyzes various M&R strategies, the effect of the City’s existing Capit al Improvement Prog ram (CIP) funding on the street pavement system, and projected funding to both maintain and improve existing PCIaw over a seven-year plan.
With existing funding of just under $115 million for the entire pavement network over the seven - year period from Fiscal Year ( FY) 2026/27 through FY 2032/33, the entire pavement network existing PCIaw of 75.2 is projected to decrease by eight (8) percent to 69 at the end of the seven- year cycle under existing funding levels. Individually, the arterial and local networks are projected to experience a negative result in existing PCIaw, eleven (11) percent arterial decrease and eight (8) percent local decrease. Furthermore, the backlog for the entire pavement network is projected to increase by 58 percent from $325.6 million in the first year to $595.6 million in the seventh year.
If the existing PCI aw of 75.2 were to be maintained at the end of the seven -year cycle, a total of $36.3 million in additional funds calculated at about $5.1 million annually would be required; thus providing for a total alternative funding level of just over $150.5 million through FY 2032/33. The additional funding would be applied to both the arterial and local networks at 62 percent ($22.5 million) and 38 percent ($13.8 million), respectively. Furthermore, with this additional funding, the backlog for the entire pavement network is projected to increase by 42 percent from $325.6 million in the first year to $462.8 million in the seventh year.
If the existing PCIaw were to be improved by three (3) points to 78.2 at the end of the seven-year cycle, a total of $46.0 million in additional funds calculated at about $6.5 million annually would EXHIBIT 2
Executive Summary
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program E-1-3 be required; thus providing for a total alternative funding level of over $160.2 million through FY 2032/33. The additional funding would be applied to both the arterial and local networks at 62 percent ($ 28.5 million) and 38 percent ($ 17.5 million), respectively. Furthermore, with this additional funding, the backlog for the entire pavement network is projected to increase by 21 percent from $325.6 million in the first year to $393.4 million in the seventh year.
Overall, the conclusion dra wn from this PMP report is that the backlog for the entire pavement network is evenly distributed across both the arterial and the local network. Additionally, existing funding levels in the City CIP will not keep pace with rehabilitation needs over the n ext seven years. Since preserving street condition and performance should be a priority to provide motorists with safety assurances, the City’s goal over the next seven years is to acquire sufficient pavement M&R funding to sustain the entire street pavem ent network at “Good” condition or better. By achieving this goal, the City will remain eligible for the reduced local match requirements for the renewed Measure M2 Competitive grant until FY 2032/33.
EXHIBIT 2
1.0 Introduction
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program E-1-4 Table E-1: Funding Alternatives Summary
Existing Funding Alternative Funding
(Maintain Existing PCI)
Alternative Funding
(Improve Projected PCI)
Entire
Pavement
Network
Arterial
Network
Local
Network
Entire
Pavement
Network
Arterial
Network
Local
Network
Entire
Pavement
Network
Arterial
Network
Local
Network
2026 PCIaw with
Existing Funding1 75 72 77 75 72 77 75 72 77
2033 PCIaw with
Existing Funding2 69 64 71
2033 PCIaw with
Alternative Funding3 75 72 79 78 75 82
FY 2026/27 Backlog4
$354,834 $145,482 $209,352 $354,834 $145,482 $209,352 $354,834 $145,482 $209,352 FY 2032/33 Backlog4
$595,574 $244,185 $351,389 $462,793 $189,745 $273,048 $393,441 $161,311 $232,130
7-yr Preventive M&R
Existing Funding5 $47,536 $0 $47,536 $47,536 $0 $47,536 $47,536 $0 $47,536 7-yr Major M&R
Existing Funding6 $67,264 $45,002 $22,262 $67,264 $45,002 $22,262 $67,264 $45,002 $22,262 7-yr Total
Existing Funding7 $114,800 $45,002 $69,798 $114,800 $45,002 $69,798 $114,800 $45,002 $69,798 7-yr Major M&R
Additional Funding8 $35,700 $22,134 $13,566 $45,300 $28,086 $17,214 7-yr Total
Alternative Funding9 $150,474 $93,294 $57,180 $160,182 $99,313 $60,869 Note: Cost figures are rounded to nearest $1,000.
1. 2026 PCI w Existing Funding: PCI yielded as a result of M&R work (existing PCI).
2. 2033 PCI w/ Existing Funding: PCI yielded at the end of the 7-year plan as a result of M&R work using existing funding.
3. 2033 PCI w/ Alternative Funding: PCI yielded @ the end of the 7-year plan as a result of M&R work using alternative funding.
4. Backlog: Total estimated M&R work left unfunded during the listed fiscal year.
5. 7-yr Preventive M&R Existing Funding: Existing funding for preventive M&R work from FY 2026/27 to FY 2032/33.
6. 7-yr Major M&R Existing Funding: Existing funding for major M&R work from FY 2026/27 to FY 2032/33.
7. 7-yr Total Existing Funding: Sum of existing funding from FY 2026/27 to FY 2032/33.
8. 7-yr Major M&R Additional Funding: Additional funding needed for major M&R work to reach the listed goal from FY 2026/27 to FY 2032/33.
9. 7-yr Total Alternative Funding: Sum of existing & additional funding needed required to reach the listed goal from FY 2026/27 to FY 2032/33.
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program 1-1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Since public streets are utilized for moving people and freight and they are vital to the City of Santa Ana (City) economy, preserving their condition and performance should be a priority. The City Public Works Agency has developed the Pavement Management Program (PMP) to monitor and maintain the City street system utilizing StreetSaver, MyRoads® and geographic information system (GIS). The City’s PMP has been developed to assist City personnel generate a solid and reliable Capital Improvement Program (CIP) based on the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of the streets to sustain a desirable level of pavement performance on a network scale. The PMP’s ultimate goal is to effectively strategize short and long-term usages of current and futur e limited funding to restore and maintain the entire pavement network at “Good” condition or better.
Additionally, StreetSaver was selected as the pavement management software to be utilized by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and all member agencies in Orange County; therefore, with the City of Santa Ana’s ongoing management of StreetSaver, the City’s PMP is in compliance with this OCTA requirement.
The purpose of the PMP is to:
• Provide an accurate current inventory and pavement conditions of all public roadways; • Predict future pavement condition with and without work; • Develop a roadway maintenance program;
• Prioritize and recommend the most cost-effective roadway repairs; • Implement a 7-year roadway maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R) program; • Maximize the return from available funding for street pavement.
Pavement is a dynamic structure where deteriorati on is constantly occurring. Therefore, as part of the development of the PMP, a survey of the City street pavement condition must be conducted on a regular basis to identify the type of severity and quantity of pavement distresses (refer to Section 2.0 Methodology and Appendix D: Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan ). The pavement management database needs to be updated frequently to reflect the changes in pavement conditions and pavement maintenance histories. Upon completion of the survey and database updates, StreetSaver generates a new PCI value, which assists in the selection of the most cost-effective roadway M&R strategy. The PCI value, which was developed by US Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory and adopted as standard procedure by the American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, has been utilized by numerous municipalities nationwide.
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program 2-2-1
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 INVENTORY
All streets within the City are categorized as either arterial or local streets and are grouped as such into their respective networks ; collectively they comprise the entire pavement network .
Within each network, the streets are ranked based on their functional classifications (refer to Section 3.0 Pavement Network) and are assigned a letter that corresponds with the rank. In the case of the arterial network, the letter ‘B’ is assigned to major arterial streets, the letter ‘P’ is assigned to primary arterial streets, the letter ‘S’ is assigned to secondary arterial streets, and the letter ‘C’ is assigned to collector arterial streets . In the case of the local network, the letter s ‘E’ and ‘I’ are assigned to residential and non-residential streets, respectively.
Each street, or branch, is divided into segments, or sections, at intersecting streets and railroads.
For example, Main Street from First Street to Second Street and Grand Avenue from Railroad to Chestnut Avenue. Additionally, a section break is introduced where a change in pavement surface is encountered mid -block. For example, if the pavement surface were to change from Asphalt Concrete (AC) to Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) at any point along Main Street from First Street to Second Street, then the resulting sections would be Main Street from First Street to AC- PCC Transition and Main Street from AC -PCC Transition to Second Street; where one section has an AC surface and the other has a PCC surface.
In an effort to help identify and sort the streets efficiently, identifying numbers are assigned to each branch and section. A Branch ID is a six-digit number assigned to each branch and is numbered increasingly with numbered streets listed first followed by the remainder of the streets listed in alphabetical order. A Section ID is a four-digit number assigned to each section and is numbered increasingly based on geography from west to east and from south to north. For example, the westernmost or southernmost section of a branch would have a Section ID with the lowest number and the easternmost or northernmost section of a branch would have a Section ID with the highest number. Furthermore, the four -digit Section ID number may be followed by a letter such as N, S, E, or W that denotes the direction of travel (north, south, east, and west, respectively) along a street. This letter is used to differentiate between the two halves of a street when it is divided as such. For example, Section ID 1100N and Section ID 1100S would denote the northbound and southbound sides of a section, respectively.
Additionally, other sort features are available to assist in further grouping segments with similar characteristics. For example, to identify street s within pre -defined geographical areas, each section is labeled with a number that corresponds to either a neighborhood or a non-neighborhood area. A neighborhood area, which is typically comprised of churches, schools, and residential properties, is defined as the boundary established through a collaboration of the City’s Community Development Agency (CDA) and local residents based on both geographic and social components. Currently, there are 64 neighborhoods established in the City, which meet with CDA staff regularly to develop strategies to shape it for the better and sustain it for the long term . A non-neighborhood area refers to the zone located outside of the established neighborhood boundaries comprising of mostly commercial and industrial uses.
EXHIBIT 2
2.0 Methodology
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program 2-2-2
2.2 PLANNING
Preparation prior to performing pavement surveys involves three major components: inspector training, survey type selection, and identifying sample units. • Inspector Training - In order to be familiar with the inspection guidelines, inspectors are prompted to read the StreetSaver Asphalt & Concrete Distress Manuals, complete the web-based Pavement Management software training and learn the data input application for the StreetSaver program prior to inspecting. Additionally, the inspection route s are planned in a time-efficient manner to efficiently capture the pavement data. • Survey Types - There are two types of surveys allowable : “windshield” and “walking” surveys. A windshield survey consists of examining the pavement from a vehicle moving at no more than 10 miles per hour (MPH), while a walking survey allows an inspector to examine from the pavement surface itself. Although, for safety reasons, walking surveys on arterial roadways may be performed from a safe place adjacent to the pavement such as a sidewalk, center median, or shoulder.
• Sample Unit s - Random areas, known as sample units, within a street section are inspected as a representative of the whole segment. A sample unit for an asphalt street section contains a total area of 2500 square feet (SF) ±1000 SF, and a sample unit for a PCC street section contains a total number of 20 slabs ±8 slabs.
2.3 DATA COLLECTION
The pavement distresses found within a sample unit are identified by type, classified by severity, measured/counted, and recorded as they are encountered in the field. A number of sample units are randomly selected for re-inspection to assure consis tent and accurate results among inspectors.
Refer to Appendix D: Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan for further details on quality control/quality assurance.
2.4 DATA ENTRY
The collected pavement distress data is input into StreetSaver, creating an inspection record for each sample unit.
2.5 ANALYSIS
Based on the latest inspection data and several other factors, including surface type, functional classifications, last construction date, and PCI, pavement deterioration curves (PDCs) or pavement condition prediction models are generated separately for th e local and arterial networks. These curves are imperative for a complete PMP to predict future pavement performance and determine maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R) requirements. Figure 2 -1 shows a sample PDC with the appropriate M&R.
EXHIBIT 2
2.0 Methodology
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program 2-2-3 Figure 2-1: Sample Pavement Deterioration Curve
To develop an accurate PDC, “suspicious” data / anomalies outside of the maximum and minimum envelopes generated from StreetSaver are filtered out. For example, data with PCI increase significantly with age (recording error) or lack of past inspection data must be removed because pavements are load carrying structures, which degrade over time due to the combined action of environmental and traffic. This data filtering processing is critical because pavements with unusual performance would have substantial impact on the PDC behavior and the pavement life cycle consequently.
The final PDCs illustrate that the rate of deterioration is fairly slow in the early years of the pavement’s design life. During the first 65 percent to 75 percent of a pavement’s design life, which varies based on functional classifications and surface type, a pavement deteriorates approximately 40 percent of its quality, i.e. from a PCI of 100 (“Very Good” condition) to a PCI of 60 (“Fair” condition). However, the rate of deterioration starts to increase rapidly with age after a pavement reaches this point in its life cycle. Typically, a pavement can deteriorate 40 percent in its quality (PCI quickly drops from 60 (“Fair” condition) to 20 (“Very Poor” condition)) in the next 15 percent to 25 percent of its design life. Although the local and arterial networks have different design life spans, both PDCs share similar characteristics because the pavement will crack and these cracks will propagate out and become severe with continued traffic loadings and weathering without any M&R treatment. Therefore, a PCI of 60 is assigned as the critical PCI for both the arterial and local networks. The critical PCI is defined as the PCI value after which a pavement section is expected to deteriorate rapidly with age or where the rate of PCI loss increases significantly with time.
85 Very Good
75 Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Do Nothing
Surface Seal
60 Overlay
Resurfacing
40 Reconstruction
0 100Pavement Condition (PCI)
Pavement Life (yrs)
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program 3-3-1
3.0 PAVEMENT NETWORK
Currently, the City ’s entire street pavement network has approximately 454 miles consisting of approximately 93.4 million square feet of paved surfaces. To assist planning maintenance needs, the entire pavement network is organized into two networks (arterial and local) depending on their importance in the whole roadway system. The arterial and local networks include 129.3 miles (28 percent) and 324.6 miles (72 percent), respectively. To be consistent with the City General Plan Circulation Element Master Plan of Streets and Highways and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH), the streets in each network are ranked based on their functional classes; the arterial network is comprised of Major, Primary , Secondary arterial streets and Collector Streets, and the local network is comprised of Residential and Non-Residential streets. Additionally, these streets are classified by surface types—Asphalt Concrete (AC) or Portland Cement Concrete (PCC); and they are divided into 4,174 sections (refer to section 2.0 Methodology) for ease of trac king their pavement conditions, pavement history and M&R requirements. Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1 summarize the current City pavement networks information.
Table 3-1: Entire Pavement Network Summary
Figure 3-1: Entire Pavement Network Summary
EXHIBIT 2
3.0 Pavement Network
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program 3-3-2
3.1 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS
One of the critical factors affecting the roadbeds and pavement deterioration rate is the quantity and associated vehicle weight of traffic utilizing the streets. The volume and type of vehicular usage for the abovementioned arterial network’s four functional classifications are:
• Major Arterial – Generally consists of a six -travel lane, divided roadway connecting various parts within the City of Santa Ana and adjacent cities. A major arterial is designed to accommodate between 30,000 and 50,600 vehicle trips daily. This facility type comprises approximately 58 centerline miles or 55.2 percent of City arterial network. • Primary Arterial – Generally consists of a four-lane, divided roadway serving as a major access route to regional destinations (such as downtown and similar major focal points within the City). A primary arterial is designed to accommodate between 20,000 and 30,000 vehicle trips daily. This facility type comprises approximately 9 centerline miles or
8.6 percent of City arterial network.
• Secondary Arterial – Generally consists of a four-lane, undivided roadway serving intra- city mobility. A secondary arterial is designed to accommodate between 10,000 and 20,000 vehicle trips daily. This facility type comprises approximately 35 centerline miles or 33.3 percent of City arterial network.
• Collector Street – Generally consists of a two-lane, undivided roadway. A collector street is designed to accommodate between 7,500 and 10,000 vehicle trips daily. This facility type comprises approximately 3 centerline miles or 2.9 percent of City arterial network.
Figure 3-2: Arterial Street
The local network is comprised of two functional classifications as described below:
EXHIBIT 2
3.0 Pavement Network
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program 3-3-3 • Non-Residential Street – Generally a low -speed two -lane, undivided roadw ay with parking allowed on both sides of the street. Businesses are located on both sides of the street. A non-residential street is designed to accommodate less than 6,000 vehicle trips daily. This facility type comprises approximately 32 centerline miles or 10 percent of City local network.
• Residential Street – Generally a low-speed and low-volume two-lane, undivided roadway providing access to individual properties in a neighborhood. A residential street is designed to accommodate less than 6,000 vehicle trips daily. This facility type comprises approximately 285 centerline miles or 90 percent of City local network.
Figure 3-3: Local Street
EXHIBIT 2
3.0 Pavement Network
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program 3-3-4
3.2 PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX
The City utilizes PCI output from StreetSaver as the rating mechanism to describe the City street pavement condition. This numerical index ranges from PCI of “0” for a failed and/or badly deteriorated pavement with virtually no remaining life to PCI of “10 0” for a pavement in perfect condition. A street section with proper engineer ing design and construction begins its life cycle as a new or recently rehabilitated street with a PCI of “100”. As the condition of the street surface begins to deteriorate, th e PCI decrease reflects the surface deterioration based on the signs of distress noted during the field surveys (refer to Section 2.0 Methodology and Appendix D: Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan). Although the surface treatment recommendation for each street section utilizes the PCI value as the basis, the PCI values shall be used for planning purposes only and are not intended to replace sound engineering judgment. An engineering review of the pavement condition shall take pla ce prior to any actual construction work at a particular street section because the review may indicate that a particular pavement section needs attention earlier than the other street sections in its localized area.
In general for planning and budgeting purposes, the correlation among the PCI, pavement quality and signs of distresses are summarized in Table 3-2:
Table 3-2: Pavement Condition Index and Treatment Type
Pavement
Quality PCI Pavement Description
Very Good 86-100
The pavement is new or almost new with very little or no roughness and surface distress (except utility patches if any), including minimal hairline cracks and/or weathering. The pavement structure is sound and no oxidation occurs.
Good 75-85
The pavement has minor roughness and little to slight surface distresses (except utility patches if any), including slight cracking, slight to moderate weathering. The pavement structure is sound and no oxidation occurs.
Fair 60-74
The pavement may have noticeable roughness and slight to moderate distresses are surfacing, including severe weathering, non-load-related cracking, depressions, and material loss. The pavement structure is becoming deficient (minimal base failure).
Poor 41-59
The pavement has noticeable roughness (significant surface distortion) and moderate to severe surface distresses, including severe weathering, load-related cracking (such as alligator cracking), depressions, material loss. The pavement structure is deficient (up to one-third base failure).
Very Poor 0-40
The pavement has severe surface distresses, including large quantities of distortion and major and unsafe cracking (alligator cracking). The pavement structure is inadequate (over one-third failure).
EXHIBIT 2
3.0 Pavement Network
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program 3-3-5
3.3 EXISTING PAVEMENT CONDITION
Based on the inspections and data processing procedures mentioned in Section 2.0 Methodology, the majority of the local street’s pavements (39 percent) currently have a PCI of at least 86 or in “Very Good” condition; this indicates that the City’s local network continues to demonstrate high conditional values. The arterial network shows a slight improvement from 2024. Furthermore, these results show a sustainment in the entire network PCI since the City’s 2022 update (refer to Table 3-3 for PCI distribution in 2022, 2024 compared to 2026).
Table 3-3: PCI Distribution Comparison (2022, 2024 vs. 2026)
With the proper maintenance and rehabilitation application of the local and arterial streets, the majority of the entire pavement network is currently in “Very Good” condition (36 percent) with a PCI of at least 86, which is similar to the results from the previous update in 2024. Figure 3-4 summarizes the current PCI distribution for the entire pavement network.
Figure 3-4: Current PCI Distribution (Entire Pavement Network)
EXHIBIT 2
3.0 Pavement Network
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program 3-3-6 As shown in Table 3-3, the majority of arterial streets’ pavements are currently either in “Fair” (32.4 percent), “Good” ( 15.0 percent), or “Very Good” ( 28.2 percent) conditions. These results, which show a condition stabilization (no significant increase or decrease) in the top three condition categories of “Fair”, “Good”, and “Very Good” from 2024 to the current year ( 76 percent for all three categories), indicate that the City has been performing proper and timely maintenance and rehabilitation strategies for the arterial streets to maintain the percentage of streets in the top three condition categories (refer to Table 3-3 for the comparison). The sustaining in arterial street pavement conditions can be attributed to local funding and various funding sources from Orange County Transportation Authority, County of Orange, State of California, and other various agencies that the City has received in past years. Figure 3-5 shows the current PCI distribution of the arterial network.
Figure 3-5: Current PCI Distribution (Arterial Network)
EXHIBIT 2
3.0 Pavement Network
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program 3-3-7 The sustainment in the condition of the local pavement network in recent years resulted largely from the annual Local Street Preventative Maintenance Program, which commenced in 2014.
Figure 3-6 shows the current PCI distribution of the local network.
Figure 3-6: Current PCI Distribution (Local Network)
EXHIBIT 2
3.0 Pavement Network
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program 3-3-8 Table 3-4 shows the breakdown of PCI distribution of the entire pavement network, and the arterial and local pavement networks individually, based on area and section mileage.
Table 3-4: PCI Distribution
The pavement condition is generally measured by a weighted index ( typically by area), referred to as Average Area-Weighted Pavement Condition Index (PCIaw), which is determined as follows:
Where,
PCIaw = Average area-weighted PCI
PCIi = PCI of pavement section number i
Ai = Area of section number i
n = Total number of pavement sections
Based on the formula above, t he City’s current entire pavement network is in “Good” condition with a PCIaw of 75.2.
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program 4-4-1
4.0 MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION STRATEGIES
With 454 miles and 4,170 street sections, the City develops a comprehensive, fully -integrated PMP utilizing the inventory data along with the inspection information, M&R options and their associated costs, and predictions about future pavement condition from StreetSaver to determine optimal time for maintenance and rehabilitation needs. Due to limited available fiscal resources, the City needs to perform cost -effective M&R strategies to maintain the pavement networks.
Additionally, pavement preservation, which is an important as pect of the PMP considering the limited funding, will be included in the overall decision-making process.
4.1 TREATMENT TYPES AND ASSOCIATED COSTS
The pavement preservation and M&R considerations utilized by the City are categorized into localized, global an d major M&R. Localized M&R can be applied as a stop -gap measure or a preventive measure, including routine maintenance such as crack -filling and pothole repairs.
Global M&R, which is cost effective when applied as a preventive measure, are methods applied to the entire pavement sections to slow the rate of deterioration and improve current PCI, including applying slurry seal to the existing pavement surface. Major M&R, which is often economically applicable to deteriorated pavements, pavements deteriorat ing at a rapid rate, and pavements subjected to a change in traffic loading, refer to methods correcting or improving structural and functional requirements, including cold -milling and overlay, cold -in-place recycling, cement treated base, and/or full dept h reconstruction. The City currently utilizes the following M&R treatment methods:
• Crack Seal – Crack Seal is applicable for newer pavements with cracks beginning to form.
Since water is the most destructive element to a roadway pavement, this treatment utilizes asphalt materials bonding to the crack walls to restrict water penetration into the underlying base and sub -base layers to reduce further pavement deterioration. This preventive M&R treatment, which will extend the pavement life by three to five y ears, saves money by delaying the expense of major reconstructive pavement work. • Slurry Seal – Slurry Seal, which applies to pavement with minimal surface distress, such as minor/low severity cracks, provides a new wearing surface to extend the pavement life.
This treatment is a mix blend of high-quality crushed aggregates (sand -like), asphalt emulsion, water and mineral fillers, spreading over the entire pavement surface. The layer of slurry seal (ranging from 1/8” to 3/8” thick) prevents further oxidization and water from further deteriorating the asphalt concrete surface and subgrade, corrects raveling, and improves skid resistance.
• Thin Overlay – Thin Overlay is a maintenance overlay appl icable to pavement with moderate cracking where preventive M&R is no longer effective. This treatment involves partially milling or grinding the edge of shoulder (typically 6 feet), sealing the cracks to retard reflective cracking, and placing a thin layer of hot-mixed asphalt concrete (up to two inches for streets in both arterial and local networks) over the existing pavement surface. The thin layer of AC improves the skid resistance and roadway’s performance, and corrects the crown and drainage features.
EXHIBIT 2
4.0 Maintenance And Rehabilitation Strategies
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program 4-4-2 • Structural Overlay – Structural Overlays, which applies to moderate to severe pavement cracking with little or no deficiency in the foundation layers, entails cold -milling / grinding the surface to a depth of up to three inches for arterial streets and two inches for local streets, removing localized failed areas, and placing a thick layer of hot -mixed AC (typically four to five inches for arterial streets and three to four inches for local streets).
The new AC pavement section smooth the ride performan ce, improves skid resistance, correct the crown and drainage features, increases pavement structural capacity. • Cold-In-Place Recycling (CIR) – CIR, which applies to moderate to severe pavement cracking with little or no deficiency in the pavement structure , is a process rehabilitating pavement by recycling it in place. The top layer of pavement is removed with a milling (grinding) machine to a specified depth (typically three to f our inches). The removed material is then crushed, sorted and mixed with a s pecially formulated asphalt emulsion.
This emulsion mixes with the milled pavement and acts as a binder to form the new CIR pavement. This new mixture is placed on the roadway by a paver and compacted as a new and more durable asphalt base course. Finally, a thin overlay of conventional asphalt pavement is placed over the CIR to seal it and provide a new wear to improve ride performance and drainage features and increase pavement structural capacity. • Cement-Treated Base (CTB) – CTB is applicable when the distress evidence at the surface indicates failure in the pavement structure or subgrade (the roadway completely failed with crumbling surface pavement), which is not correctable by less extensive construction. Due to its long curing time, this treatment method typically should be applied to low-moderate traffic areas and/or moderate traffic areas with more than one lane per direction with a low volume of large vehicles. CTB involves grinding the existing roadway surface and base into pieces to a prescri bed depth (typically 14 to 20 inches for arterial streets and 8 to 11 inches for local streets), which are mixed with cement and water to be used as a base course. A thin overlay of conventional asphalt pavement is then placed over the CTB base to provide a new wear for improving ride performance and drainage features and increase pavement structural capacity.
• Full Depth Reconstruction (FDR) – FDR is applicable when the distress evidence at the surface indicates failure in the pavement structure or subgrad e (the roadway completely failed with crumbling surface pavement), which is not correctable by less extensive construction. This treatment involves removal of existing layers of asphalt AC, PCC, and/or base to a prescribed depth recommended by geotechnica l engineering pavement analysis and placement of conventional flexible pavement section. In general, local residential and non -residential streets are removed to depths of six inches and eight inches, respectively; a depth of 10 inches are removed on secondary arterial and collector streets; a depth of 12 inches are removed on primary arterial streets; and a depth of 16 inches are removed on major arterial streets. The actual depth depends on anticipated traffic loading, soil conditions, and roadway functional classifications. This treatment is by far the most expensive form of M&R strategies to increase pavement structural capacity.
EXHIBIT 2
4.0 Maintenance And Rehabilitation Strategies
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program 4-4-3 Table 4-1: Cost by Condition (Arterial Network)
Condition
(PCI)
Functional
Classification Surface Cost
($/SF)
75 - 85
Secondary / Collector
Primary
Major
AC $3.19
60 - 74 Secondary / Collector AC $6.91
41 - 59
Secondary / Collector AC $13.29
Primary AC $14.82
Major AC $16.34
41-59 Secondary / Collector PCC $28.62
0 - 40
Secondary / Collector AC $45.64
Primary AC $54.58
Major AC $72.42
Secondary / Collector PCC $28.62
Table 4-2: Cost by Condition (Local Network)
Condition
(PCI)
Functional
Classification Surface Cost ($/SF)
75 - 85 Residential
Non-Residential AC $2.09
60 - 74 Residential
Non-Residential AC $5.18
41 - 59
Residential AC $10.06
Non-Residential AC $25.73
0 - 40
Residential AC $23.60
Non-Residential AC $23.60
Residential/Non-Res PCC $25.73
Residential
Non-Residential PCC $25.73
EXHIBIT 2
4.0 Maintenance And Rehabilitation Strategies
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program 4-4-4 It is imperative for the City to receive the proper amount and type of funding to perform the M&R strategies as a plan to preserve the roadway pavement system in good condition. The plan is to apply a slurry seal coat to new or recently rehabilitated streets at regular intervals, usually seven to ten years. After a couple slurry seal coats, maintenance (thin) overlay or structural overlay shall be utilized to address structural issues. Every street will fail event ually or reach a point where it is more cost-effective to reconstruct than to repair. The roadway functional classification (refer to Section 3.0 Pavement Network) and the original design life of a particular street sectio n will determine the intervals and treatment types. Additionally, streets with higher speeds, traffic volumes, and/or loads, will demand a larger pavement section.
To account for the differences in pavement section across the spectrum of streets within the entire pavement network, the streets are grouped into M&R families according to their functional classification and/or surface type and a cost by condition is applied. The cost by condition for the arterial and local networks is shown in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2, respectively. These unit costs per SF include the soft costs of design, inspection, and construction engineering and are compiled utilizing current projects as a basis for costs.
As the pavement age s, the PMP is designed to predict the roadway pavement’s PCI based on the deterioration curves (refer to Section 2.0 Methodology). Additionally, the PMP, which is a tool to assist the City in m aking decisions when planning pavement M&R , involves scheduling pavement maintenance and rehabilitation before pavements deteriorate to a condition where reconstruction is the only solution. Based on Figure 2-1 in Section 2.0 Methodology showing how pavement generally deteriorates and the relative M&R cost (refer to Table 4-1 and Table 4-2) at various times throughout the pavement life, the critical PCI is est ablished at 60. The critical PCI is defined as the PCI value after which the pavement section is expected to deteriorate rapidly with age, or the rate of PCI loss increases significantly with time, and the unit cost of repair greatly increases; therefore, the threshold for M&R decisions are considered at the critical PCI value since the cost of maintaining the pavement above the critical PCI value before the deterioration occurs is much less compared to maintaining pavements after substantial deterioration has occurred. Planned M&R strategies, essentially preventing pavements from reaching deteriorated conditions, helps the City stretch and maximize the use of City budgets and prolong the life of the pavements. StreetSaver utilizes the inventory database combined with the inspection information, M&R options along with their associated costs, and the deterioration curves predicting future pavement condition to calculate the chosen budget activity to reflect the best pavement management practices and costs.
The City’s PMP goal is to maintain a pavement system network with an optimal PCI of 75 (“Good” Condition) or better . The City’s pavement system currently has 63 percent of the pavement sections in “Good” or “Very Good” condition (refer to Section 3.0 Pavement Network). The PMP will recommend priority list of maintenance treatments annually to bring all City streets to at least “Good” condition. The preventive M&R treatments, which are inexpensive treatments to extend pavement life cycle, have minimal costs since they are applied prior to pavement deterioration to “Poor” and “Very Poor” conditions.
EXHIBIT 2
4.0 Maintenance And Rehabilitation Strategies
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program 4-4-5
4.2 FUNDING
The City has estimated total funding amounts of $71.2 million and $43.6 million for the pavement expenditures of the arterial and local networks, respectively, for the next seven years (refer to City CIP on a separate document for further details). Generally, the future revenues for City street preventive and major M&R programs are from the following funding sources:
• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) – The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 returns income tax funds to cities and counties to develop viable urban communities, primarily for the benefit of low and moderate income people. This U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development program gives priority to activities that help to eliminate blight, with emphasis on residential areas. CDBG projects are carried out by several operating departments with the City and by sub -agents. Public hearings are held to plan projects for each fiscal fear. The selected projects are recommended by citizens, commissioners, and staff.
• Gas Tax – Gas Tax funds are derived from the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax (or Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA)). Motorists pay a tax for fuel consumption. It is apportioned to cities according to population and can only be utilized in the maintenance and construction of the street system.
• Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA – Streets and Highways Code Sec 2030 et sec.) includes funds from the following taxes enacted by Senate Bill 1 Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017: the 12 cent gasoline excise tax, 20 cent diesel fuel excise tax, transportation improvement fees. These new gas tax funding sou rces contribute funding on an annual basis.
• Local Street Bond Fund – In 2007, the City issued a $60 million bond as a certificate of participation (COP) against Gas Tax revenue to create the Residential Street Repair Program to repair and rehabilitate neighborhood streets Citywide. • Measure M2 – On November 7, 2006, voters approved the renewal of the Measure M half-cent sales tax (Measure M2), extending the program over a 30-year period beginning in 2011. In addition to the original three program components, this generation of the Measure M Transportation Plan expands the program to include Environmental Cleanup and Taxpayer Safeguards and Audits. To receive revenues from the one -half-cent sales tax, cities and the County of Orange must coordinate their land use and transportation decisions, establish cooperative transportation planning programs with neighboring jurisdictions, develop Growth Management programs, and guarantee that transportation funds are used for transportation purposes only.
• Measure M2 – Competitive – The competitive portion of the Measure M2 consists of the following programs: Regional Capacity Program (RCP), Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program (TSSP), and several transit programs. • Measure M2 – Fairshare – This local fair share program returns a portion of the Measure M2 Streets and Roads revenues to the cities and the County of Orange once specific program requirements are met. Disbursement amounts are based on a formula that accounts for population, street mileage, and sales tax collected.
EXHIBIT 2
4.0 Maintenance And Rehabilitation Strategies
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program 4-4-6 • Refuse Collection – Funds received in the course of business for the public collection and disposal of refuse. The City adopted a Vehicle Impact Fee program to provide funding for necessary improvements to the City’s streets to offset the wear and tear impact of heavy vehicle travel.
4.3 BUDGET ALTERNATIVES
Having determined the needs of the City local and arterial networks and the City fiscal-year budget for the next seven years, the City utilizes StreetSaver to evaluate impacts of various bu dget alternatives – existing budget in City CIP, budget to maintain the current PCIaw over a seven year plan, and budget to improve the current PCI aw by one point or better over a seven -year plan.
StreetSaver has the capability of forecasting the effects of different budget alternatives on PCI and deferred maintenance (backlog). By examining the effects of these indicators, these “what - if” analyses clearly identify the advantages and disadvantages of different funding levels and preventive and major M&R strategies.
The following guide is provided for interpreting the individual output in Budget Analysis tables below.
• PCI w/o Existing Funding – PCI yielded as a result of no preventive or major M&R work during the listed fiscal year. This value is provided for comparison purposes and is intended to be used as the baseline PCI.
• PCI w/ Existing Funding – PCI yielded as a result of preventive and major M&R work with existing funding during the listed fiscal year.
• PCI w/ Alternative Funding – PCI yielded as a result of preventive and major M&R work with existing plus additional funding during the listed fiscal year. • Preventive M&R Existing Funding – Existing funding for preventive M&R work during the listed fiscal year.
• Major M&R Existing Funding – Existing funding for major M&R work during the listed fiscal year.
• Major M&R Additional Funding – Additional funding for major M&R work required to reach the listed goal during the listed fiscal year.
• Total Existing Funding – Sum of existing funding during the listed fiscal year. • Total Alternative Funding – Sum of existing funding plus additional funding required to reach the listed goal during the listed fiscal year.
• Backlog – Total estimated M&R work left unfunded during the listed fiscal year.
EXHIBIT 2
4.0 Maintenance And Rehabilitation Strategies
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program 4-4-7
4.3.1 EXISTING FUNDING
This alternative represents the impacts of the City’s current CIP budget on the entire pavement network, and the arterial and local pavement networks independently, for the next seven years.
Currently, there are approximately $71.2 million and $43.6 million for the pavement expenditures in the arterial and local networks, respectively, for the next seven years. The City’s main objective is keeping street sections from falling into the reconstruction category (“Very Poor” condition), at which point typically cost s three to four times more per SF than resurfacing. Therefore, the selection of streets for M&R treatments during each fiscal year involves StreetSaver output, engineering judgment and experience, and available budget.
With a limited existing budget over the next seven years from FY 2026/27 to FY 2032/33, the entire pavement network PCI will decrease from the “Good” condition to “Fair” (PCIaw of 75.2.3 to a PCI aw of 69). Not only does the pavement condition deteriorate, but the entire pavement network’s backlog will increase by 83 percent by FY 2032/33 as shown in Table 4 -3. This information indicates that the City is facing the challenge of securing adequate, sustainable funding for the M&R program to keep up with the increasing rate of deteriorating streets.
The arterial and local networks, independently, will reduce the citywide PCIaw by at least six points over next seven FYs and the local network will drop to a “Fair” condition while the arterial network will remain in “Fair” condition . Additionally, the current level of funding is insufficient to stabilize the backlog since the unfunded deferred M&R projects will increase by 52 percent for the arterial network, increase by 31 percent for the local network by FY 2032/33 and 83% for the entire network.
EXHIBIT 2
4.0 Maintenance And Rehabilitation Strategies
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program 4-4-8 Table 4-3: Existing Funding (Entire Pavement Network)
Fiscal
Year
PCIaw w/o
Existing
Funding
PCIaw w/
Existing
Funding
Preventive M&R
Existing
Funding
Major M&R
Existing
Funding
Total
Existing
Funding Backlog
Present 75 75 ~ ~ ~ $325,579
2026/27 74 75 $6,049 $11,303 $17,353 $354,835
2027/28 72 74 $8,425 $6,914 $15,339 $381,416
2028/29 70 73 $4,365 $10,085 $14,450 $438,586
2029/30 68 72 $7,008 $9,573 $16,580 $481,819
2030/31 67 71 $8,289 $8,718 $17,007 $519,020
2031/32 65 70 $6,848 $9,697 $16,544 $558,333
2032/33 63 69 $6,553 $10,337 $16,890 $595,574
TOTAL $47,536 $66,627 $114,163
Note: Cost figures are rounded to nearest $1,000.
Table 4-4: Existing Funding (Arterial Network)
Fiscal
Year
PCIaw w/o
Existing
Funding
PCIaw w/
Existing
Funding
Preventive M&R
Existing
Funding
Major M&R
Existing
Funding
Total
Existing
Funding Backlog
Present 72 72 ~ ~ ~ ~
2026/27 71 73 $0 $8,242 $8,242 $145,482
2027/28 69 75 $0 $4,774 $4,774 $156,380
2028/29 67 75 $0 $4,381 $4,381 $179,820
2029/30 66 76 $0 $7,918 $7,918 $197,546
2030/31 64 75 $0 $2,805 $2,805 $212,798
2031/32 62 75 $0 $8,177 $8,177 $228,917
2032/33 61 75 $0 $8,069 $8,069 $244,186
TOTAL $0 $44,365 $44,365
Note: Cost figures are rounded to nearest $1,000.
EXHIBIT 2
4.0 Maintenance And Rehabilitation Strategies
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program 4-4-9 Table 4-5: Existing Funding (Local Network)
Fiscal
Year
PCIaw w/o
Existing
Funding
PCIaw w/
Existing
Funding
Preventive M&R
Existing
Funding
Major M&R
Existing
Funding
Total
Existing
Funding Backlog
Present 77 77 ~ ~ ~ ~
2026/27 76 77 $6,049 $3,062 $9,111 $209,352
2027/28 74 76 $8,425 $2,140 $10,565 $225,035
2028/29 73 75 $4,365 $5,704 $10,069 $258,765
2029/30 71 73 $7,008 $1,654 $8,662 $284,273
2030/31 69 72 $8,289 $5,913 $14,202 $306,222
2031/32 67 71 $6,848 $1,520 $8,368 $329,417
2032/33 65 71 $6,553 $2,269 $8,822 $351,389
TOTAL $47,536 $22,262 $69,798
Note: Cost figures are rounded to nearest $1,000.
EXHIBIT 2
4.0 Maintenance And Rehabilitation Strategies
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program 4-4-10
4.3.2 ALTERNATIVE FUNDING LEVELS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN EXISTING PCI With existing funding of just under $115 million for the entire pavement network over the seven - year period from FY 2026/27 through FY 2032/33, additional funding is required to maintain the existing PCI aw of 75.2. This alternative provides an available prioritized list of streets with recommended M&R treatment to allow the City to hand select if unforeseen funds become available at some point in the future. As illustrated in Table 4-6, a total of $36.3 million in additional funds calculated at about $5.1 million annually would be needed; thus, providing for a total alternative funding level of just over $150.5 million over the seven-year period. Furthermore, with this additional funding, the backlog for FY 2026/27 of $325.6 million would be increased by about 42 percent to $462.8 million for FY 2032/33.
Demonstrated in Table 4-7 and Table 4-8, 62 percent ($22.5 million) of the additional funding ($36.3 million) would be applied to the arterial network and 38 percent ($13.8 million) would be applied to the local network. As a result, the existing PCIaw would be maintained at 75; 72 and 79 for the arterial and local networks, respectively.
EXHIBIT 2
4.0 Maintenance And Rehabilitation Strategies
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program 4-4-11 Table 4-6: Alternative Funding Levels Required To Maintain Existing PCI (Entire Pavement Network) Fiscal
Year
PCIaw w/o
Existing
Funding
PCIaw w/
Alternative
Funding
Preventive
M&R Existing
Funding
Major M&R
Existing
Funding
Additional
Funding
Total
Alternative
Funding Backlog
Present 75 76 ~ ~ ~ ~ $325,579
2026/27 74 76 $6,477 $14,414 $3,538 $20,891 $336,516
2027/28 72 76 $5,728 $14,551 $4,907 $20,279 $356,411
2028/29 70 75 $6,835 $17,169 $9,554 $24,004 $360,646
2029/30 68 75 $5,313 $16,362 $5,095 $21,675 $386,699
2030/31 67 75 $4,832 $15,097 $2,922 $19,929 $404,645
2031/32 65 75 $5,948 $16,032 $5,436 $21,980 $444,408
2032/33 63 75 $6,294 $15,422 $4,826 $21,716 $462,794
TOTAL $41,427 $109,047 $36,311 $150,475
Note: Cost figures are rounded to nearest $1,000.
Table 4-7: Alternative Funding Levels Required To Maintain Existing PCI (Arterial Network) Fiscal
Year
PCIaw w/o
Existing
Funding
PCIaw w/
Alternative
Funding
Preventive
M&R Existing
Funding
Major M&R
Existing
Funding
Additional
Funding
Total
Alternative
Funding Backlog
Present 72 72 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
2026/27 71 73 $0 $8,937 $1,928 $8,937 $137,971
2027/28 69 72 $0 $9,022 $3,551 $9,022 $146,128
2028/29 67 72 $0 $10,645 $4,383 $10,645 $147,865
2029/30 66 71 $0 $9,909 $4,042 $9,909 $158,546
2030/31 64 71 $0 $9,125 $2,389 $9,125 $165,905
2031/32 62 72 $0 $9,704 $3,043 $9,704 $182,208
2032/33 61 72 $0 $10,268 $3,176 $10,268 $189,745
TOTAL $0 $67,610 $22,512 $67,610
Note: Cost figures are rounded to nearest $1,000.
EXHIBIT 2
4.0 Maintenance And Rehabilitation Strategies
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program 4-4-12 Table 4-8: Alternative Funding Levels Required To Maintain Existing PCI (Local Network)
Fiscal
Year
PCIaw w/o
Existing
Funding
PCIaw w/
Alternative
Funding
Preventive
M&R Existing
Funding
Major M&R
Existing
Funding
Additional
Funding
Total
Alternative
Funding Backlog
Present 77 78 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
2026/27 76 78 $6,477 $5,477 $1,182 $11,954 $198,544
2027/28 74 78 $5,728 $5,529 $2,176 $11,257 $210,282
2028/29 73 78 $6,835 $6,524 $2,686 $13,359 $212,781
2029/30 71 79 $5,313 $6,453 $2,477 $11,766 $228,152
2030/31 69 79 $4,832 $5,972 $1,465 $10,804 $238,741
2031/32 67 78 $5,948 $6,328 $1,865 $12,276 $262,201
2032/33 65 79 $6,294 $5,154 $1,946 $11,448 $273,048
TOTAL $41,427 $41,437 $13,797 $82,864
Note: Cost figures are rounded to nearest $1,000.
EXHIBIT 2
4.0 Maintenance And Rehabilitation Strategies
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program 4-4-13
4.3.3 ALTERNATIVE FUNDING LEVELS REQUIRED TO IMPROVE PCI With existing funding of just under $115 million for the entire pavement network over the seven - year period from FY 2026/27 through FY 2032/33, additional funding is required to improve the existing PCIaw for FY 2026/27 of 75.2 by one point or better. As illustrated in Table 4-9, a total of $46.0 million in additional funds calculated at about $6.6 million annually would be needed; thus providing for a total alternative funding level of over $160.2 million over the seven -year period.
Furthermore, with this additional funding, the backlog for FY 2026/27 of $325.6 million would increase about 21 percent to $393.4 million for FY 2032/33.
Demonstrated in Table 4-10 and Table 4-11, 62 percent ($28.5 million) of the additional funding ($46.0 million) would be applied to the arterial network and 38 percent ($17.5 million) would be applied to the local network. As a result, the existing PCIaw would be improved to 75.0 and 78.0 for the arterial and local networks, respectively.
EXHIBIT 2
4.0 Maintenance And Rehabilitation Strategies
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program 4-4-14 Table 4-9: Alternative Funding Levels Required To Improve PCI (Entire Pavement Network) Fiscal
Year
PCIaw w/o
Existing
Funding
PCIaw w/
Alternative
Funding
Preventive
M&R Existing
Funding
Major M&R
Existing
Funding
Additional
Funding
Total
Alternative
Funding Backlog
Present 75 76 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
2026/27 74 76 $6,892 $15,029 $4,568 $21,921 $336,516
2027/28 72 78 $7,670 $15,428 $7,759 $23,098 $346,662
2028/29 70 78 $7,290 $17,145 $9,985 $24,435 $327,115
2029/30 68 79 $7,483 $16,874 $7,777 $24,357 $356,777
2030/31 67 78 $5,055 $15,663 $3,711 $20,718 $336,661
2031/32 65 78 $8,029 $15,874 $7,359 $23,903 $315,265
2032/33 63 78 $6,233 $15,517 $4,860 $21,750 $393,441
TOTAL $48,652 $111,530 $46,019 $160,182
Note: Cost figures are rounded to nearest $1,000.
Table 4-10: Alternative Funding Levels Required To Improve PCI (Arterial Network) Fiscal
Year
PCIaw w/o
Existing
Funding
PCIaw w/
Alternative
Funding
Preventive
M&R Existing
Funding
Major M&R
Existing
Funding
Additional
Funding
Total
Alternative
Funding Backlog
Present 72 72 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
2026/27 71 73 $0 $9,231 $2,832 $9,231 $137,971
2027/28 69 75 $1,565 $9,584 $4,811 $11,149 $142,132
2028/29 67 75 $0 $10,334 $6,191 $10,334 $134,117
2029/30 66 76 $1,781 $9,950 $4,822 $11,731 $146,279
2030/31 64 75 $0 $9,212 $2,301 $9,212 $138,031
2031/32 62 75 $1,924 $9,250 $4,563 $11,174 $129,258
2032/33 61 75 $0 $10,052 $3,013 $10,052 $161,311
TOTAL $2,476 $67,613 $28,532 $72,883
Note: Cost figures are rounded to nearest $1,000.
EXHIBIT 2
4.0 Maintenance And Rehabilitation Strategies
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program 4-4-15 Table 4-11: Alternative Funding Levels Required To Improve PCI (Local Network) Fiscal
Year
PCIaw w/o
Existing
Funding
PCIaw w/
Alternative
Funding
Preventive
M&R Existing
Funding
Major M&R
Existing
Funding
Additional
Funding
Total
Alternative
Funding Backlog
Present 77 77 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
2026/27 76 78 $6,892 $5,798 $1,736 $12,690 $198,544
2027/28 74 79 $6,105 $5,844 $2,948 $11,949 $204,531
2028/29 73 79 $7,290 $6,811 $3,794 $14,101 $192,998
2029/30 71 80 $5,702 $6,924 $2,955 $12,626 $210,498
2030/31 69 81 $5,055 $6,451 $1,410 $11,506 $198,630
2031/32 67 81 $6,105 $6,624 $2,796 $12,729 $186,006
2032/33 65 82 $6,233 $5,465 $1,847 $11,698 $232,130
TOTAL $43,382 $33,504 $17,487 $87,299
Note: Cost figures are rounded to nearest $1,000.
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program
APPENDIX A: ENTIRE PAVEMENT NETWORK PCI REPORT
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program
APPENDIX B: ARTERIAL STREETS 7-YEAR M&R PLAN
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program
APPENDIX C: LOCAL STREETS 7-YEAR M&R PLAN
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana 2026 Pavement Management Program
APPENDIX D: OCTA PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
COMPLIANCE REPORT – 2026
EXHIBIT 2
FINAL REPORT
UPDATED CITYWIDE
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Measure M2
2026-2033
Submitted to:
City of Santa Ana, CA
March 16, 2026
EXHIBIT 2
March 16, 2026
Mr. David Ramirez
CITY OF SANTA ANA
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Subject: City of Santa Ana – OCTA Pavement Management Compliance Report 2026
Dear David:
As part of the 2026 Update of the Pavement Management Plan (PMP) for the City of Santa Ana, Bucknam Infrastructure Group, Inc. is pleased to submit the PMP reporting required by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). This data/report will be submitted to OCTA as part of the City’s required biennial PMP prior to June 30, 2026.
The information contained in this report was used to develop the recommended improvement program for the pavement network. The report covers the following categories:
• Pavement Management Plan Certification
• Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan
• Pavement Management Data Files (Included within the online Santa Ana StreetSaver batch file)
• Pavement Management Plan that includes the following:
• Average Pavement Conditions For Each Segment in the Network (PCI Report) The Pavement Condition Index report shows the present condition of each street in the pavement network (MPAH and Locals). In addition, the report shows the basic geometry of each street segment.
• Seven-year Projected PCI Under Existing Funding Levels This report identifies the projected PCI’s based on the local agencies current funding programs. This report details the PCI projects for the entire network, MPAH roadways and Local streets.
• Seven-year Plan for Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation (Forecasted Maintenance Report)
The Forecasted Maintenance Report projects the street maintenance activities required for the next seven years, broken down to show maintenance levels for all streets. This includes all scheduled projects provided by the City for fiscal years 2026 through 2033.
• Alternative Funding Levels
OCTA has requested two reports indicating the necessary funding to maintain the City’s current weighted average PCI as well as the necessary funding to improve the weighted average PCI by one PCI point over the next seven years.
EXHIBIT 2
• Backlog by Fiscal Year (re: unfunded restoration, rehabilitation and reconstruction)
• Percentage of total network in each of the five condition categories based on centerline mileage
• Local Match Reduction Reporting
❖ In order to be eligible for Local Match Reduction of 10%, the following must be submitted:
o Measurable improvement of paved road conditions during the previous reporting period defined as an overall weighted (by area) average system improvement of one PCI point.
o No reduction in the ov erall weighted (by area) average PCI in the MPAH or local street categories
- or –
o Have road pavement conditions, for the overall network, during the previous reporting period within the highest twenty (20%) of the scale for road pavement conditions in conformance with OCTA Ordinance No. 3, defined as a PCI of 75 or higher, otherwise defined as in “good condition”.
❖ GIS Digital Data
❖ Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan
❖ Pavement Management Data Files (electronic Costa Mesa.e70 file format)
❖ GIS Maps / Current Conditions
All comments received from the City have been incorporated in the reports that follow. All of the City’s comments and needs that were brought to our attention have been addressed. It has been a pleasure working with you and the City on updating your Pavement Management Plan. We look forward to the continued success of this project and future teamwork with City staff.
Sincerely,
Bucknam Infrastructure Group, Inc.
Peter J. Bucknam
Project Manager
Infrastructure Management – GIS Services
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana, CA Page i
2026 Citywide Pavement Management Plan – OCTA Submittal Final Report – March 16, 2026
AGENCY SUBMITTAL TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Pavement Management Plan Certification .............................................................................. 2
II. Executive Summary.................................................................................................................. 3
III. Background (City of Santa Ana) ............................................................................................... 4
IV. Current Pavement Conditions (PCI) ......................................................................................... 7
V. Projected Pavement Conditions (PCI) – Current Budget ......................................................... 8
VI. Alternative Funding Levels ....................................................................................................... 9 a. Maintain Existing Average Network PCI ................................................................ 9 b. Improve Average Network PCI ............................................................................... 9
VII. Current and Projected Backlog by Year of Pavement Maintenance Needs ............................ 9
VIII. Centerline Mileage ................................................................................................................. 10
IX. Percentage of Network in Each of Five Condition Categories Based on Centerline mileage 10
X. Reduction in M2 Local Match ................................................................................................ 11
XI. Appendix A – Seven-Year Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Plan Based on Current or Expected Funding Level .............................................................................. 12
XII. Appendix B – Complete Street Listing Current Conditions .................................................... 13
XIII. Appendix C – GIS Digital Data ................................................................................................ 14
XIV. Appendix D – Quality Assurance / Quality Control Plan ........................................................ 15 • Introduction ......................................................................................................... 15 • Objectives ............................................................................................................ 15 • Structure of QA/QC Plan ...................................................................................... 15 • Condition Survey Procedures............................................................................... 16 • Accuracy Required for Data Collection ................................................................ 17 • Random and Systematic Re-Inspections .............................................................. 17 • PCI Comparison with Past Surveys ....................................................................... 18 • Inspector Qualifications and Experience ............................................................. 18 i. Attachments – Inspector’s Certifications ................................................. 19 • Safety Procedures ................................................................................................ 20 XV. Appendix E – Pavement Management Data Files ............................................................. 20
XVI. Appendix F – GIS Maps – Current Conditions ................................................................... 21
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana, CA Page 1
2026 Citywide Pavement Management Plan – OCTA Submittal Final Report – March 16, 2026
CITY OF SANTA ANA PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN
- part of -
COUNTYWIDE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN GUIDELINES
(OCTA Guideline – April 2026)
Prepared by: Bucknam Infrastructure Group, Inc.
Submitted to OCTA: June 30, 2026
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana, CA Page 2
2026 Citywide Pavement Management Plan – OCTA Submittal Final Report – March 16, 2026
I. Pavement Management Plan Certification
The City of Santa Ana, CA certifies that it has a Pavement Management Plan in conformance with the criteria stated in the Orange County Transportation Authority Ordinance No. 3. This ordinance requires that a Pavement Management Plan be in place and maintained to qualify for allocation of revenues generated from renewed Measure M (M2).
The plan was developed by Bucknam Infrastructure Group, Inc. using StreetSaver, a pavement management system conforming to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard D6433, and contains, at a minimum, the following elements:
• Inventory of MPAH and Local routes reviewed and updated biennially. The last update of the inventory was completed on January, 2026 for the Arterial (MPAH) and January, 2026 for Locals; • Assessment of the pavement condition for al l routes in the system, updated biennially. The last field review of the pavement condition was completed in January, 2026; • Percentage of all section of pavement needing (sourced from Page 7):
o Preventive Maintenance = 28.1%;
o Rehabilitation = 29.4%;
o Reconstruction = 6.4%
• Budget needs for preventive maintenance, rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of deficient sections of pavement for (see Page 9):
o Current biennial period $45,019,600;
o following biennial period $48,792,000;
• Funds budgeted or available for Preventive Maintenance, Rehabilitation and/or Reconstruction (see Page 8):
o Current biennial period $32,800,000;
o following biennial period $32,800,000;
• Backlog by year of unfunded rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction needs (see page 9);
• The Pavement Management Plan is consistent with countywide pavement condition assessment standards as described in the OCTA Countywide Pavement Management Plan Guidelines adopted by the OCTA Board of Directors.
*An electronic copy of the Pavement Management P lan (with MicroPAVER or StreetSaver compatible files) has been or will be submitted with the certification statement. A copy of this certification is being provided to the Orange County Transportation Authority.
Submitted by:
__ ______City of Santa Ana Name (Print) Jurisdiction
_____________________________ ______________ Signed Date
Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer
Title
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana, CA Page 3
2026 Citywide Pavement Management Plan – OCTA Submittal Final Report – March 16, 2026
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2026 UPDATE OF PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP)
As the City of Santa Ana’s infrastructure continues to mature Public Works priorities such as street maintenance and redevelopment are key projects to City staff. With the City mostly built -out, wear and tear on the infrastructure will occur at an ever-increasing rate. Pavement aging through annual weathering, dynamic topology, and increased usage, compounded with the increased cost of performing maintenance and rehabilitation, add to the yearly operational budget of the pavement network. System sustainability can only be achieved through proactive scheduling and the implementation of cost-efficient pavement applications.
In the upcoming years, the City will continue to build upon this study through future inspections and the tracking of annual work history. The Santa Ana PMP data will continue to provide reliable data to enhance the PMP through detailed Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Measure M2 funding analysis, City specific budgetary reporting and level of service reporting. Additionally, the City is considering a strong local overlay program for sections that are older than 20 years.
The Santa Ana PMP has been developed to assist City perso nnel by providing current conditional and economic data and to develop cost -effective maintenance / rehabilitation strategies to maintain a desirable network level of pavement performance while optimizing the expenditur e of limited fiscal resources. The project consisted of analyzing the City’s 2024 dataset for quality and usability. In doing this, we were tasked to generate an updated Capital Improvement Program report that identified recommendations and deficiencies in the current operating and maintenance efforts put forth by the City.
We surveyed all designated arterial, collector (MPAH) as well as all local / alley streets this past fall/winter to assist the City in being compliant with OCTA – Measure M2 April, 2026 guidelines. Additionally, we updated the City’s unique Pavement Management – GIS layer that will continue to assist the City in analyzing pavement conditions and other attribute information through the use of MyRoads® and ESRI ArcGIS.
Bucknam Infrastructure Group reviewed the City’s previous maintenance efforts and the current 2026-27 proposed street improvements for pertinent pavement information in order to generate a CIP report that identified recommendations and opportunities for improvement in the current operating and maintenance efforts put forth by the City. The result of these work efforts is this report.
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana, CA Page 4
2026 Citywide Pavement Management Plan – OCTA Submittal Final Report – March 16, 2026
III. BACKGROUND (CITY OF SANTA ANA)
In late 1990, voters throughout Orange County approved a ½ -cent sales tax for transportation improvements known as OC Measure M2. Funding for streets and roads are included within the sales tax and are distributed to local agencies through both formula and a competitive method. In late 2006, the renewal of OC Measure M2 was approved by voters that would continue the ½ -cent sales tax for t hirty additional years, starting in 2011.
The primary of goal of this report is to comply with established guidelines from OCTA to ensure that field data collection and reporting efforts performed by outside consultants or local agency staff are consistent.
This is required in order that funding allocations can be reviewed and based on agency comparable pavement conditions.
Specifically, our findings and recommendations provide Public Works administrators, managers and field personnel with:
* PMP report consistent with OCTA OC Measure M2 guidelines
* the present condition status of the pavement network (arterial, collector, residential and industrial streets), as a whole and of any grouping or individual component within the City; * a ranked list of all streets, or segments of streets, by condition within the network; * rehabilitation/maintenance needs of each street segment by year; * an optimized priority maintenance and rehabilitation program based on cost/benefit analysis and various levels of funding;
* optimum annual pavement expenditure levels for pavement maintenance for the next seven (7) years;
* prediction of the life-cycle performance of the City’s pavement network and each individual street section; and
* pavement condition data and analysis presented in GIS through MyRoads® and ESRI ArcGIS
Pavement is a dynamic structure where deterioration is constantly occurring; thus the pavement management system needs to be updated on a regular basis to reflect these changes in pavement conditions, pavement maintenance histories, and maintenance strategies based upon budgetary constraints. This report reflects our findings and recommendations for the PMP and the current state of the City’s pavement network. Furtherm ore, we have recommended detailed funding and maintenance strategies for the arterial/collector and residential networks for next seven (7) years.
Currently, based upon the City’s maintenance practices an d their associated unit costs, the total replacement value of the Santa Ana pavement network is $ 3,299,050,200. This value clearly indicates that the City’s pavement network is the most valuable and essential asset to Santa Ana. The City’s use of slurry seal, AC Overlay and R&R practices are typically applied every seven years depending on the street conditions. These frequencies are typical but the City may see increases in deterioration rates due to environmental, load and high average daily traffic (ADT) volumes. For example, high ADT volumes along one of Santa Ana’s arterial streets will increase deterioration rates for a previously applied AC Overlay compared to a small local street. These deterioration rates are monitored through frequent inspections and functional class deterioration analysis within the City’s PMP database.
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana, CA Page 5
2026 Citywide Pavement Management Plan – OCTA Submittal Final Report – March 16, 2026
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Through our assessment of historical maintenance performed within the City and through our discussions with City staff the conditional data found across the network clearly shows that the City has applied strong, preventative maintenance strategies over the past decade. Pavement management involves frequent preventative maintenance; as pavement deteriorates through heavy traffic impacts, weathering and time, preventative maintenances (such as slurry seal, stop gap, etc.) have limited benefits.
Our study has shown that key overlay projects will be needed over the next seven years to maintain the network’s moderate level of condition. Currently, the City’s two major streets networks (Arterial & Local) hold mid-70 weighted PCI value s; it is our recommendation that a proactive, common sense overlay program and a continued slurry seal program be scheduled over the next several fiscal years. This will ensure that the citywide weighted PCI will be sustained and allow for routine slurry seal maintenance to continue.
We have found and recommend the following detailed items which should be reviewed and considered for a proactive approach to the future management of the PMP:
ARTERIAL / COLLECTOR (MPAH) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The actual workload requirements identified indicate that the Arterial (MPAH) street network is currently in “ fair” condition. To maintain this condition, it is critical that preventive maintenance and overlay activities are funded at the levels identified on page 9 to maintain a “fair” network weighted average PCI value.
Our MPAH findings for conditional data an d recommendations for revenue expenditures are shown below:
• The MPAH network has a weighted PCI of 71.8
• The MPAH network consists of 129.3 miles and 33,615,007 SF of pavement;
• Currently, 35% of the MPAH network ( 45.4 miles) qualify for slurry seal/stop gap maintenance; 39% of the network (49.9 miles) qualifies for rehabilitation/reconstruction maintenance;
• MPAH maintenance/rehabilitation projects should focus on the increasing the current PCI above a weighted average of 75 by FY 2033;
• Develop a proactive fiscal and planned approach to identify MPAH overlay projects based on the deterioration modeling within StreetSaver;
o Appropriate the MPAH CIP revenues at an average of $8,000,000/yr level for the seven- year term to generate the beneficial results identified on page 9; and
o The Santa Ana “Increase PCI” budget (page 9) will increase the MPAH weighted PCI of
71.8 to 75.0 after seven years, additionally, the citywide deferred backlog increases from a level of $325.6 million to $393.4 million after seven years; and
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana, CA Page 6
2026 Citywide Pavement Management Plan – OCTA Submittal Final Report – March 16, 2026
• Perform pavement inspections on the MPAH network every two years to continue the City’s solid planning model within StreetSaver to track PCI deterioration; also follows new OCTA guidelines for Measure M2.
LOCAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The actual workload requirements identified indicate that the Local street network is currently in “good” condition. To maintain this condition, it is critical that preventive maintenance and overlay activities are funded at the levels identified on page 9 to maintain a “good” network weighted average PCI value. Our Local network findings for conditional data and recommendations for revenue expenditures are shown below:
• The Local network has a weighted PCI of 77.1;
• The Local network consists of 324.5 miles and 59,736,252 SF of pavement;
• Currently, 34% of the Local network (111.1 miles) qualifies for slurry seal/stop gap maintenance; 13% of the Local network (42.3 miles) qualify for rehabilitation/reconstruction maintenance;
• Local maintenance/rehabilitation projects should focus on the increasing the current PCI above a weighted average of 80 by FY 2033;
• Develop a proactive fiscal and planned approach to identify arterial overlay projects based on the deterioration modeling within StreetSaver;
o Appropriate the Local CIP revenues at an average of $8,400,000/yr level for the seven- year term to generate the beneficial results identified on page 9; and
o The Santa Ana “Increase PCI” budget (page 9) will increase the Local weighted PCI of 77.1 to 82 after seven years, additionally, the citywide deferred backlog increases from a level of $325.6 million to $393.4 million after seven years; and
• Perform pavement inspections on the Local network every two years to continue the City’s solid planning model within StreetSaver to track PCI deterioration; also follows new OCTA guidelines for Measure M2.
• Increase the amount of Local funding to allow for overlays of sections that are older than 20 years
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana, CA Page 7
2026 Citywide Pavement Management Plan – OCTA Submittal Final Report – March 16, 2026
IV. CURRENT PAVEMENT CONDITIONS (PCI)
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana, CA Page 8
2026 Citywide Pavement Management Plan – OCTA Submittal Final Report – March 16, 2026
V. PROJECTED PAVEMENT CONDITIONS (PCI) – CURRENT BUDGET
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana, CA Page 9
2026 Citywide Pavement Management Plan – OCTA Submittal Final Report – March 16, 2026
VI. ALTERNATIVE FUNDING LEVELS
Maintain Existing Average Network PCI
Improve Average Network PCI
VII. CURRENT AND PROJECTED BACKLOG BY YEAR OF PAVEMENT
MAINTENANCE NEEDS
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana, CA Page 10
2026 Citywide Pavement Management Plan – OCTA Submittal Final Report – March 16, 2026
VIII. CENTERLINE MILEAGE
IX. PERCENTAGE OF NETWORK IN EACH OF FIVE CONDITION CATEGORIES
BASED ON CENTERLINE MILES
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana, CA Page 11
2026 Citywide Pavement Management Plan – OCTA Submittal Final Report – March 16, 2026
X. REDUCTION IN M2 LOCAL MATCH
A local agency match reduction of 10% of the eligible cost for projects submitted for consideration of funding through the M2 Comprehensive Transportation Funding Programs (CTFP) call for projects is available if the local agency either:
a. Shows measurable improvement of paved road conditions during the previous reporting period defined as an overall weighted (by area) average system improvemen t of one Pavement Condition Index (PCI) point with no reduction in the overall weighted (by area) average PCI in the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) or local categories:
or
b. Have road pavement conditions during the previous reporting period, within the highest 20% of the scale for road pavement conditions in conformance with OCTA Ordinance No. 3, defined as a PCI of 75 or higher, otherwise defined as in “good condition”.
Road conditions found through our 2026 PMP management study shows that the City is eligible for Local Match Reduction based on the current network weighted PCI of 75.2. Additionally, the City of Santa Ana has demonstrated, with the enclosed budget projection s (page 9), that the City’s weighte d average PCI (by area) remains above a PCI of 75 after the seven-year program.
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana, CA Page 12
2026 Citywide Pavement Management Plan – OCTA Submittal Final Report – March 16, 2026
XI. APPENDIX A – SEVEN YEAR ROAD MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION
PLAN BASED ON CURRENT OR EXPECTED FUNDING LEVEL
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana, CA Page 13
2026 Citywide Pavement Management Plan – OCTA Submittal Final Report – March 16, 2026
XII. APPENDIX B – COMPLETE LISTING OF CURRENT STREET CONDITIONS
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana, CA Page 14
2026 Citywide Pavement Management Plan – OCTA Submittal Final Report – March 16, 2026
XIII. APPENDIX C – GIS DIGITAL DATA
Introduction
The OCTA GIS Section maintains a spatial inventory of transportation infrastructure which mostly consists of major arterial streets, roads, and highways. A key component of road information is pavement condition. Maintaining an inventory of pavement condition will enhance OCTA’s GIS visualization and analysis capabilities and assist in understanding the transportation investment needs throughout the region. Therefore, a GIS dataset in digital format should be included in this report.
Structure of GIS Data
The GIS dataset must consist of linear geographic features that represent road/street segments. All segments that are part of the report should be included in the GIS dataset. The attribute inf ormation of each segment should generally follow the format of the Complete Listing of Current Street Conditions in Appendix B above.
The GIS data requirements are discussed below. Most commercial and open-source GIS software provide industry-standard tools to manage GIS data to meet these requirements.
GIS Digital Data Format
The GIS data must be submitted in either one of the following formats:
• Esri Shapefile, or
• Esri File Geodatabase
Metadata
The GIS data are required to have associated metadata. The minimum metadata items required are:
• Title of Dataset
• Tags (A set of words that can be used by GIS to search for the resource. For example: “pavement”, “transportation”, “roads”)
• Summary (A brief purpose statement of the dataset)
• Description (A brief narrative of the dataset’s content) • Credits (A recognition of those who created or contributed to the resource) Spatial Geometry Type
The spatial geometry of the segment features must be lines that represent the roadway centerline as accurately as possible.
Projection
The GIS data must have spatial reference information and have its coordinate system identified and embedded in or associated with the data file(s). All GIS data submitted to OCTA should be in the following projected coordinate system:
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana, CA Page 15
2026 Citywide Pavement Management Plan – OCTA Submittal Final Report – March 16, 2026
• NAD 1983 State Plane California VI FIPS 0406 (US Feet) - More information about this system can be found at: https://spatialreference.org/ref/epsg/nad83-california-zone-6-ftus/ GIS Feature Attributes
The required segment attributes are:
• Street name
• Unique segment identifier (Segment ID from original source if available) • Name of intersecting road at the beginning of a segment • Name of intersecting road at the end of the segment
• Current pavement condition index (PCI)
• Current PCI inspection date
• Length of road segment in feet
• Width of road segment in feet
• Paved area of road segment in square feet or square yards • Projected PCI at end of Seven-Year Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Plan Additional attributes such as number of through travel lanes, direction of travel and pavement surface type may be provided.
XIV. APPENDIX D – QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL PLAN
Introduction
When performing data collection in any field, the need for quality control is paramount as it is essential for accurate planning, analysis and design. This is particularly true for collecting pavement distress data for a pavement management program.
The Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan establishe s minimum quality standards for performance and procedures for update of the pavement management program.
Objectives
This document constitutes a formal QA/QC Plan for the City of Santa Ana. It was prepared in April, 2020 and last revised in April, 2026.
Specifically, it is intended for the 2026 Pavement Management Plan Update. The focus is on the collection of network-level pavement distress data (defined by National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 401 Quality Management of Paveme nt Data Collection, as “Network -level data collection involves collection of large quantities of pavement condition data, which is often converted to individual condition indices or aggregated into composite condition indices”.
This document also addresse s the QA/QC plan requirements of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)’s “Countywide Pavement Management Plan Guidelines” (Section 2.4), adopted in May 2010.
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana, CA Page 16
2026 Citywide Pavement Management Plan – OCTA Submittal Final Report – March 16, 2026
Structure of QA/QC Plan
The following components are addressed in this QA/QC Plan:
• Condition survey procedures used;
• Accuracy required for data collection;
• Inspector qualifications and experience; and
• Safety.
Condition Survey Procedures
The governing document in performing condition surveys for the City of Santa Ana is ASTM D6433 “Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Surveys.” Both asphalt concrete (AC) and Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements are included in this protocol. The following distresses are collected for each pavement type:
As required by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), the City of Santa Ana must prepare and implement a quality assurance / quality control (QA/QC) plan regarding pavement management inspection as they pertain to StreetSaver. For the purposes of this report, Bucknam has demonstrated below how our project team implemented QA/QC procedures during the project.
Our QA/QC plan focuses on the how each pavement inspection is performed, what distresses are collected and ensures that it complies with the OCTA guidelines defined within the “Countywide Pavement Management Plan Guidelines (CPMPG)”.
As shown within the OCTA CPMPG, our staff followed and delivered on the requirements stated within Chapter 2, page 2-5 which require specific QA/QC data (Items A through G).
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana, CA Page 17
2026 Citywide Pavement Management Plan – OCTA Submittal Final Report – March 16, 2026
Additionally, Chapter 3 requires numerous data/deli verables from local agencies for OC Measure M2 eligibility. All general PCI budgetary report submittals will follow the Chapter 3 guidelines.
In conjunction with the outlined items within the CPMPG Section 2 we have summarized our QA/QC procedures below:
a. Descriptions of condition survey - Our staff follows t he required Condition Survey Protocols (CPMPG, Chapter 2); our staff assesses each pavement section for the minimum distresses outlined within Chapter 2, page 2-1. Additionally, based on the pavement conditions found, we collect all MicroPAVER/StreetSaver Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) distresses, if found within the sample sections; for example, if slippage cracking, potholes, etc. are found our survey technicians record the proper information.
b. How data was collected - Our surveys follow the OCTA accepted walking requirements. All sections that our staff surveys are performed through the walking method, approximately 10% of all sections surveyed were complemented with windshield surveys based on unique conditions found. Our staff physically measures the width of every section as well as measure for any square footage adjustment that need to be added or taken away from a sections “true area” (i.e. cul-de- sac, bus pads, street width variances, etc.). Samples taken always include a minimum of 2,500 SF coverage unless specific section limits prohibit this. Arterial section samples utilize a 3,500 SF sample size due to the larger section area (this is within the ASTM D6433 sample size calculation.
Field crews typically include one individual for residential pavement sections while Arterial (MPAH) routes utilize a two-person crew for safety, traffic control and increases quality control. c. Accuracy required for data collection - We use a statistical sampling approach for measuring the quality of our field technician’s work. In this manner, 10 percent of the original surveys are re - surveyed by a different survey crew than the original, supervised by a field supervisor, and the results are compared to the original surveys. O ur QC process involves checking the field crews’ work in a “blind study” fashion. Quality control checks are performed at the end of each survey week. This ensures that all field personnel are properly collecting section samples, distress types and distress severities for all street segments.
❖ When QA/QC issues are found, our staff documents the issues within MicroPAVER’s/StreetSaver’s user interface. If distress types found are not within the 97% accuracy our QA/QC is expanded beyond our minimum 10% resurvey to 20% of the original survey
d. Random and Systematic Re-Inspections – As described above our staff re-inspects, as a minimum, 10% of the original survey (OCTA only requires 5%). Per the agenc y’s requests, our staff will submit PCI reports to the agency as project status reports for their review. Agencies will typically review specific pavement sections for PCI accuracy based on recent overlay or slurry seal maintenance; this serves as an initial accuracy check on our surveys (outside Bucknam QC efforts).
Additionally, our staff performs “ride -a-long” surveys with local agency staff to build consensus on how our MicroPAVER/StreetSaver ACOE surveys are performed, recorded and reported on.
Random re-inspections will include a representative selection across the following categories:
• Functional classed (i.e. MPAH, locals);
• Surface types (e.g. AC or PCC);
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana, CA Page 18
2026 Citywide Pavement Management Plan – OCTA Submittal Final Report – March 16, 2026
• Pavement conditions (e.g. good, fair, poor);
• Inspectors;
• Geographical areas, if applicable.
For systematic re-inspections, this could be due to noticed trends such as specific treatment types (e.g. open -graded mixed), a specific inspector or geographical area. In these cases Bucknam continues to utilize a 10% re-inspection policy.
e. PCI Comparison with Past Surveys - if previous inspection data is available, new PCI’s calculated through the most recent inspections will be compared to previous PCI’s. If the variance in PCI is greater than +/- 10 PCI points, these sections will be flagged for further investigation and/ or re- inspection (In the cases that a PCI increases or decreases by 10 points follows the established CPMPG guidelines; Appendix A, page A-18).
f. Schedule of data submittal – Pending on the City’s last major PMP submittal, Bucknam will assist the agency in submitting the following:
❖ Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) routes will be surveyed and reported on at least once every two years
❖ Local streets will be surveyed and reported on every six years ❖ Corresponding MPAH and local PCI reporting and budgetary reporting will be submitted every two years
g. Inspector’s Qualifications and Experience – Bucknam staff have been trained on the use of StreetSaver and the segment calibration/verification and inspection practices. Mr. Peter Bucknam (Project Manager) has completed the MicroPAVER Certification of Professional Development courses. All Bucknam field technicians are trained using the ASTM D6433 survey methodologies and have passed OCTA’s prequalification testing every year since 2010.
Bucknam Infrastructure Group inspectors have attended formal training on pavement condition distress surveys. This training was conducted prior to performing any work using the ASTM D6433 protocols, consistent with OCTA’s requirements.
Attachments – Inspectors Certifications
• Certificate of Prequalification – OCTA Pavement Inspector Prequalification Program (see below):
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana, CA Page 19
2026 Citywide Pavement Management Plan – OCTA Submittal Final Report – March 16, 2026
d. Safety procedures – Bucknam field survey techniques utilize the following procedures:
a. All vehicles are properly marked or flagged with appropriate sign markings indicating that a “PAVEMENT SURVEY IS IN PROGRESS”;
b. All vehicles have the proper flashing amber light beacons placed on the top of the vehicle to allow for proper visibility and line-of-site warning; c. Large MPAH routes are surveyed using two field technicians to increase traffic control warning and safety;
d. While parking or stopping along the survey route, vehicles legally park within the ri ght- of-way or use a parking lot;
e. All field technicians wear ANSI – 105 Class II safety vests
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana, CA Page 20
2026 Citywide Pavement Management Plan – OCTA Submittal Final Report – March 16, 2026
XV. APPENDIX E – PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT DATA FILES
The City of Santa Ana StreetSaver database is available online through MTC StreetSaver’s website; to log in and review PMP data OCTA will need to obtain permission from Santa Ana staff and MTC . Available PMP data and the associated reporting data includes:
• Street names and limits for the City’s public streets • Street identifiers (Branch ID, Section ID)
• Direction (if applicable)
• Beginning and ending of each section
• Length, width and true areas
• Functional Classification (MPAH, Local)
• Number of travel lanes
• Pavement Condition Index (PCI) and date of inspection • Type of recommended treatment
• Cost of recommended treatment
• Street geometry as linear of polygon features
EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana, CA Page 21
2026 Citywide Pavement Management Plan – OCTA Submittal Final Report – March 16, 2026
XVI. APPENDIX F – GIS MAPS / CURRENT CONDITIONS (OPTIONAL) EXHIBIT 2