Agenda packet — Santa Ana City Council, October 1, 2024 (part 11 of 12)

o Policy M-3.2 Nonmotorized Travelway Amenities. Enhance nonmotorized travelways with amenities such as landscaping, shade trees, lighting, benches, crosswalks, rest stops, bicycle parking, and support facilities that promote a pleasant and safe experience.
o Policy M-3.7 Complete Streets Design. Enhance streets to facilitate safe walking, bicycling, and other nonmotorized forms of transportation through community participatory design.
• Goal M-4: Transportation, Land Use, and Design. Coordinated transportation planning efforts with land use and design strategies that encourage sustainable development and achieve broader community goals.
o Policy M-4.1 Intense Development Areas. Program multimodal transportation and public realm improvements that support new development in areas along transit corridors and areas planned for high intensity development. o POLICY M-4.2 Project Review. Encourage active transportation, transit use, and connectivity through physical improvements and public realm amenities identified during the City’s Development Review process. o Policy M-4.5 Land Use Development Design. Ensure that building placement and design features create a desirable and active streetscape, by prioritizing pedestrian access directly from the street and placing parking lots to the rear of a development site.
o Policy M-4.7 Parking. Explore and implement a flexible menu of parking options and other strategies to efficiently coordinate the response to parking demands. • Goal M-5: Sustainable Transportation. A transportation system that is attractive, safe, state-of-the-art, and supports community, environmental, and conservation goals. o Policy M-5.1 Enhanced Street Design. Improve the beauty, character, and function of travelways with amenities such as landscaped parkways and medians, bike lanes, public art, and other amenities.

The project is consistent with these General Plan Mobility Element goals and policies, as it provides for redevelopment of an existing, auto-oriented commercial center with a new mixed-use urban village that encourages multi-modal transit. Moreover, the proposed specific plan will introduce a walkable grid of streets and paseos, further encouraging pedestrian, bicycle, and alternate means of transportation both within and to/from the project site.
• Goal EP-1: Job Creation and Retention. Foster a dynamic local economy that provides and creates employment opportunities for all residents in the city. o Policy Attract Business Strengthen and expand citywide business attraction efforts in order to achieve the city’s full employment potential.

City Council 26 – 593 10/1/2024
Exhibit 13
Consistent and Supportive General Plan Goals and Policies

Page 3 of 10 ends

• Goal EP-3: Business Friendly Environment. Promote a business friendly environment where businesses thrive and build on Santa Ana’s strengths and opportunities. o Policy EP-3.4 Complete Communities. Encourage the development of “complete communities” that provide a range of housing, services, amenities, and transportation options to support the retention and attraction of a skilled workforce and employment base.
o Policy EP-3.10 Rethinking Strip-Commercial. Promote the creation of distinctive neighborhood serving districts through the renovation or redevelopment of existing strip-commercial development.

The project is consistent with these General Plan Economic Prosperity Element goals and policies, as it provides for redevelopment of an existing, auto-oriented commercial center with a new mixed-use urban village. The project will contain a diverse range of employment opportunities for the commercial, senior continuum care, hotel, and residential communities that will take shape on the project site. • Goal OS-1: Parks, Open Space, and Recreation. Provide an integrated system of accessible parks, recreation facilities, trails, and open space to serve the City of Santa Ana.
o Policy OS-1.2 Parks and Recreation System. Provide and support a comprehensive and integrated network of parks, recreation facilities, trails, and open space that is diverse, with a variety of active and passive recreational opportunities.
o Policy OS-1.5 Park and Open Space Types. Provide a mix of community, neighborhood, and special use parks, along with greenway corridors, natural areas, and landscape areas, to meet community needs for greenspace, recreation space, social space, and trail connectivity. o Policy OS-1.9 New Development. Require all new development to provide adequate parks and open space, including via parkland dedication or development fees, in order to meet the City’s park standard. Ensure that new development includes pedestrian and multi-modal travelways to promote a quality living environment. For new development within park deficient and environmental justice areas, prioritize the creation and dedication of new public parkland over the collection of impact fees.
o Policy OS-1.10 Creative Solutions for Deficiencies. Develop creative and flexible solutions to provide greenspace and recreation activities in parkdeficient neighborhoods. Encourage private and commercial recreational facilities that are physically open to the public and are affordable to residents of surrounding neighborhoods, and serve community needs.

City Council 26 – 594 10/1/2024
Exhibit 13
Consistent and Supportive General Plan Goals and Policies

Page 4 of 10 ends

The project is consistent with these General Plan Open Space Element goals and policies, as it provides for redevelopment of an existing, auto-oriented commercial center with a new mixed-use urban village. The project will contain 13.1 acres of total onsite public open space, which will be maintained for public access and enjoyment through both the Specific Plan’s goals and development standards, as well as the project’s proposed Development Agreement (No. 2023-02). The 13.1 acres of onsite open space comprise almost one-third of the entire site’s 41 acres, and will be programmed for both passive and active uses, with a minimum of four community events per year. Moreover, the project’s street frontages will contain new bike lanes, with stretches built as protected bike lanes, encouraging active recreation to and from the project site.
• Goal LU-1: Growing Responsibly. Provide a land use plan that improves quality of life and respects our existing community
o Policy LU-1.1 Compatible Uses. Foster compatibility between land uses to enhance livability and promote healthy lifestyles.
o Policy LU-1.3 Equitable Creation and Distribution of Open Space. Promote the creation of new open space and community serving amenities in park-deficient areas that keeps pace with the increase in multi-unit housing development, with priority given to those that are also within environmental justice area boundaries.
o Policy LU-1.5 Diverse Housing Types. Incentivize quality infill residential development that provides a diversity of housing types and accommodates all income levels and age groups.
o Policy LU-1.6 Transit Oriented Development. Encourage residential mixed-use development, within the City’s District Centers, Urban Neighborhoods, and adjacent to high quality transit.
o Policy LU-1.8 Development Tradeoffs. Ensure that new development projects provide a net community benefit.
o Policy LU-1.9 Public Facilities and Infrastructure. Evaluate individual new development proposals to determine if the proposals are consistent with the General Plan and to ensure that they do not compound existing public facility and service deficiencies.
• Goal LU-2: Land Use Needs. Provide a balance of land uses that meet Santa Ana’s diverse needs.
o Policy LU-2.1 Employment Opportunities. Provide a broad spectrum of land uses and development that offer employment opportunities for current and future Santa Ana residents.

City Council 26 – 595 10/1/2024
Exhibit 13
Consistent and Supportive General Plan Goals and Policies

Page 5 of 10 ends

o Policy LU-2.2 Capture Local Spending. Encourage a range of commercial uses to capture a greater share of local spending, and offer a range of employment opportunities.
o Policy LU-2.3 Supportive Spaces. Provide a diversity of land uses that support residents, visitors, and businesses, such as open space, areas for community gatherings, and outdoor entertainment venues
o Policy LU-2.4 Cost and Benefit of Development. Balance the benefits of development with its fiscal impacts on the city and on quality of life for the community.
o Policy LU-2.5 Benefits of Mixed-Use. Encourage infill mixed-use development at all ranges of affordability to reduce vehicle miles traveled, improve jobs/housing balance, and promote social interaction.
o Policy LU-2.7 Business Incubator. Support land use decisions that encourage the creation, development, and retention of businesses in Santa Ana. o Policy LU-2.8 City Image. Encourage land uses, development projects, and public art installations that promote the city’s image as a cultural, governmental, and business-friendly regional center.
o Policy LU-2.10 Smart Growth. Focus high density residential in mixed-use villages, designated planning focus areas, Downtown Santa Ana, and along major travel corridors.
• Goal LU-4: Complete Communities. Support a sustainable Santa Ana through improvements to the built environment and a culture of collaboration. o Policy LU-4.5 VMT Reduction. Concentrate development along high quality transit corridors to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and transportationrelated carbon emissions.

The project is consistent with these General Plan Land Use Element goals and policies, as it provides for redevelopment of an existing, auto-oriented commercial center with a new mixed-use urban village. The project has been thoroughly evaluated for environmental impacts, as well as for market, fiscal impact, economic impact, and community benefits through multiple analyses. The proposed specific plan establishes a foundation for future developments within the specific plan area that provide a balance of commercial and residential land uses, conforming to the General Plan’s DC-5 land use designation and the South Bristol Street Focus Area’s goals. The infill nature of the project encourages smart growth by conserving resources and locating new development in an already-urbanized, transit-oriented area adjacent to or near major employment centers. The project conforms to all Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) guidelines adopted by the City and enhances the City’s image at a major intersection leading into Santa Ana.

City Council 26 – 596 10/1/2024
Exhibit 13
Consistent and Supportive General Plan Goals and Policies

Page 6 of 10 ends

• Goal UD-1: Physical Character. Improve the physical character and livability of the City to promote a sense of place, positive community image, and quality environment. o Policy UD-1.1 Design Quality. Ensure all developments feature high quality design, materials, finishes, and construction.
o Policy UD-1.2 Public Art. Require public art as part of major developments and the public realm improvements.
o Policy UD-1.4 Safety Through Design. Incorporate public safety design features into private and public developments to prevent loitering, vandalism, and other undesirable activities.
o Policy UD-1.5 Attractive Public Spaces. Encourage community interaction through the development and enhancement of plazas, open space, people places, and pedestrian connections with the public realm. o Policy UD-1.6 Active Transportation Infrastructure. Support the creation of citywide public street and site amenities that accommodate and promote an active transportation-friendly environment.
• Goal UD-2: Sustainable Environment. Improve the built environment through sustainable development that is proportional and aesthetically related to its setting. o Policy UD-2.1 Enhanced Public Realm Experience. Encourage development to enhance the existing environment through the use of creative architectural design and sustainable streetscape treatments that are consistent on each corridor.
o Policy UD-2.2 Compatibility and Use With Setting. Employ buffers and other urban design strategies to encourage the compatibility of new development with the scale, bulk, and pattern of existing development. o Policy UD-2.4 Intentional Design. Encourage design and architecture on private and public property that accentuate focal points, activity nodes, and historic areas.
o Policy UD-2.5 Relation to Surroundings. Ensure new development exhibits a functional, comfortable scale in relation to its neighborhood. o Policy UD-2.7 Building and Strengthening Identity. Collaborate with community stakeholders to strengthen and foster development of community and neighborhood identity and district character through complementary architecture, unique streetscapes, and programming.
o Policy UD-2.10 Greening the Built Environment. Promote planting of shade trees and require, where feasible, preservation and site design that uses appropriate tree species to shade parking lots, streets, and other facilities, with the goal of reducing the heat island effect.

City Council 26 – 597 10/1/2024
Exhibit 13
Consistent and Supportive General Plan Goals and Policies

Page 7 of 10 ends

• Goal UD-3: Attractive Travelways. Create and maintain safe and attractive travelways through coordinated streetscape design.
o Policy UD-3.3 Foster Community Building. Promote a safe environment that facilitates social interaction and improves active transportation along corridors. o Policy UD-3.4 Improvements to Streetscape. Promote streetscape improvement plans that are responsive to community needs, the nature of adjacent uses, path characteristics, street classification, pedestrian scale, and view corridors.
o Policy UD-3.6 Linear Park System. Support open space improvements along roadways and nonvehicular paths, such as bike or multiuse trails, to create linear open space that connect to a network of parks and activity areas throughout the city.
o Policy UD-3.8 Pleasant Travel Experience. Maximize the use of street trees and parkway landscaping to create a pleasant travel experience and positive city image.
• Goal UD-4: Nodes and People Places. Create nodes and urban hubs throughout the City to foster community, education, arts and culture, business activities, entertainment, and establish Santa Ana as a vibrant center. o Policy UD-4.1 Intentional Development. Support development growth in nodes consistent with the City’s vision as the dynamic urban center of Orange County. o Policy UD-4.2 Image Making Through Architecture. Promote development within nodes to reflect the significance of the area and cultivate a positive image of Santa Ana through high quality architecture.
o Policy UD-4.3 Activate Open Space. Ensure architectural and landscape design activates open space as a means to promote community interaction and enhance the aesthetic quality of development.
o Policy UD-4.4 Vibrant Street Life. Encourage development within nodes that promotes pedestrian activities, enhanced amenities, and engaging designs that allow for discovery, excitement, and social interaction. • Goal UD-5: Focus Intersections. Create focal points at major intersections to enhance community identity and open space.
o Policy UD-5.1 Building Presence at Intersections. Create a strong presence at focus intersections by locating intense building mass and open space areas along the street that include high quality design and materials. • Goal UD-7: Gateways. Create and strengthen gateways into the City that promote a sense of arrival.

City Council 26 – 598 10/1/2024
Exhibit 13
Consistent and Supportive General Plan Goals and Policies

Page 8 of 10 ends

o Policy UD-7.1 First Impression. Strengthen the architectural design of developments near gateways to communicate a sense of arrival and inspire positive images of the City.
o Policy UD-7.2 Streetscape Improvements. Enhance Santa Ana’s gateways to include unique and distinctive streetscape improvements.

The project is consistent with these General Plan Urban Design Element goals and policies. The project improves a major site at a gateway intersection leading into Santa Ana by redeveloping an outdated, auto-oriented strip-commercial center with a dynamic, mixed-use urban village that complements the scale an intensity of existing developments surrounding the project site. Through onsite private streets and improvements to public streets along the site’s street frontages, the specific plan will create attractive travelways and establish activity nodes at the intersections of Bristol Street and Sunflower Avenue, and Bristol Street and MacArthur Boulevard, near the interchange of Bristol Street and the San Diego (I-405) Freeway. The redevelopment of the existing site will establish a new gateway into Santa Ana that is consistent with the South Bristol Street Focus Area’s vision for the project site.
• Goal HE-1: Livable and affordable neighborhoods with healthy and safe housing conditions, community services, well-maintained infrastructure, and public facilities that inspire neighborhood pride and ownership.
o Policy HE-1.3 Complete Neighborhoods. Improve neighborhood quality by locating or providing access to complementary services and public facilities, including the integration of community gardens and access to healthy food options in neighborhoods.
o Policy HE-1.4. Healthy Neighborhoods. Create and maintain parks and open spaces; plant trees, green parkways, and medians; support access to healthy food options; and maintain a continuous pattern of pathways that encourage an active and healthy lifestyle.
o Policy HE-1.10. Parking Management. Support innovative and creative strategies that proactively minimize parking impacts and deficiencies within residential neighborhoods, including parking management requirements, installation of parking lifts, and incentives for active transportation. • Goal HE-2. Foster an inclusive community with a diversity of quality housing, affordability levels, and living experiences that accommodate Santa Ana’s residents and workforce of all household types, income levels, and age groups. o Policy HE 2.3. Urban Villages. Create higher intensity, mixed-use urban villages and pedestrian-oriented experiences that access and support the office centers, commercial services, and cultural activities within District Centers and Urban Neighborhood designated areas.

City Council 26 – 599 10/1/2024
Exhibit 13
Consistent and Supportive General Plan Goals and Policies

Page 9 of 10 ends

o Policy HE-2.4. Rental Housing. Facilitate the construction of rental housing for Santa Ana’s residents and workforce, with a commitment to provide rental housing for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income residents as well as moderate income Santa Ana workers.
o Policy HE-2.6. Housing Design. Require excellence in architectural design through the use of materials and colors, building treatments, landscaping, open space, parking, and environmentally sensitive (“green”) building and design practices.
• Goal HE-4. Provide sufficient rental and ownership housing opportunities and supportive services for seniors, people with disabilities, families with children, and people experiencing homelessness.
o Policy HE-4.1. Senior Housing. Support development of affordable senior rental and ownership housing, readily accessible to support services; provide assistance for seniors to maintain and repair their homes to facilitate the maximum independent living.

The project is consistent with these General Plan Housing Element goals and policies.

The project will provide high-quality diversity of rental housing for Santa Ana’s residents and workforce. Through the project’s Development Agreement, the project will provide inclusionary housing fees that will be used by the City to provide onsite affordable housing opportunities in the community. Through innovative use of land, the project will provide for healthy communities with 13.1 acres of onsite open space, a full-service grocer, and underground parking, freeing up valuable acreage for the development of communityserving commercial, residential, and open space land uses.

Moreover, the SP and requested entitlements address General Plan consistency for the South Bristol Street Focus Area in the following manners:
• The District Center-High is a mixed-use designation identified in the General Plan as including “high density urban villages consisting of visually striking and dynamic buildings and spaces with a wide range and mix of residential, live-work, commercial, hotel, and employment-generating uses.”
• Table LU-2 of the General Plan (Buildout) identifies an assumed housing growth of 5,272 units in the District; the proposed 3,750 falls within the assumed growth. • Table LU-8 of the General Plan identifies the DC-5 area as allowing a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 5.0, or 125 dwelling units per acre and a maximum height of 25 stories.

The General Plan allows the FAR to be calculated on a gross basis for an individual development project.
• The General Plan’s District Center designation would allow up to 8,733,780 square feet of mixed uses, inclusive of residential uses, based on the maximum FAR of 5.0 over the 41.13-acre (gross) site. As proposed, the Related Bristol will result in an FAR of 2.7, well within the maximums allowed in the General Plan. No General Plan Amendment is required nor proposed.

City Council 26 – 600 10/1/2024
Exhibit 13
Consistent and Supportive General Plan Goals and Policies

Page 10 of 10 ends

• The General Plan envisions “urban villages”, “an intense multistory presence” and “mixed use opportunities”. The Development Plan implements this vision with a range of building heights and configurations in two mixed-use Districts/Villages, with heights and intensities within the limits identified in the General Plan. • The General Plan requires fiscal neutrality (Policy LU 2.4). The Project results in positive fiscal impacts.
• The General Plan calls for community involvement (Policy LU 3.2). Significant outreach has occurred as outlined in Specific Plan Section 2.5, Community Engagement.
• The General Plan encourages areas for community gathering and outdoor entertainment (Policy LU 2.3). The Specific Plan includes approximately 13 acres of open space, which includes public plaza areas and a central park, accessible to the public and allowing for outdoor entertainment.
• The Specific Plan area is not within an Environmental Justice area. However, as designed, the provision of nearly one-third of the 41-acre site for publicly accessible open space with active and passive recreation opportunities is a means of addressing open space deficiencies prevalent in many portions of Santa Ana.

City Council 26 – 601 10/1/2024
Date: August 9, 2024
Prepared by: Meaghan Trumann, Associate Environmental Planner III To: Ali Pezeshkpour, [email protected]
Site: Related Bristol Specific Plan Project
Subject: CalTrans Comment Letter on the DEIR for the Related Bristol Specific Plan Project (SCH No. 2020029087)
Dear Mr. Pezeshkpour,
On August 18, 2023, the City of Santa Ana received a comment from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) regarding the Related Bristol Specific Plan Project. The comment recommends further improvements to the Bear Street at SR-73 north bound routes, including restriping the existing westbound left-turn land to provide a shared left/right-turn lane to mitigate poor level of service (LOS) at the intersection. However, Senate Bill (SB) 743 introduced changes including the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant impacts. As part of the 2019 amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines, SB 743 directed that the revised CEQA Guidelines “shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][1]); and that “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][2]). As such, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(2), the Draft and Final SEIR focuses on analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) criteria and improvements to the circulation system along the Project’s frontage to accommodate buildout of the proposed Project, pursuant to the City’s recent General Plan Update.

Further yet, the SEIR is not required to analyze impacts related to traffic congestion. However, responses to the August 18th comment letter from Caltrans were provided by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) in a memorandum dated August 31, 2023, which was emailed to Caltrans on September 18, 2023 and which is included herein as Attachment A. As further detailed in the individual responses to comments below, none of the comments indicate that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that would not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. No new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, there is no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, no feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would lessen the environmental impacts of the Project, and the Draft and Final SEIR are not fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature. In addition, Caltrans responded to the memorandum provided by LLG on August 8, 2024 stating that they have no further comments.

Respectfully,
Meaghan Truman
City Council Exhibit 14 - Responses to Planning Commission Comments Received Prior to Deadline 26 – 602 10/1/2024 Caltrans Comment Letter (1 page) dated August 18, 2023
City Council 26 – 603 10/1/2024
Attachment A
City Council 26 – 604 10/1/2024

MEMORANDUM
Ali Pezeshkpour, Planning Manager
City of Santa Ana Planning Division
August 31, 2023

2.21.4410
To: Date:

Zdenek “Zed” Kekula, P.E. Principal Civil Engineer
City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency – Traffic
Engineering
xc:

From: Richard Barretto, P.E., Principal LLG Ref:

Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
Response to Additional Caltrans Traffic Operations Comments on Related Bristol Specific Plan - Santa Ana, CA Subject:

Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to provide the following responses to address the additional Caltrans Traffic Operations division comments on the LLG response memorandum dated August 16, 2023 as summarized in an email dated August 28, 2023 (see attached email for reference).

Caltrans Traffic Operations
Traffic Operations Comment 1: The Memorandum prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers on August 16, 2023, Page 3, indicates that the intersection of Bear Street at SR-73 NB Ramps (Intersection No. 37) has forecasted to operate at unacceptable LOS E in the PM peak hour, without or with Project traffic and recommended improvements for Bear Street at SR-73 NB Ramps (Intersection No. 37). The recommended improvements include the following: No. 37 – Bear Street at SR-73 NB Ramps: Restripe the existing westbound left-turn lane to provide a shared left/right-turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal as necessary.

Please provide fair share calculation for this recommendation and contact information of the agency and company that is working on this improvement.

Response to Comment 1: Table A , attached at the end of this memorandum, presents the Project’s fair-share contribution to construct the recommended improvements at Bear Street and SR-73 NB Ramps. As presented in Table A, the first column (1) lists the total intersection peak hour traffic for existing conditions. The second column (2) presents Year 2045 Buildout Traffic, while the third column (3) presents Year 2045 Buildout Plus Project Phases 1, 2 and 3 traffic. The Projectrelated added traffic volumes during AM peak hour and PM peak hour are presented in the fourth column (4). The fifth column (5) represents what percentage of total added intersection peak hour traffic is Project-related traffic.

Review of Table A shows that the proposed Project fair-share cost responsibility at the Bear Street / SR-73 NB Ramps intersection totals 6.31%.

The City of Santa Ana is the lead agency in the review and approval of the proposed Related Bristol Specific Plan project. City Council 26 – 605 10/1/2024 City of Santa Ana
August 31, 2023

Page 2 ends

Traffic Operations Comment 2: No maximum saturation flow rate (Veh/hr) per single lane for any movement should exceed 1800 (veh/hr). However, ATTACHMENT 1 APPENDIX E FROM REVISED TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ANALYSIS FOR THE RELATED BRISTOL DATED JUNE 2023, shows the following: Intersection 30:

Bristol Street at I-405 NB Ramps, Scenario 1: 1 AM Existing shows 1863 (Veh/hr) for the Bristol Street Southbound Right/Through shared lane. Recommended improvements should be addressed in the Memorandum prepared by Linscott Law & Greeenspan Engineers on August 16, 2023. Intersection 31: Bristol Street at I-405 SB Ramps, the saturation flow rate (veh/h) for the Bristol Street Southbound right lanes movement is not provided. Please provide missing information.

Response to Comment 2: The comment states that no maximum saturation flow rate per lane for any movement should excess 1800 vehicles per hour (veh/hr). In LLG’s history of more than 50 years, to our recollection, this is the first time that we have received a comment by Caltrans requesting that we use anything other than a starting saturation flow rate of 1900 veh/hr per lane and then allowing for adjustments as necessary, including recent projects where Caltrans was a reviewing agency.

In addition, as part of our third party peer reviews of other traffic consultants traffic studies performing LOS/Queuing assessments for Caltrans ramp facilities, this same methodology/approach is adhered to. From our experience, the use of saturation flow rate of 1900 vph/hr per lane is a practical and common industry wide approach.

Further, the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (December 2002) does not specify saturation requirements for analysis, and therefore a starting saturation flow rate of 1900 veh/hr per lane appropriate, which is consistent with the suggested default saturation values identified within the current Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).

Nevertheless, a comparative analysis has been prepared using the two different saturation rate assumptions (1800 veh/hr vs. 1900 veh/hr) at the study intersection of Intersection No. 30 - Bristol Avenue at I-405 NB Ramps for existing traffic conditions. The results of this assessment are summarized in Table B. As shown, the results of the sensitivity assessment indicate that the change in saturation flow (i.e. using 1900 veh/hr) would yield a nominal decrease in intersection delay (LOS).

N:\4400\2214410 - Bristol Commons - CONFIDENTIAL, Santa Ana\Report\4410 Caltrans Response Memo 8-31-2023.docx City Council 26 – 606 10/1/2024
City of Santa Ana
August 31, 2023

Page 3 ends

Further yet, a review of Table C indicates that the change in saturation flow would also have a negligible effect on the length of queue under existing traffic conditions based the queueing analysis results for Intersection No. 30 - Bristol Avenue at I-405 NB Ramps.

As such, it is concluded that the findings and conclusions documented for the remaining eight (8) Caltrans locations under existing and future traffic conditions as reported in the Memorandum prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers on August 16, 2023, remain unchanged and are valid.

Relative to the “missing information”, the southbound right-turn at Intersection No. 31 - Bristol Avenue at I-405 SB Ramps is a free (uncontrolled) movement and therefore has been appropriately excluded from the intersection calculation, and hence this is the reason the appendix does not show a saturation flow rate for that movement.

Attachment 1 includes the supplemental HCM/LOS calculations for the comparative assessment prepared for Bristol Avenue at I-405 NB Ramps. * * * * * * * * * * *
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this Memorandum. Please let us know if you have any questions regarding this response memorandum.

Attachments
cc: Shane S. Green, P.E., LLG
File
N:\4400\2214410 - Bristol Commons - CONFIDENTIAL, Santa Ana\Report\4410 Caltrans Response Memo 8-31-2023.docx City Council 26 – 607 10/1/2024

TABLE A
YEAR 2045 BUILDOUT PROJECT FAIR-SHARE COST CONTRIBUTION (3) (5) (2) Year 2045
Buildout Plus
Project Phases
1, 2 and 3
Project Year
2045
Buildout
Traffic
(1) (4) FairTime Existing Share
Traffic
Project
Key Intersection Jurisdiction Period Improvement Description Traffic Traffic Percent . Restripe the existing
WB left-turn lane to
provide a shared
Bear Street at
SR-73 NB Ramps
Costa Mesa/
Caltrans
AM
PM
2,166
3,664
2,788
4,706
2,859
4,747
71 41

37. 6.31%
left/right-turn lane
Note:

Project fair-share percentage, which considers both the AM peak hour and PM peak hour traffic volumes, is calculated as such:

Column (5) = [Column (4)] / [Column (3) – Column (1)] x 100%.

City Council 26 – 608 10/1/2024

TABLE B

EXISTING PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT (1) (2)
Existing Traffic Conditions
(1800 Base Saturation Flow Rate)
Existing Traffic Conditions
(1900 Base Saturation Flow Rate) (3)
Change in Delay
(sec/veh)
Peak
Hour

HCM HCM
Key Intersection (sec/veh) LOS
A
(sec/veh) LOS
Bristol Street at A

30. AM
PM

6.4 6.3 -0.1
I-405 NB Ramps 14.9 B 13.9 B -1.0
Notes:
.
.
.

BOLD HCM/LOS indicates unacceptable service level
sec/veh = seconds per vehicle (delay)
Change in delay Column (3) = Column (2) – Column (1)
City Council 26 – 609 10/1/2024

TABLE C
EXISTING CALTRANS OFF-RAMP PEAK HOUR QUEUING ANALYSIS – COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT1 Existing Traffic Conditions
(1800 Base Saturation Flow Rate)
Existing Traffic Conditions
(1900 Base Saturation Flow Rate)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Max.

Queue/
Min.

Storage
Required
(feet)
Max. Queue/
Min. Storage
Required
(feet)
Max. Queue/
Min. Storage
Required
(feet)
Max. Queue/
Min. Storage
Required
(feet)
Storage
Provided
(feet)
Adequate
Storage
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No
Adequate
Storage
Adequate
Storage
Key Intersection

30. Bristol Street at
I-405 NB Ramps
(Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No)
Westbound Left-Turn 1,550
1,550
65 65
Yes
Yes
213
212
Yes
Yes
64 65
Yes
Yes
215
214
Yes
Yes Westbound LeftThrough
Westbound Through 1,195
385
69 25
Yes
Yes
216
117
Yes
Yes
68 25
Yes
Yes
218
105
Yes
Westbound Right-Turn Yes
1 Queues are based on HCM 95th Percentile methodology.

City Council 26 – 610 10/1/2024

CALTRANS E-MAIL COMMENT LETTER DATED
AUGUST 28, 2023
City Council 26 – 611 10/1/2024
Richard E. Barretto
From:

Sent:

Matsler, Sean <[email protected]>
Monday, August 28, 2023 3:40 PM
To:

Cc:

Richard E. Barretto; Shane Green
Oh, Steven; Creech, Catherine; Burt, Chris; Privitt, Dana Comments below from Caltrans D-12 Traffic Operations
Caltrans NOP RTC Memorandum-c1.pdf; 4410 Caltrans Response Memo 8-16-2023-c1-c1.pdf Subject:

Attachments:

Rich and Shane – BBK asked if LLG can please response to Caltrans D‐12 Traffic Operaꢀons’ aꢁached comments? This is the third request from BBK to LLG and I think can be completed aꢂer the first two. Please let me know if you have any quesꢀons.

From: Hannah Park <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 3:22 PM
To: Matsler, Sean <[email protected]>
Cc: Burt, Chris <[email protected]>; Alisha Winterswyk <[email protected]> Subject: FW: City of Santa Ana Related Bristol Specific Plan ‐ Caltrans NOP Comment Letter Sean,
I’m forwarding comments received from DOT on our response. Since these comments pertain to LLG’s memo, can LLG please take a look at them and provide responses?
Thank you,
Hannah
Hannah Park
Of Counsel
[email protected]
T: (949) 263‐6579
bbklaw.com |
From: Molavi, Maryam@DOT <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 1:06 PM
To: Pezeshkpour, Ali <APezeshkpour@santa‐ana.org>; Meaghan Truman <[email protected]>; OPR State Clearinghouse <[email protected]>
Cc: Shelley, Scott@DOT <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: City of Santa Ana Related Bristol Specific Plan ‐ Caltrans NOP Comment Letter [NON‐EPD]
Good afternoon,
Please see the comments below from Caltrans D-12 Traffic Operations and provide responses. Please confirm receipt of the comments below by replying to this email.

Thank you,
1 City Council 26 – 612 10/1/2024
Maryam Molavi
Associate Transportation Planner
Planning Division
LDR Branch
1750 E. 4th Street
Santa Ana, Ca 92705

1.The Memorandum prepared by Linscott Law & Greeenspan Engineers on August 16, 2023, Page 3, indicates that the intersection of Bear Street at SR-73 NB Ramps (Intersection No. 37) has forecasted to operate at unacceptable LOS E in the PM peak hour, without or with Project traffic and recommended improvements for Bear Street at SR-73 NB Ramps (Intersection No. 37). The recommended improvements include the following: No. 37 – Bear Street at SR-73 NB Ramps: Restripe the existing westbound left-turn lane to provide a shared left/rightturn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal as necessary.

Please provide fair share calculation for this recommendation and contact information of the agency and compony that is working on this improvement.

2. No maximum saturation flow rate (Veh/hr) per single lane for any movement should exceed 1800 (veh/hr).

However, ATTACHMENT 1 APPENDIX E FROM REVISED TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ANALYSIS FOR THE RELATED BRISTOL DATED JUNE 2023, shows the following: Intersection 30: Bristol Street at I-405 NB Ramps, Scenario 1:
1 AM Existing shows 1863 (Veh/hr) for the Bristol Street Southbound Right/Through shared lane. Recommended improvements should be addressed in the Memorandum prepared by Linscott Law & Greeenspan Engineers on August 16, 2023. Intersection 31: Bristol Street at I-405 SB Ramps, the saturation flow rate (veh/h) for the Bristol Street Southbound right lanes movement is not provided. Please provide missing information.

From: Meaghan Truman <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2023 3:45 PM
To: Molavi, Maryam@DOT <[email protected]>
Cc: Pezeshkpour, Ali <APezeshkpour@santa‐ana.org>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Soto, Ricardo <rsoto@santa‐ana.org>; Konnie Dobreva <[email protected]> Subject: City of Santa Ana Related Bristol Specific Plan ‐ Caltrans NOP Comment Letter EXTERNAL EMAIL. Links/attachments may not be safe.

Good Aꢂernoon Maryam,
On behalf of the City of Santa Ana, as the City’s environmental consultant for the Related Bristol Project, please see aꢁached responses to Caltrans’ comment leꢁer submiꢁed on the Noꢀce of Preparaꢀon for the Related Bristol Specific Plan Project. In addiꢀon, I’ve aꢁached the supporꢀng Traffic Analysis for Caltrans Traffic Operaꢀons prepared by Linscoꢁ, Law, & Greenspan. Hopefully these two memos provide answers to the comments and quesꢀons provided by Caltrans in the NOP comment leꢁer as well as the recent leꢁer submiꢁed on the Draꢂ EIR. In addiꢀon, the following link contains the HCM/LOS worksheets (referenced as Aꢁachment 1) for your review.

Aꢁachment 1.pdf
Please let us know if these responses alter any of your Agency’s comments on the Draꢂ EIR (as submiꢁed on August 14, 2023). We are also happy to set up a meeꢀng with your Agency if you have any addiꢀonal quesꢀons or would like to discuss any of this further.

Thanks,
Meaghan Truman | Associate Environmental Planner
mtruman@epdsoluꢀons.com
2 City Council 26 – 613 10/1/2024
ATTACHMENT 1

SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT FOR
INTERSECTION NO. 30 – BRISTOL AVENUE AT I-405 NB RAMPS
City Council 26 – 614 10/1/2024

ATTACHMENT I-I

EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
1800 BASE SATURATION FLOW RATE
City Council 26 – 615 10/1/2024
Generated with Scenario 1: 1 AM Existing
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) [Caltrans] Related Bristol, Santa Ana Intersection Level Of Service Report
Intersection 30: Bristol Street at I-405 NB Ramps
Control Type:

Analysis Method:

Analysis Period:

Signalized
HCM 7th Edition
15 minutes
Delay (sec / veh):

Level Of Service:

Volume to Capacity (v/c):

6.4 A

0.372
Intersection Setup
Name Bristol Street Bristol Street
Southbound
I-405 NB Ramps
Eastbound
I-405 NB Ramps
Approach Northbound Westbound
Lane Configuration
Turning Movement
Lane Width [ft]
Left

12.00 0
Thru

12.00 0
Right

12.00 1
Left

12.00 0
Thru

12.00 0
Right

12.00 0
Left

12.00 0
Thru

12.00 0
Right

12.00 1
Left Thru

12.00 0
Right

12.00 1

12.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 1
Entry Pocket Length [ft]
No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket
Exit Pocket Length [ft]
Speed [mph]
100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.00 0.00

30.00 0.00
No

0.00 0.00 0.00

30.00 0.00
No

0.00 0.00 0.00

30.00 0.00
No

0.00 0.00 0.00

30.00 0.00
No

0.00 Grade [%]
Curb Present
Crosswalk No No Yes Yes
City Council 26 – 616 10/1/2024
Generated with Scenario 1: 1 AM Existing
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) [Caltrans] Related Bristol, Santa Ana Volumes
Name Bristol Street
1504
Bristol Street
1987
I-405 NB Ramps I-405 NB Ramps
Base Volume Input [veh/h] 122 74 672
Base Volume Adjustment Factor
Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
Proportion of CAVs [%]
0 193 0 8 0 0 34

1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

0.00 Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
8 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h]
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
Other Volume [veh/h]
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1504 193 1987 34 122 74 672
Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 0.9380 0.9380 1.0000 0.9380 0.9380 1.0000 1.0000 0.9380 0.9380 0.9380 0.9380 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
Presence of On-Street Parking
On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m
v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi
v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0 0
401 51
206
No
0 0
0 530 2
9 0
0 0
0 9
36 No
0 33
130
No
0 20
79 179
716
No
0 1603 2118
No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
City Council 26 – 617 10/1/2024
Generated with Scenario 1: 1 AM Existing
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) [Caltrans] Related Bristol, Santa Ana Intersection Settings
Located in CBD No
Signal Coordination Group
Cycle Length [s]
Coordination Type
Actuation Type
Offset [s]
-
90 Time of Day Pattern Coordinated
Fully actuated

0.0 Lead Green - Beginning of First Green
SingleBand
Offset Reference
Permissive Mode
Lost time [s] 12.00
Phasing & Timing
Control Type
Signal Group
Permiss Permiss Unsigna Permiss Permiss Permiss Split
0 Permiss
0 Split
8 Split
0 Split
4 Overlap
0 6 0 0 2 0 4
Auxiliary Signal Groups
Lead / Lag
2,4
- -
0 - -
0 -
0 - -
0 -
0 -
0 -
6 -
0 -
Minimum Green [s] 10
Maximum Green [s]
Amber [s]
10 10 10
30 3.0

1.0 31

3.0 0
0 30 0 0 30 0 0 0 30

3.0 1.0
10 3.0
0 0 30

0.0 0.0
0 3.0

1.0 49

0.0 0.0
0 0.0

0.0 0

3.0 1.0
49 0.0

0.0 0

0.0 0.0
0 0.0

0.0 0

0.0 0.0
0 3.0

1.0 31
All red [s]
Split [s]
Vehicle Extension [s]
Walk [s]

0.0 0

3.0 7

0.0 0

3.0 7

0.0 0

3.0 0
Pedestrian Clearance [s]
Delayed Vehicle Green [s]
Rest In Walk
0 18 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0
No

2.0 2.0
No
No
No

0.0 0.0

1.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
No

2.0 2.0
No
No
No

0.0 0.0

1.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
No

2.0 2.0
No
No
No

0.0 0.0

1.00 0.0 0.0
No

2.0 2.0
No
No
No

0.0 0.0

1.00 0.0
l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
Minimum Recall

0.0 0.0

2.0 2.0
No
Maximum Recall
Pedestrian Recall
Detector Location [ft]
Detector Length [ft]
I, Upstream Filtering Factor
No
No

0.0 0.0

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
Pedestrian Signal Group
Pedestrian Walk [s]
0 0
Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
City Council 26 – 618 10/1/2024
Generated with Scenario 1: 1 AM Existing
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) [Caltrans] Related Bristol, Santa Ana Lane Group Calculations
Lane Group
C, Cycle Length [s]

C C C R L C C R
90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
g / C, Green / Cycle

4.00 0.00

2.00 64

4.00 0.00

2.00 64

4.00 0.00

2.00 64

4.00 0.00

2.00 4

4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
10 10 10 78

0.71 0.25
6434
4590

4.92 0.50

1.00 0.21

0.00 1.00

1.00 0.71

0.26 6434
4590

5.03 0.50

1.00 0.23

0.00 1.00

1.00 0.71

0.24 1765
1259

4.87 0.50

1.00 0.73

0.00 1.00

1.00 0.04

0.01 2665
109

42.00 0.11

1.00 1.76

0.00 1.00

1.00 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.87

0.04 0.04 0.04 0.27
1687 1696 1612 2665
(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
c, Capacity [veh/h] 190 191 181 2320
d1, Uniform Delay [s] 36.96 36.96 37.11 1.03

0.11 0.11 0.11 0.50

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.15 1.14 1.40 0.35

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
k, delay calibration
I, Upstream Filtering Factor
d2, Incremental Delay [s]
d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
Rp, platoon ratio
PF, progression factor
Lane Group Results
X, volume / capacity
d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
Lane Group LOS

0.35 5.14
A

0.37 5.26
A

0.34 5.60
A

0.33 43.76
D

0.36 0.36 0.40 0.31

38.10 38.10 38.51 1.38

D D D A
Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No No Yes No
50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

2.34 58.39

4.20 105.10

2.53 63.29

4.56 113.93

2.64 65.92

4.75 118.65

0.41 10.30

0.74 18.54

1.44 1.45 1.52 0.28

35.97 36.14 38.08 6.98

2.59 2.60 2.74 0.50

64.74 65.05 68.55 12.56
City Council 26 – 619 10/1/2024
Generated with Scenario 1: 1 AM Existing
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) [Caltrans] Related Bristol, Santa Ana Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
Movement LOS

0.00 5.14
A

0.00 0.00 5.33
A

5.60 A

0.00 0.00 43.76
D

38.10 D

38.47 D

1.38 A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
Approach LOS

5.14 A

5.33 A

43.76 D

9.71 A
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
Intersection LOS

6.42 A
Intersection V/C 0.372
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]
M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]
d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]

0.0 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.000
F

0.0 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.000
F

11.0 0.00

0.00 34.68

2.161
B

11.0 0.00

0.00 34.68

2.603
B
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection
Crosswalk LOS
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane
c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]
d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]
2000
1000

11.26 2.221
B
2000
1000

11.26 2.262
B
2000
133
2000
600

39.21 1.560
A

22.06 2.323
B
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection
Bicycle LOS
Sequence
Ring 1
Ring 2
Ring 3
Ring 4
-
-
-
-
2 6
-
4 -
8 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - -
City Council 26 – 620 10/1/2024
Generated with Scenario 2: 2 PM Existing
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) [Caltrans] Related Bristol, Santa Ana Intersection Level Of Service Report
Intersection 30: Bristol Street at I-405 NB Ramps
Control Type:

Analysis Method:

Analysis Period:

Signalized
HCM 7th Edition
15 minutes
Delay (sec / veh):

Level Of Service:

Volume to Capacity (v/c):

14.9 B

0.679
Intersection Setup
Name Bristol Street Bristol Street
Southbound
I-405 NB Ramps
Eastbound
I-405 NB Ramps
Approach Northbound Westbound
Lane Configuration
Turning Movement
Lane Width [ft]
Left

12.00 0
Thru

12.00 0
Right

12.00 1
Left

12.00 0
Thru

12.00 0
Right

12.00 0
Left

12.00 0
Thru

12.00 0
Right

12.00 1
Left Thru

12.00 0
Right

12.00 1

0.00 0.00

30.00 0.00
No

0.00 0.00 0.00

30.00 0.00
No

0.00 0.00 0.00

30.00 0.00
No

0.00 0.00 0.00

30.00 0.00
No

0.00 Grade [%]
Curb Present
Crosswalk No No Yes Yes
City Council 26 – 621 10/1/2024
Generated with Scenario 2: 2 PM Existing
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) [Caltrans] Related Bristol, Santa Ana Volumes
Name Bristol Street
2115
Bristol Street
2169
I-405 NB Ramps
196
I-405 NB Ramps
Base Volume Input [veh/h] 361 309 1196
Base Volume Adjustment Factor
Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
Proportion of CAVs [%]
0 185 0 20 0 0

1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

0.00 Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
Diverted Trips [veh/h]
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0
Other Volume [veh/h]
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2115 185 2169 20 196 361 309 1196
Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 0.9540 0.9540 1.0000 0.9540 0.9540 1.0000 1.0000 0.9540 0.9540 0.9540 0.9540 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
Presence of On-Street Parking
On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m
v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi
v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0 0
554 48
194
No
0 0
0 568 5
21 No
0 0
0 0
0 51
205
No
0 95
378
No
0 81 313
1254
No
0 2217 2274 324
No
0 No
0 No
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
City Council 26 – 622 10/1/2024
Generated with Scenario 2: 2 PM Existing
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) [Caltrans] Related Bristol, Santa Ana Intersection Settings
Located in CBD No
Signal Coordination Group
Cycle Length [s]
Coordination Type
Actuation Type
Offset [s]
-
90 Time of Day Pattern Coordinated
Fully actuated

1.0 22

3.0 0
0 30 0 0 30 0 0 0 30

3.0 1.0
37 3.0
0 0 30

0.0 0.0
0 3.0

1.0 31

0.0 0.0
0 0.0

0.0 0

3.0 1.0
31 0.0

0.0 0

0.0 0.0
0 0.0

0.0 0

0.0 0.0
0 3.0

1.0 22
All red [s]
Split [s]
Vehicle Extension [s]
Walk [s]

0.0 0

3.0 7

0.0 0

3.0 7

0.0 0

3.0 0
Pedestrian Clearance [s]
Delayed Vehicle Green [s]
Rest In Walk
0 18 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0
No

2.0 2.0
No
No
No

0.0 0.0

1.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
No

2.0 2.0
No
No
No

0.0 0.0

1.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
No

2.0 2.0
No
No
No

0.0 0.0

1.00 0.0 0.0
No

2.0 2.0
No
No
No

0.0 0.0

1.00 0.0
l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
Minimum Recall

0.0 0.0

2.0 2.0
No
Maximum Recall
Pedestrian Recall
Detector Location [ft]
Detector Length [ft]
I, Upstream Filtering Factor
No
No

0.0 0.0

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
Pedestrian Signal Group
Pedestrian Walk [s]
0 0
Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
City Council 26 – 623 10/1/2024
Generated with Scenario 2: 2 PM Existing
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) [Caltrans] Related Bristol, Santa Ana Lane Group Calculations
Lane Group
C, Cycle Length [s]

C C C R L C C R
90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
g / C, Green / Cycle

4.00 0.00

2.00 51

4.00 0.00

2.00 51

4.00 0.00

2.00 51

4.00 0.00

2.00 9

4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
18 18 18 73

0.56 0.34
6434
3626

13.09 0.50

1.00 0.78

0.00 1.00

1.00 0.56

0.29 6434
3626

12.01 0.50

1.00 0.51

0.00 1.00

1.00 0.56

0.26 1757
990

0.10 0.08
2665
275

39.25 0.11

1.00 4.01

0.00 1.00

1.00 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.81

0.14 0.14 0.15 0.47
1687 1719 1612 2665
(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
c, Capacity [veh/h] 338 344 323 2154
d1, Uniform Delay [s] 11.61

0.50 1.00

1.56 0.00

1.00 1.00

33.46 33.37 33.72 3.13

0.11 0.11 0.11 0.50

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

2.55 2.37 3.11 1.16

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.61 13.87
B

0.51 12.51
B

0.46 13.17
B

0.75 43.26
D

0.69 0.68 0.73 0.58

36.02 35.73 36.82 4.29

D D D A
Critical Lane Group No No No Yes No No Yes Yes
50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

6.96 5.27
131.63

9.03 225.70

5.40 134.96

9.21 230.22

2.33 58.14

4.19 104.65

4.90 4.87 4.97 2.60
122.4 121.7 124.2 64.95

8.53 8.49 8.63 4.68
213.1 212.2 215.6 116.9
173.98

11.29 282.15
City Council 26 – 624 10/1/2024
Generated with Scenario 2: 2 PM Existing
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) [Caltrans] Related Bristol, Santa Ana Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
Movement LOS

0.00 13.87
B

0.00 0.00 12.64
B

13.17 B

0.00 0.00 43.26
D

36.02 D

36.52 D

4.29 A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
Approach LOS

13.87 B

12.65 B

43.26 D

15.74 B
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
Intersection LOS

14.90 B
Intersection V/C 0.679
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]
M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]
d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]

0.0 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.000
F

0.0 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.000
F

11.0 0.00

0.00 34.70

2.265
B

11.0 0.00

0.00 34.70

2.770
C
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection
Crosswalk LOS
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane
c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]
d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]
2000
600
2000
600
2000
733
2000
400

22.07 2.474
B

22.07 2.317
B

18.07 1.560
A

28.82 3.173
C
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection
Bicycle LOS
Sequence
Ring 1
Ring 2
Ring 3
Ring 4
-
-
-
-
2 6
-
4 -
8 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - -
City Council 26 – 625 10/1/2024

ATTACHMENT I-II

EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
1900 BASE SATURATION FLOW RATE
City Council 26 – 626 10/1/2024
Generated with Scenario 1: 1 AM Existing
Version 2022 (SP 0-8) [Caltrans] Related Bristol, Santa Ana Intersection Level Of Service Report
Intersection 30: Bristol Street at I-405 NB Ramps
Control Type:

Analysis Method:

Analysis Period:

Signalized
HCM 7th Edition
15 minutes
Delay (sec / veh):

Level Of Service:

Volume to Capacity (v/c):

6.3 A

0.353
Intersection Setup
Name Bristol Street Bristol Street
Southbound
I-405 NB Ramps
Eastbound
I-405 NB Ramps
Approach Northbound Westbound
Lane Configuration
Turning Movement
Lane Width [ft]
Left

12.00 0
Thru

12.00 0
Right

12.00 1
Left

12.00 0
Thru

12.00 0
Right

12.00 0
Left

12.00 0
Thru

12.00 0
Right

12.00 1
Left Thru

12.00 0
Right

12.00 1

0.00 0.00

30.00 0.00
No

0.00 0.00 0.00

30.00 0.00
No

0.00 0.00 0.00

30.00 0.00
No

0.00 0.00 0.00

30.00 0.00
No

0.00 Grade [%]
Curb Present
Crosswalk No No Yes Yes
City Council 26 – 627 10/1/2024
Generated with Scenario 1: 1 AM Existing
Version 2022 (SP 0-8) [Caltrans] Related Bristol, Santa Ana Volumes
Name Bristol Street
1504
Bristol Street
1987
I-405 NB Ramps I-405 NB Ramps
Base Volume Input [veh/h] 122 74 672
Base Volume Adjustment Factor
Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
Proportion of CAVs [%]
0 193 0 8 0 0 34

1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

0.00 Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
8 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h]
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
Other Volume [veh/h]
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1504 193 1987 34 122 74 672
Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 0.9380 0.9380 1.0000 0.9380 0.9380 1.0000 1.0000 0.9380 0.9380 0.9380 0.9380 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
Presence of On-Street Parking
On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m
v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi
v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0 0
401 51
206
No
0 0
0 530 2
9 0
0 0
0 9
36 No
0 33
130
No
0 20
79 179
716
No
0 1603 2118
No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
City Council 26 – 628 10/1/2024
Generated with Scenario 1: 1 AM Existing
Version 2022 (SP 0-8) [Caltrans] Related Bristol, Santa Ana Intersection Settings
Located in CBD No
Signal Coordination Group
Cycle Length [s]
Coordination Type
Actuation Type
Offset [s]
-
90 Time of Day Pattern Coordinated
Fully actuated

1.0 51

3.0 0
0 30 0 0 30 0 0 0 30

3.0 1.0
10 3.0
0 0 30

0.0 0.0
0 3.0

1.0 29

0.0 0.0
0 0.0

0.0 0

3.0 1.0
29 0.0

0.0 0

0.0 0.0
0 0.0

0.0 0

0.0 0.0
0 3.0

1.0 51
All red [s]
Split [s]
Vehicle Extension [s]
Walk [s]

0.0 0

3.0 7

0.0 0

3.0 7

0.0 0

3.0 0
Pedestrian Clearance [s]
Delayed Vehicle Green [s]
Rest In Walk
0 18 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0
No

2.0 2.0
No
No
No

0.0 0.0

1.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
No

2.0 2.0
No
No
No

0.0 0.0

1.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
No

2.0 2.0
No
No
No

0.0 0.0

1.00 0.0 0.0
No

2.0 2.0
No
No
No

0.0 0.0

1.00 0.0
l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
Minimum Recall

0.0 0.0

2.0 2.0
No
Maximum Recall
Pedestrian Recall
Detector Location [ft]
Detector Length [ft]
I, Upstream Filtering Factor
No
No

0.0 0.0

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
Pedestrian Signal Group
Pedestrian Walk [s]
0 0
Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
City Council 26 – 629 10/1/2024
Generated with Scenario 1: 1 AM Existing
Version 2022 (SP 0-8) [Caltrans] Related Bristol, Santa Ana Lane Group Calculations
Lane Group
C, Cycle Length [s]

C C C R L C C R
90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
g / C, Green / Cycle

4.00 0.00

2.00 64

4.00 0.00

2.00 64

4.00 0.00

2.00 64

4.00 0.00

2.00 4

4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
10 10 10 78

0.71 0.24
6792
4846

4.84 0.50

1.00 0.18

0.00 1.00

1.00 0.71

0.25 6792
4846

4.93 0.50

1.00 0.20

0.00 1.00

1.00 0.71

0.23 1863
1329

4.79 0.50

1.00 0.64

0.00 1.00

1.00 0.04

0.01 2813
115

41.96 0.11

1.00 1.54

0.00 1.00

1.00 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.87

0.04 0.04 0.04 0.25
1781 1790 1702 2813
(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
c, Capacity [veh/h] 200 201 191 2449
d1, Uniform Delay [s] 36.89 36.89 37.03 1.01

0.11 0.11 0.11 0.50

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.22 0.30

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.33 5.02
A

0.35 5.13
A

0.32 5.42
A

0.31 43.51
D

0.34 0.34 0.38 0.29

37.89 37.89 38.25 1.32

2.29 57.26

4.12 103.07

2.48 61.98

4.46 111.56

2.58 64.43

4.64 115.97

0.41 10.24

0.74 18.43

1.43 1.44 1.51 0.27

35.78 35.95 37.85 6.69

2.58 2.59 2.73 0.48

64.40 64.70 68.13 12.05
City Council 26 – 630 10/1/2024
Generated with Scenario 1: 1 AM Existing
Version 2022 (SP 0-8) [Caltrans] Related Bristol, Santa Ana Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
Movement LOS

0.00 5.02
A

0.00 0.00 5.19
A

5.42 A

0.00 0.00 43.51
D

37.89 D

38.22 D

1.32 A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
Approach LOS

5.02 A

5.19 A

43.51 D

9.61 A
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
Intersection LOS

6.30 A
Intersection V/C 0.353
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]
M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]
d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]

0.0 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.000
F

0.0 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.000
F

11.0 0.00

0.00 34.68

2.161
B

11.0 0.00

0.00 34.68

2.603
B
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection
Crosswalk LOS
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane
c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]
d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]
2000
555
2000
555
2000
133
2000
1044

10.28 2.323
B

23.48 2.221
B

23.48 2.262
B

39.21 1.560
A
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection
Bicycle LOS
Sequence
Ring 1
Ring 2
Ring 3
Ring 4
-
-
-
-
2 6
-
4 -
8 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - -
City Council 26 – 631 10/1/2024
Generated with Scenario 2: 2 PM Existing
Version 2022 (SP 0-8) [Caltrans] Related Bristol, Santa Ana Intersection Level Of Service Report
Intersection 30: Bristol Street at I-405 NB Ramps
Control Type:

Analysis Method:

Analysis Period:

Signalized
HCM 7th Edition
15 minutes
Delay (sec / veh):

Level Of Service:

Volume to Capacity (v/c):

13.9 B

0.650
Intersection Setup
Name Bristol Street Bristol Street
Southbound
I-405 NB Ramps
Eastbound
I-405 NB Ramps
Approach Northbound Westbound
Lane Configuration
Turning Movement
Lane Width [ft]
Left

12.00 0
Thru

12.00 0
Right

12.00 1
Left

12.00 0
Thru

12.00 0
Right

12.00 0
Left

12.00 0
Thru

12.00 0
Right

12.00 1
Left Thru

12.00 0
Right

12.00 1

0.00 0.00

30.00 0.00
No

0.00 0.00 0.00

30.00 0.00
No

0.00 0.00 0.00

30.00 0.00
No

0.00 0.00 0.00

30.00 0.00
No

0.00 Grade [%]
Curb Present
Crosswalk No No Yes Yes
City Council 26 – 632 10/1/2024
Generated with Scenario 2: 2 PM Existing
Version 2022 (SP 0-8) [Caltrans] Related Bristol, Santa Ana Volumes
Name Bristol Street
2115
Bristol Street
2169
I-405 NB Ramps
196
I-405 NB Ramps
Base Volume Input [veh/h] 361 309 1196
Base Volume Adjustment Factor
Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
Proportion of CAVs [%]
0 185 0 20 0 0

1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

0.00 Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
Diverted Trips [veh/h]
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0
Other Volume [veh/h]
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2115 185 2169 20 196 361 309 1196
Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 0.9540 0.9540 1.0000 0.9540 0.9540 1.0000 1.0000 0.9540 0.9540 0.9540 0.9540 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
Presence of On-Street Parking
On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m
v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi
v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0 0
554 48
194
No
0 0
0 568 5
21 No
0 0
0 0
0 51
205
No
0 95
378
No
0 81 313
1254
No
0 2217 2274 324
No
0 No
0 No
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
City Council 26 – 633 10/1/2024
Generated with Scenario 2: 2 PM Existing
Version 2022 (SP 0-8) [Caltrans] Related Bristol, Santa Ana Intersection Settings
Located in CBD No
Signal Coordination Group
Cycle Length [s]
Coordination Type
Actuation Type
Offset [s]
-
90 Time of Day Pattern Coordinated
Fully actuated

1.0 21

3.0 0
0 30 0 0 30 0 0 0 30

3.0 1.0
40 3.0
0 0 30

0.0 0.0
0 3.0

1.0 29

0.0 0.0
0 0.0

0.0 0

3.0 1.0
29 0.0

0.0 0

0.0 0.0
0 0.0

0.0 0

0.0 0.0
0 3.0

1.0 21
All red [s]
Split [s]
Vehicle Extension [s]
Walk [s]

0.0 0

3.0 7

0.0 0

3.0 7

0.0 0

3.0 0
Pedestrian Clearance [s]
Delayed Vehicle Green [s]
Rest In Walk
0 18 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0
No

2.0 2.0
No
No
No

0.0 0.0

1.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
No

2.0 2.0
No
No
No

0.0 0.0

1.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
No

2.0 2.0
No
No
No

0.0 0.0

1.00 0.0 0.0
No

2.0 2.0
No
No
No

0.0 0.0

1.00 0.0
l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
Minimum Recall

0.0 0.0

2.0 2.0
No
Maximum Recall
Pedestrian Recall
Detector Location [ft]
Detector Length [ft]
I, Upstream Filtering Factor
No
No

0.0 0.0

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
Pedestrian Signal Group
Pedestrian Walk [s]
0 0
Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
City Council 26 – 634 10/1/2024
Generated with Scenario 2: 2 PM Existing
Version 2022 (SP 0-8) [Caltrans] Related Bristol, Santa Ana Lane Group Calculations
Lane Group
C, Cycle Length [s]

C C C R L C C R
90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
g / C, Green / Cycle

4.00 0.00

2.00 52

4.00 0.00

2.00 52

4.00 0.00

2.00 52

4.00 0.00

2.00 9

4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
17 17 17 73

0.58 0.33
6792
3951

11.70 0.50

1.00 0.58

0.00 1.00

1.00 0.58

0.27 6792
3951

10.80 0.50

1.00 0.39

0.00 1.00

1.00 0.58

0.25 1855
1079

10.47 0.50

1.00 1.23

0.00 1.00

1.00 0.10

0.07 2813
278

39.45 0.11

1.00 3.83

0.00 1.00

1.00 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.81

0.13 0.13 0.14 0.45
1781 1814 1702 2813
(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
c, Capacity [veh/h] 332 338 317 2286
d1, Uniform Delay [s] 34.31 34.22 34.55 2.86

0.11 0.11 0.11 0.50

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

2.74 2.54 3.35 0.95

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.56 12.28
B

0.46 11.19
B

0.43 11.70
B

0.74 43.29
D

0.70 0.69 0.74 0.55

37.05 36.75 37.91 3.81

6.38 4.86
121.52

8.48 211.91

4.98 124.41

8.63 215.87

2.32 58.04

4.18 104.48

4.96 4.93 5.04 2.34
124.0 123.3 125.9 58.38

8.61 8.58 8.72 4.20
215.3 214.3 217.9 105.0
159.40

10.52 262.92
City Council 26 – 635 10/1/2024
Generated with Scenario 2: 2 PM Existing
Version 2022 (SP 0-8) [Caltrans] Related Bristol, Santa Ana Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
Movement LOS

0.00 12.28
B

0.00 0.00 11.29
B

11.70 B

0.00 0.00 43.29
D

37.05 D

37.59 D

3.81 A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
Approach LOS

12.28 B

11.29 B

43.29 D

15.81 B
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
Intersection LOS

13.93 B
Intersection V/C 0.650
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]
M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]
d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]

0.0 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.000
F

0.0 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.000
F

11.0 0.00

0.00 34.68

2.265
B

11.0 0.00

0.00 34.68

23.48 2.474
B

23.48 2.317
B

16.21 1.560
A

29.62 3.173
C
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection
Bicycle LOS
Sequence
Ring 1
Ring 2
Ring 3
Ring 4
-
-
-
-
2 6
-
4 -
8 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - -
City Council 26 – 636 10/1/2024
Date: August 9, 2024
Prepared by: Meaghan Truman, Associate Environmental Planner III To: Ali Pezeshkpour, [email protected]
Site: Related Bristol Specific Plan Project
Subject: Late Comment Letters on the DEIR for the Related Bristol Specific Plan Project Received before August 10, 2024 (SCH No. 2020029087)
Dear Mr. Pezeshkpour,
The 45-day public comment period for the SEIR of the Related Bristol Specific Plan Project began July 6, 2023, and ended on August 21, 2023, as documented on the City’s website, the Orange County Clerk’s website, and State Clearinghouse.

Under CEQA, a lead agency is required to consider comments on the Draft SEIR and to prepare written responses, if a comment is received within the public comment period. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d); CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.) When a comment letter is received after the close of the public comment period, however, a lead agency does not have an obligation to respond. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d)(1); Pub. Resources Code, § 21092.5, subd. (c)(“Nothing in this section requires the lead agency to respond to comments not received within the comment periods specified in this division, to reopen comment periods, or to delay acting on a negative declaration or environmental impact report.”).) Although a lead agency is not required to respond to late comments, it may choose to do so. (Gray v.

County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 1099, 1110 (Gray), citing Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d)(1); CEQA Guidelines, § 15088; Gilroy Citizens for Responsible Planning v. City of Gilroy (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 911, 925, fn. 10 (Gilroy Citizens)).

The three letters were received by the City of Santa Ana after the 45-day public comment period for the Draft SEIR ended on August 21, 2023. However, the City of Santa Ana has elected to prepare the following written responses with the intent of conducting a comprehensive and meaningful evaluation of the proposed Project. The number designations in the responses are correlated to the bracketed and identified portions in the comment letter. EPD Solutions, Inc. has reviewed the letter and provided responses for the Lead Agency’s consideration in review of the Related Bristol Specific Plan Project at the August 12, 2024, Planning Commission Hearing. As further detailed in the individual responses to comments below, none of the comments indicate that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that would not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. No new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, there is no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, no feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would lessen the environmental impacts of the Project, and the Draft and Final SEIR are not fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature.

Please find the letter and response to comments attached.

Respectfully,
Meaghan Truman
1 City Council 26 – 637 10/1/2024
Letter L1: Doris Rodriguez (1 page) Late Comment letter 2 City Council 26 – 638 10/1/2024
Response to Letter L1: Doris Rodriguez, dated August 7, 2024 This comment letter was received after the public review and comment period ended (July 6, 2023, through August 23, 2023). As stated in Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, Lead Agencies are not required to respond to letters received outside of the noticed comment period. However, the following responses have been prepared to provide clarity regarding the environmental concerns that have been raised.

Comment L1.1: This comment expresses a concern for traffic congestion in the area due to buildout of the proposed Project. The comment also states that the noise, traffic, and air quality impacts would affect the quality of life for nearby residents.

Response L1.1: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR. Environmental topics related to the quality of life for City residents have been evaluated throughout the SEIR in sections that include: Section 5.1 Air Quality, Section 5.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Section 5.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Section 5.9 Noise, Section 5.10 Population and Housing, Section 5.11 Public Services, Section 5.13 Transportation, and Section 5.15 Utilities and Service Systems. As discussed in Section 5.1 Air Quality, the Project would result in a less than significant localized significance and health risk impact to the nearest sensitive receptors located 130 feet west of the Project site throughout all phases of development with the implementation of General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 as well as Project Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-6. In addition, as discussed in Section 5.9 Noise, noise impacts to the nearest sensitive receptors located 130 feet west of the Project site would be less than significant throughout all phases of development and full buildout of the Specific Plan.

Therefore, the Project would not result in significant air quality or noise impacts on nearby residents.

Regarding traffic remediation, Figure 3-12, Proposed Circulation Plan, in the Draft SEIR, the Project includes multiple circulation improvements to connect the proposed redevelopment of the site to the existing circulation system adjacent to the site in a manner that would implement efficient multi-modal circulation to, from, and within the Project site, including pedestrian circulation, bicycle lanes, bus stop improvements within the High Quality Transit Area. Draft Supplemental EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, details various roadway improvements that would be implemented as part of the Project to improve the existing roadways and provide for the increased vehicular volume from the Project site. In addition, each future proposed development under the currently proposed Specific Plan Project will be reviewed through the City’s development review and permitting process for consistency with the approved Specific Plan and SEIR. This review would include VMT screening assessment and a focused traffic study to confirm consistency with the transportation findings made as a part of the Related Bristol Specific Plan SEIR, VMT screening assessment, and TIA.
3 City Council 26 – 639 10/1/2024
Letter L2: Les Goldberg (2 pages) Late Comment letter
4 City Council 26 – 640 10/1/2024
5 City Council 26 – 641 10/1/2024
Response to Letter L2: Les Goldberg, dated August 7, 2024 This comment letter was received after the public review and comment period ended (July 6, 2023, through August 23, 2023). As stated in Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, Lead Agencies are not required to respond to letters received outside of the noticed comment period. However, the following responses have been prepared to provide clarity regarding the environmental concerns that have been raised.

Comment L2.1: This comment states that the City should not be developing in an already developed area, and the City should focus on developing in impoverished areas, solving the homeless crisis, and creating affordable housing. The comment concludes by asking whether the rent for the proposed residential units would be affordable.

Response L2.1: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

The Project site has been designated as a District Center by the City of Santa Ana General Plan where intense mixed-use development is encouraged. As discussed in Section 5.8 Land Use and Planning, of the Draft SEIR, the proposed Project would be consistent with its General Plan designation. The proposed Project would provide housing proximate to local employment centers, commercial retail services and restaurants for onsite residents and employees working nearby. In addition, the proposed Project would provide onsite open space and recreation activities that would integrate into the existing communities around the site. Thus, the redevelopment of the site and change to the area has been planned for by the City.

In regard to the provision of affordable units by the Project, the proposed Specific Plan does not include specific requirements for affordable units. However, the proposed Project would result in a residential density of 91 du/ac, which would allow the potential for each proposed residential or mixed-use development to include affordable residential units. Section 3.6 of the proposed Specific Plan describes that the City of Santa Ana has established an Affordable Housing Opportunity and Creation Ordinance (AHOCO) to encourage the development of housing that is affordable to a range of households with varying income levels. The Ordinance is applicable to new residential projects within the Specific Plan area that meet certain criteria. As implementing projects in the Specific Plan area are submitted to the City for review, they would be required to comply with the City’s AHOCO or the Project’s Development Agreement when approved. In addition, affordable housing is an economic and social issue. CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). The Project’s potential economic and social effects are not considered effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15131(a)). Thus, consistent with CEQA, the Draft Supplemental EIR includes an analysis of the Project’s potentially significant physical impacts on the environment and does not include substantial discussion of the Project’s economic or social effects. Because no environmental impacts related to affordable housing would occur, mitigation measures are not required.
6 City Council 26 – 642 10/1/2024
Letter L3: Tammy Frias (3 Pages) Late Comment Letter
7 City Council 26 – 643 10/1/2024
8 City Council 26 – 644 10/1/2024
9 City Council 26 – 645 10/1/2024
10 City Council 26 – 646 10/1/2024
Response to Letter L3: Tammy Frias dated August 7, 2024 and August 8,2024 This comment letter was received after the public review and comment period ended (July 6, 2023, through August 23, 2023). As stated in Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, Lead Agencies are not required to respond to letters received outside of the noticed comment period. However, the following responses have been prepared to provide clarity regarding the environmental concerns that have been raised.

Comment L3.1: This comment states that the Ward 4 South Coast Metro Neighborhood leaders would like added benefits to the proposed Project which includes the undergrounding utility transmission lines surrounding the Project site, a full-service grocery store within the Project site, and several roadway improvements to the surrounding area.

Response to Comment L3.1: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft Supplemental EIR or requirements of the proposed Specific Plan. Regarding roadway improvements, Figure 3-12, Proposed Circulation Plan, in the Draft SEIR, the Project includes multiple circulation improvements to connect the proposed redevelopment of the site to the existing circulation system adjacent to the site in a manner that would implement efficient multi-modal circulation to, from, and within the Project site, including pedestrian circulation, bicycle lanes, bus stop improvements within the High Quality Transit Area. Draft Supplemental EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, details various roadway improvements that would be implemented as part of the Project to improve the existing roadways and provide for the increased vehicular volume from the Project site. In addition, each future proposed development under the currently proposed Specific Plan Project will be reviewed through the City’s development review and permitting process for consistency with the approved Specific Plan and SEIR.

The Draft SEIR was prepared pursuant to CEQA Statute and the CEQA Guidelines in order to provide a meaningful discussion of the proposed Project and its resulting potential environmental impacts as a means of public disclosure. Thus, no further response is required or provided; however, this comment will be forwarded to all decision makers as part of the Staff Report for the Project.

Comment L3.2: This comment expresses concern over the potential traffic increase along Bristol Street with implementation of the proposed Project and the proposed Segerstrom development. The commenter concludes that instead of adding bike lanes in front of the Project site, Bristol Street should be widened.

Response to Comment L3.2: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact. As detailed in Draft SEIR Section 5. 13 Transportation, Senate Bill (SB) 743 changes include the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant impacts. As part of the 2019 amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines, SB 743 directed that the revised CEQA Guidelines “shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][1]); and that “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][2]). As such, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(2), the Supplemental EIR focuses on analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) criteria and improvements to the circulation system along the Project’s frontage to accommodate buildout of the proposed Project, pursuant to the City’s recent General Plan Update. Further yet, the SEIR is not required to analyze impacts related to traffic congestion. Nevertheless, a Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the Project and is publicly available on the City’s Project website.

The commenter incorrectly states that the implementation of bike lanes would only be in front of the Project site and would not connect to any existing bike lanes along Bristol Street. As discussed in Table 5.13-1 of the Draft SEIR, Bristol Street contains Class II bike lanes on both sides of the street which continue from Sunflower Avenue to West Central Avenue to the north. In addition, as discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, further improvements to Bristol Street include new curb cuts, potential signalization of driveway between Callens Common and Sunflower Avenue, median improvements, and landscaped setbacks. 11 City Council 26 – 647 10/1/2024
Comment L3.3: This comment requests a lighted welcome sign to the South Coast Metro Area as well as a shuttle service for neighborhoods surrounding the Project site.

Response to Comment L3.3: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft Supplemental EIR or requirements of the proposed Specific Plan. The Draft SEIR was prepared pursuant to CEQA Statute and the CEQA Guidelines in order to provide a meaningful discussion of the proposed Project and its resulting potential environmental impacts as a means of public disclosure. Thus, no further response is required or provided; however, this comment will be forwarded to all decision makers as part of the Staff Report for the Project.

Comment L3.4: This comment states that there is a lack of police presence, and more law enforcement would be needed to keep up with the proposed development.

Response to Comment L3.4: As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft SEIR, an administrative Police Department Substation (no transfers or bookings) would be located within the commercial use area of the Project site. The substation would provide space for the expansion of policing services in the southern portion of the City and would provide the ability to quickly respond to emergency calls from within the Project site. The specific location would be determined prior to construction of the first phase of the proposed Project. Also, in Section 5.11 Public Services, it describes that the proposed Project would address typical residential security concerns by providing low-intensity security lighting, security cameras, electronic access to buildings, and onsite security personnel. Pursuant to the City’s existing permitting process, the Police Department would review and approve the final site plans to ensure that the City’s Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) measures (General Plan Policy PS-2.1) are incorporated appropriately to provide a safe environment, including areas within parking garages. Thus, police staffing concerns were adequately addressed in the Draft SEIR.

Comment L3.5: This comment presents further provisions the commenter wishes to be included as part of the Project, including a name change for the South Coast Metro Community, a requirement of two parking spots per rental unit, a PAAL Program, Landscape/beautification, allowing rental apartments to be purchased, and a pedestrian walkway at the corner of Bristol Street and MacArthur Boulevard.

Response to Comment L3.5: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft Supplemental EIR or requirements of the proposed Specific Plan. The Draft SEIR was prepared pursuant to CEQA Statute and the CEQA Guidelines in order to provide a meaningful discussion of the proposed Project and its resulting potential environmental impacts as a means of public disclosure. Thus, no further response is required or provided; however, this comment will be forwarded to all decision makers as part of the Staff Report for the Project.

Comment L3.6: This comment concludes the letter by stating that the surrounding residents want a designated construction route, so construction vehicles avoid using MacArthur Boulevard to Bristol Street.

Response to Comment L3.6: As discussed in Section 5., Air Quality, proposed Specific Plan Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Construction Exhaust and Dust Control requires the preparation of a construction traffic control plan detailing the locations of equipment staging areas, material stockpiles, proposed road closures, and hours of construction operations, and designing the plan to minimize impacts to roads frequented by passenger cars, pedestrians, bicyclist, and other non-truck traffic. As such, the Project would be required to follow a designated construction route to avoid residential areas in the vicinity of the Project. Thus, no further response warranted.

Comment L3.7: The commenter wishes that at least 85-90% of the development agreement fund be used in the South Coast Metro Ward #4 neighborhoods. The comment also includes an attached letter.

Response L3.7: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft Supplemental EIR or requirements of the proposed Specific Plan. The Draft SEIR was prepared pursuant to CEQA Statute and the CEQA Guidelines in order to provide a meaningful discussion of the proposed Project and its resulting potential environmental impacts as a means of public disclosure. Thus, no 12 City Council 26 – 648 10/1/2024
further response is required or provided; however, this comment will be forwarded to all decision makers as part of the Staff Report for the Project. In addition, responses to the comments raised in the attached letter are provided above in Responses L3.1 through L3.6. 13 City Council 26 – 649 10/1/2024
Date: August 12, 2024
Prepared by: Meaghan Truman, Associate Environmental Planner III To: Ali Pezeshkpour, [email protected]
Site: Related Bristol Specific Plan Project
Subject: Late Comment Letters on the DEIR for the Related Bristol Specific Plan Project Received after August 10, 2024 (SCH No. 2020029087)
Dear Mr. Pezeshkpour,
The 45-day public comment period for the SEIR of the Related Bristol Specific Plan Project began July 6, 2023, and ended on August 21, 2023, as documented on the City’s website, the Orange County Clerk’s website, and State Clearinghouse.

Multiple letters for the Project, against the Project, or neutral letters were received by the City of Santa Ana after the 45-day public comment period for the Draft SEIR ended on August 21, 2023. However, the City of Santa Ana has elected to prepare the following written responses with the intent of conducting a comprehensive and meaningful evaluation of the proposed Project. The number designations in the responses are correlated to the bracketed and identified portions in the comment letter. EPD Solutions, Inc. has reviewed the letter and provided responses for the Lead Agency’s consideration in review of the Related Bristol Specific Plan Project at the August 12, 2024, Planning Commission Hearing. As further detailed in the individual responses to comments below, none of the comments indicate that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that would not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. No new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, there is no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, no feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would lessen the environmental impacts of the Project, and the Draft and Final SEIR are not fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature.

Please find the letter and response to comments attached.

Respectfully,
Meaghan Truman
1 City Council 26 – 650 10/1/2024
Letter L4: Katie Perez (1 page) Late Comment Letter
2 City Council 26 – 651 10/1/2024
Response to Letter L4: Katie Perez, dated August 10, 2024 Comment L4.1: This comment states that the commenter is dissatisfied with communications on the Project and found out about the hearing through a post on Nextdoor. The comment states that those who would be affected by the large increase in traffic should have been notified.

Response L4.1: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

As discussed on page 2-5 of the Draft Supplemental EIR in Section 2.0, Introduction, the City of Santa Ana held a scoping meeting for the proposed Project to solicit oral and written comments from the public and public agencies. The public scoping meeting was held on March 30, 2023. Comments received at the meeting are contained in Appendix A of the Draft Supplemental EIR. Additionally, the City of Santa Ana, as Lead Agency, prepared a NOP for the proposed Project, which was distributed to nearby businesses and residents within a 1000-foot radius of the Project site on March 17, 2023 for a 30-day public review and comment period that ended on April 17, 2023. The Draft Supplemental EIR was circulated for a 45- day public review period that allowed for public comments. Additionally, the Draft Supplemental EIR provides an accurate and thorough analysis of all of the Project’s potential environmental impacts pursuant to CEQA.

The Draft SEIR Section 5.13, Transportation, details that Senate Bill (SB) 743 changes include the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant impacts. As part of the 2019 amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines, SB 743 directed that the revised CEQA Guidelines “shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][1]); and that “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][2]). As such, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(2), the Supplemental EIR is not required to analyze impacts related to traffic congestion.

In addition, Policy M-1.4 from the City’s Mobility Element (as listed on page 5.13-3 of the Draft Supplemental EIR) states that the City intends to “maintain at least a vehicle level of service “D” for intersections of arterial streets, except in areas planned for high intensity development or traffic safety projects”. The Project site has a General Plan land use designation of District Center-High, which is intended for transit-oriented and high-density urban villages and mixed uses.

Comment L4.2: This comment states that crime is rising within the area, and there have been several accidents along Bristol Street which would increase due to the increase in traffic brought by the proposed project.

Response L4.2: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft SEIR, an administrative Police Department Substation (no transfers or bookings) would be located within the commercial use area of the Project site.

The commenter provides no substantial evidence regarding a traffic safety impact. As discussed on Draft SEIR page 5.13-11, the Project would include multiple circulation improvements to connect the proposed 3 City Council 26 – 652 10/1/2024
redevelopment of the site to the existing circulation system adjacent to the site, including installation of signals, where warranted, to ensure traffic safety. All of the proposed Project driveways, roadway improvements, and access designs would be required to meet the City’s traffic engineering design standards as a part of the City’s development review and permitting approval process.

Comment L4.3: This comment questions what the City would do with the homeless population that currently utilize the Project site.

Comment L4.3: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

Comment L4.4: This comment concludes the letter by stating that nobody in the area wants high rise apartment to be developed and that the community strongly opposes the proposed Project.

Comment L4.4: The comment does not provide any specific concerns regarding the environmental impacts or analysis associated with the proposed Project and merely provides their opinion that they oppose the Project. As such, no further response is warranted. This comment and responses will be forwarded to City decision makers as part of the Project’s staff report for their review and consideration. 4 City Council 26 – 653 10/1/2024
Letter L5: Huy Nguyen (2 pages) Late Comment Letter
5 City Council 26 – 654 10/1/2024
6 City Council 26 – 655 10/1/2024
Response to Letter L5: Huy Nguyen, dated August 10, 2024 Comment L5.1: This comment expresses concern about the vibration impacts from heavy machinery operating within the Project site and being transported along adjacent roads (specifically MacArthur Boulevard) during construction activity.

Response to Comment L5.1: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact. The Draft SEIR adequately describes potential vibration impacts associated with the use of heavy machinery and trucks on page 5.9-31 of the Draft SEIR. As discussed, truck vibration levels are dependent on vehicle characteristics, load, speed, and pavement conditions. However, typical vibration levels for heavy truck activity at normal traffic speeds would be approximately 0.006 in/sec PPV, based on the FTA Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment. Truck movements on site would be travelling at very low speed, so it is expected that truck vibration at nearby sensitive receivers would be less than the vibration threshold of 0.08 in/sec PPV for fragile historic buildings and 0.04 in/sec PPV for human annoyance, and therefore, would be less than significant.

Comment L5.2: This comment suggests that construction traffic would result in delays and increased traffic along adjacent roads. The commenter suggests an alternative construction route to avoid impacting residents along MacArthur Boulevard to reduce traffic congestion.

Response to Comment L5.2: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact. The Draft SEIR Section 5.13, Transportation, details that Senate Bill (SB) 743 changes include the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant impacts. As part of the 2019 amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines, SB 743 directed that the revised CEQA Guidelines “shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][1]); and that “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][2]). As such, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(2), the Supplemental EIR is not required to analyze impacts related to traffic congestion during construction.

As discussed in Section 5.1, Air Quality, proposed Specific Plan Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Construction Exhaust and Dust Control requires the preparation of a construction traffic control plan detailing the locations of equipment staging areas, material stockpiles, proposed road closures, and hours of construction operations, and designing the plan to minimize impacts to roads frequented by passenger cars, pedestrians, bicyclist, and other non-truck traffic. As such, the Project would be required to follow a designated construction route to avoid residential areas in the vicinity of the Project. 7 City Council 26 – 656 10/1/2024
Comment L6: Nathan Foss (1 page) Late Comment Letter
8 City Council 26 – 657 10/1/2024
Response to Comment L6: Nathan Floss, dated August 9, 2024 Comment L6.1: This comment expresses concern about new gas emissions and other hazardous airborne materials during construction of the proposed Project.

Response to Comment L6.1: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR. As discussed in Section 5.1 Air Quality of the Draft Supplemental EIR, emission impacts on nearby sensitive receptors would be mitigated to a less than significant level with the implementation of General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure AQ-1 which requires off-road construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower to meet CARB Teir 4 Final emissions standards as well as Project Specific Mitigation Measure AQ-2 which requires the proposed Project to use “Super Compliant” low VOC paints to reduce ROG emissions. In addition, the proposed Project would include Project Specific Mitigation Measure AQ-1 which would require the inclusion of construction exhaust and dust control measures to ensure that localized impacts on nearby sensitive receptors would be less than significant during the construction process.

Further, during construction, the Project would be required to adhere to SCAQMD Rules, such as SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soils, or other loose materials and watering of loose soil. Therefore, the Project would not result in hazardous airborne materials during construction. 9 City Council 26 – 658 10/1/2024
Letter L7: Josh Nelson (2 pages) Late Comment Letter
10 City Council 26 – 659 10/1/2024
11 City Council 26 – 660 10/1/2024
Response to Comment L7: Josh Nelson dated August 12, 2024 Comment L7.1: This comment states that the proposed Project is too dense and does not conform with the surrounding land uses. The commenter states that the large increase in population to the Project site would bring traffic issues and that an alternative site west of the freeway would better serve the proposed Project. The comment concludes by stating that a reduced density of 45 dwelling units per acre would be better suited for the Project site.

Response to Comment L7.1: The comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft SEIR or raise any other CEQA issue. The proposed Project is a Specific Plan that delineates the maximum buildout of the Specific Plan area. Future residential development projects may not include the maximum allowable number of residential units and would be reviewed through the City’s development review and permitting process. Further, it should be noted that the existing General Plan District Center High (DC-5) land use designation has an allowable density of 125 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), and the proposed development would result in a maximum density of 91 du/ac, which is 34 du/ac below the maximum allowed by DC-5.

Regarding the concern about the increased traffic that would result from the Project, the number of vehicle trips that would result from each phase of the Project is provided in Table 5.13-3, Proposed Project Trip Generation, of the Draft SEIR. As shown on Figure 3-12, Proposed Circulation Plan, the Related Bristol Specific Plan identifies multiple circulation improvements to connect the proposed redevelopment of the site to the existing circulation system adjacent to the site in a manner that would implement efficient multimodal circulation to, from, and within the Project site, including pedestrian circulation, bicycle lanes, bus stop improvements within the High Quality Transit Area. The Draft SEIR Section 5.13, Transportation, details that Senate Bill (SB) 743 changes include the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant impacts. As part of the 2019 amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines, SB 743 directed that the revised CEQA Guidelines “shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][1]); and that “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][2]). As such, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(2), the Supplemental EIR focuses on analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) criteria and improvements to the circulation system along the Project’s frontage to accommodate buildout of the proposed Project, pursuant to the City’s recent General Plan Update. However, the Supplemental EIR is not required to analyze impacts related to traffic congestion. Nevertheless, a TIA has been prepared for the Project and is publicly available on the Project’s website.

As discussed in Section 6.0 Alternatives, an Alternative site was considered but rejected as the Project objectives are to redevelop the Project site consistent with the objectives of the City’s GPU District CenterHigh (DC-5) land use designation and South Bristol Street Focus Area that includes new mixed-use development with housing in proximity to transit. In addition, due to the urban and built out nature of the City, development of 3,750 multi-family residential units, 350,000 SF of commercial uses, a 250 room hotel, and 200 senior living/continuum of care units on another 41.13-acre underutilized site at a different location would likely require demolition of existing structures, require similar mitigation, and have similar impacts as the proposed Project. It would be infeasible to develop and operate the proposed Project on an alternative site with fewer environmental impacts, while also implementing the City’s GPU. 12 City Council 26 – 661 10/1/2024
Letter L8: Susan Grasse (1 page) Late Comment Letter
13 City Council 26 – 662 10/1/2024
Response to Letter L8: Susan Grasse, dated August 11, 2024 This comment letter was received after the public review and comment period ended (July 6, 2023, through August 23, 2023). As stated in Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, Lead Agencies are not required to respond to letters received outside of the noticed comment period. However, the following responses have been prepared to provide clarity regarding the environmental concerns that have been raised.

Comment L8.1: This comment states that the commenter has several concerns regarding the proposed Project including security for patrons in the underground parking garage.

Response L8.1: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR. CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360).

The Project’s potential economic and social effects are not considered effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15131(a)). Thus, consistent with CEQA, the Draft SEIR includes an analysis of the Project’s potentially significant physical impacts on the environment and does not include substantial discussion of security within parking garages. However, as noted on page 5.11-12 of the Draft SEIR, the Project would include development of an administrative Police Department substation within the commercial use area. In addition, the Project would include low-intensity security lighting, security cameras, electronic access to residential buildings, and onsite security personnel. Therefore, adequate security for public patrons would be included within the Project.

Comment L8.2: This comment states that the commenter has concerns for student pedestrian safety and commuter traffic safety due to construction equipment along streets.

Response L8.2: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR. As required by Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the Project Applicant must prepare a construction traffic control plan detailing the locations of equipment staging areas, material stockpiles, proposed road closures, and hours of construction operations, and designing the plan to minimize impacts to roads frequented by passenger cars, pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-truck traffic. Therefore, the Project would not result in safety issues related to construction equipment conflicting with pedestrians or commuter vehicles.

Comment L8.3: This comment states that the commenter is concerned about solid and airborne debris from trucks.

Response L8.3: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR. During construction, the Project would be required to adhere to SCAQMD Rules, such as SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soils, or other loose materials. Therefore, the Project would not result in solid or airborne debris from construction truck travel.

Comment L8.4: This comment states that the commenter is concerned for handicapped accessibility for stores and restaurants during and after construction.

Response L8.4: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR. Issues related to parking and handicap accessibility are not a CEQA consideration. However, during construction phasing, the Project would provide adequate ADA parking stalls and handicap accessibility for buildings that remain open. During Project operation, the Project would provide adequate ADA parking stalls and paths of travel pursuant to California Building Code requirements.

Comment L8.5: This comment states the commenter is concerned about increased traffic on Sunflower Avenue from the hotel and apartments.
14 City Council 26 – 663 10/1/2024
Response L8.5: Draft SEIR Section 5.13 Transportation, details that Senate Bill (SB) 743 changes include the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant impacts. As part of the 2019 amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines, SB 743 directed that the revised CEQA Guidelines “shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][1]); and that “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][2]). As such, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(2), the SEIR focuses on analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) criteria and improvements to the circulation system along the Project’s frontage to accommodate buildout of the proposed Project, pursuant to the City’s recent General Plan Update. Further yet, the SEIR is not required to analyze impacts related to traffic congestion on Sunflower Avenue. Nevertheless, a Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the Project and is publicly available on the City’s Project website.

Comment L8.6: This comment states the commenter is concerned about physical impacts on residential buildings from heavy trucks traveling on City streets, such as broken or cracked windows.

Response L8.6: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR. The Draft SEIR adequately describes potential vibration impacts associated with the use of heavy machinery and trucks on page 5.9-31 of the Draft SEIR. As discussed, truck vibration levels are dependent on vehicle characteristics, load, speed, and pavement conditions. However, typical vibration levels for heavy truck activity at normal traffic speeds would be approximately 0.006 in/sec PPV, based on the FTA Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment. Truck movements on site would be travelling at very low speed, so it is expected that truck vibration at nearby sensitive receivers would be less than the vibration threshold of 0.08 in/sec PPV for fragile historic buildings and 0.04 in/sec PPV for human annoyance, and therefore, would be less than significant.

Comment L8.7: This comment states that the commenter is concerned about school transportation for elementary school children residing in present and future apartments.

Response L8.7: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR. CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360).

Comment L8.8: This comment states that the commenter is concerned about the loss of Vons for a higherend store.

Response L8.8: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR. CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360).

Comment L8.9: This comment states that the commenter is concerned about beautification of the area. 15 City Council 26 – 664 10/1/2024
Response L8.9: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR. CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360).

Comment L8.10: This comment states that the commenter is concerned about a community center onsite.

Response L8.10: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR. CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360).

The Project’s potential economic and social effects are not considered effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15131(a)). Thus, consistent with CEQA, the Draft SEIR includes an analysis of the Project’s potentially significant physical impacts on the environment and does not include discussion of a community center onsite. This comment will be forwarded to City decision makers as part of the staff report for the Project.
16 City Council 26 – 665 10/1/2024
Letter L9: Kelly Lumen (2 pages) Late Comment Letter
17 City Council 26 – 666 10/1/2024
18 City Council 26 – 667 10/1/2024
Response to Letter L9: Kelly Lumen, dated August 11, 2024 Comment L9.1: This comment states that the commenter is opposed to the zone change that would allow for mixed-use development and a hotel in Santa Ana and that the change would have significant negative impacts on the community that must be carefully considered.

Response L9.1: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR and is introductory in nature. Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the Draft and Final SEIR discussed all reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of the proposed Project, including effects on the surrounding community. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Comment L9.2: This comment states that the Project would likely displace existing local businesses, which could result in a loss of diversity in the commercial landscape, leading to economic instability.

Response L9.2: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR. CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360).

Comment L9.3: This comment states that this area of Santa Ana already experiences significant traffic and congestion issues and the Project will lead to longer commute times, increased pollution, and a general decline in quality of life for residents.

Response L9.3: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR. Draft SEIR Section 5.13 Transportation, details that Senate Bill (SB) 743 changes include the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant impacts. As part of the 2019 amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines, SB 743 directed that the revised CEQA Guidelines “shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][1]); and that “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][2]). As such, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(2), the SEIR focuses on analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) criteria and improvements to the circulation system along the Project’s frontage to accommodate buildout of the proposed Project, pursuant to the City’s recent General Plan Update. Further yet, the SEIR is not required to analyze impacts related to traffic congestion. Nevertheless, a Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the Project and is publicly available on the City’s Project website.

In regard to increased pollution, the Draft SEIR properly analyzed potential effects related to increased air quality emissions associated with the proposed Project. As discussed, emissions from operation of the proposed Project would exceed SCAQMD’s thresholds for NOx and ROG after implementation of existing regulations and mitigation. The majority of NOx emissions are from vehicles and the majority of ROG emissions would be derived from consumer products, neither of which the Project applicant nor the City have the ability to reduce emissions of. Therefore, both NOx and ROG emissions from implementation of the proposed Project would result in both a project level and a cumulatively considerable significant and unavoidable impact. Hence, Impacts AQ-1 and AQ-2 would be significant and unavoidable after mitigation. Impact AQ-3 would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation that requires CARB Tier 4 Final off-road construction equipment and construction exhaust and dust control, as detailed previously. Thus, impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations and incorporation of mitigation. 19 City Council 26 – 668 10/1/2024
Comment L9.4: This comment states that the strain on existing infrastructure is immense and there would be costly upgrades that the taxpayers would ultimately bear, including additional traffic lanes, larger sewer and water services, and electrical services. The comment states that traffic studies likely assume that the new residents would use public transportation or not commute at all, which is incorrect.

Response L9.4: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR. In regard to traffic analysis, the commenter is referred to Response L9.3. Regarding infrastructure improvements, as detailed within Draft SEIR Chapter 3, the Project would include multiple circulation improvements to surrounding roadways and utility improvements, such as sewer and water line upgrades. As described in Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft SEIR, the Project would not result in significant impacts related to utility improvements or existing service systems.

Comment L9.5: This comment states that the construction required for mixed-use and hotel developments poses serious environmental risks and there will be added pressure on City infrastructure, such as water, sewage, and waste management systems, which could lead to significant challenges in maintaining the quality of these services.

Response L9.5: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR, which included a thorough analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the construction of the Project. In regard to impacts on the infrastructure, such as water, sewage, and waste management services, the commenter is referred to Response L9.4 and the discussion within Section 5.15 of the Draft SEIR.

Comment L9.6: This comment states that one of the most concerning aspects of the development is the potential for gentrification and displacement or urban blight. The comment discusses that the shift towards catering towards tourists rather than local citizens could shift the fabric of the community. This comment states that if the Project is not successful, the hotel might become a source of inflow for unhoused individuals.

Response L9.6: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR. CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360).

Comment L9.7: This comment urges the Planning Commission to consider alternatives that support local business, enhance existing infrastructure, and protect community character. The comment states that investments in green spaces and public transportation would result in long term benefits and the commenter opposes the Project.

Response L9.7: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR and is conclusionary in nature. This comment will be forwarded to City decision makers as part of the staff report for the Project.
20 City Council 26 – 669 10/1/2024
Letter L10: Dorothy J. Wall (1 page) Late Comment Letter 21 City Council 26 – 670 10/1/2024
Response to Letter L10: Dorothy J. Wall, dated August 11, 2024 Comment L10.1: This comment states that the City Council does not have the interests of the community as their top priority and this Project is not in the best interest of the community. The comment states that Bristol Street is already a traffic nightmare. The comment provides a discussion of corruption, that the residents have not been consulted enough, and that communication has been horrible on the Project. The comment states that the Project will have a negative impact on neighborhoods, roads, schools, businesses, and quality of life and that the commenter shops a lot in the center and does not want that to change. This comment states that the commenter will request resignations if the Project goes through.

Response L10.1: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR. Draft SEIR Section 5.13 Transportation, details that Senate Bill (SB) 743 changes include the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant impacts. As part of the 2019 amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines, SB 743 directed that the revised CEQA Guidelines “shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][1]); and that “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][2]). As such, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(2), the SEIR focuses on analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) criteria and improvements to the circulation system along the Project’s frontage to accommodate buildout of the proposed Project, pursuant to the City’s recent General Plan Update. Further yet, the SEIR is not required to analyze impacts related to traffic congestion. Nevertheless, a Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the Project and is publicly available on the City’s Project website.

CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). The Project’s potential economic and social effects are not considered effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15131(a)). Thus, consistent with CEQA, the Draft SEIR includes an analysis of the Project’s potentially significant physical impacts on the environment and does not include discussion of community interests or general negative impacts on the community. This comment will be forwarded to City decision makers as part of the staff report for the Project. 22 City Council 26 – 671 10/1/2024
Letter L11: Ruya Urso (1 page) Late Comment Letter
23 City Council 26 – 672 10/1/2024
Response to Letter L11: Ruya Urso, dated August 11, 2024 Comment L11.1: This comment states that the commenter, the commenter’s husband, and the commenter’s daughter are opposed to the Project, and they will not be able to attend the hearing but would like to ensure their opposition is noted.

Response L11.1: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR. This comment will be forwarded to City decision makers as part of the staff report for the Project.
24 City Council 26 – 673 10/1/2024
Letter L12: Linda Genis (1 page) Late Comment Letter
25 City Council 26 – 674 10/1/2024
Response to Letter L12: Linda Genis, dated August 12, 2024 Comment L12.1: This comment states that there are too many units for the site and there could easily be more than 8,000 residents.

Response L12.1: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR. As discussed on page 5.10-8 of the Draft EIR, the Project would result in approximately 9,238 residents based on the Santa Ana GPU FEIR person per household generation rate. While the Draft EIR’s analysis relies on the person per household generation rate of 2.41 from the GPU FEIR, due to the potential unit type which would be developed within the Related Bristol Specific Plan, the applicant has commissioned a study that suggests buildout could result in a lower generation rate of 1.74 persons per household (Concord, 2023). Based on 1.74 PPH, buildout of the Project would result in 6,725 residents inclusive of senior units. This comment will be forwarded to City decision makers as part of the staff report for the Project.

Comment L12.2: This comment states that the open space should be 3 to 5 acres per 1,000 people and the Project would result in open space at 1.6 acres per 1,000 people. The comment states that Santa Ana is already short of open space compared to neighboring cities and questions how open space was calculated.

Response L12.2: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR. As discussed on page 5.12-8 of the Draft SEIR, while the proposed Project would provide approximately 17.21 acres of public and private open space, inclusive of 13.1 acres of publicly accessible open space and recreational facilities onsite, per the requirements of the Related Bristol Specific Plan, the proposed Project’s provision of parkland would not meet the City of Santa Ana’s GPU performance standard of 3 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents, either on the site or cumulatively.

As the existing ratio of acreage of parks and recreational facilities to existing City population results in a parkland deficiency of approximately 154.44 acres, development of the proposed Project would continue to result in a deficiency in parkland throughout the City of Santa Ana. The Project proposes to provide approximately 1.4 acres of publicly accessible open space per 1,000 residents, which exceeds the approximately 1.2 acres per 1,000 residents currently existing within the City.

In order to comply with the GPU policy of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, the proposed Project would require 27.7 acres of parkland or the dedication of approximately 67.3 percent of the Project site.

While the proposed Project would provide approximately 17.21 acres of public and private open space onsite, inclusive of 13.1 acres of publicly accessible open space and facilities, and would comply with applicable Municipal Code requirements, the proposed Project would not provide 27.7 acres of parkland and recreation facilities onsite and would not meet the City of Santa Ana’s performance standard for parkland, either on the site or cumulatively through the availability of parks and recreation facilities citywide. As discussed in the GPU FEIR, the City of Santa Ana is essentially fully built out and there is a lack of available vacant land to develop substantial new parks or expand existing facilities. Therefore, there would be no feasible mitigation measures that would be able to reduce the proposed Project’s contribution to significant impacts related to the City’s unsatisfactory level of resident to parkland ratio. As such, impacts would be significant and unavoidable, which is consistent with the findings of the GPU FEIR.

Comment L12.3: This comment states that too many mitigations are required.

Response L12.3: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR and presents the commenter’s opinion. No further response is warranted, and this comment will be forwarded to City decision makers as part of the Project’s staff report.

Comment L12.4: This comment states that although State law has relaxed parking requirements for near transportation lines, the City’s parking requirements are too low and ignore the fact that most people use 26 City Council 26 – 675 10/1/2024
cars for transportation. The comment states that ignoring this fact results in parking conflicts in neighboring residential areas.

Response L12.4: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR and presents the commenter’s opinion. The Project proposes a mixed-use infill development located in a TPA on an urban and developed site in the City of Santa Ana. As discussed in Section 5.13, Transportation, the City of Santa Ana Traffic Impact Study Guidelines Appendix A identifies that the Project site is located within a TPA. The Project area is served by six OCTA routes: Routes 55, 57, 76, 86, 150, and 553. Specifically, OCTA Route 57 serves as a high-quality bus stop with headways of 15 minutes or less during weekday peak commute hours. OCTA Bus Route 553 connects to the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center and OCTA Bus Route 86 connects to the Irvine Train Station. In addition, as shown on Figure 5.13-3, SCAG identifies that the Project site is within a High Quality Transit Area. As such, the proposed Project is located on an infill site within a TPA as defined under Public Resources Code Section 21099. Thus, the proposed Project’s parking impacts are not considered significant on the environment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099. This comment will be forwarded to City decision makers as part of the staff report for the Project.

Comment L12.5: This comment questions if this is a bargaining chip the developer is using to gain approval for a somewhat smaller project.

Response L12.5: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR and presents the commenter’s opinion and speculation This comment will be forwarded to City decision makers as part of the staff report for the Project. 27 City Council 26 – 676 10/1/2024
Comment L13: Teresa Saldivar (1 page) Late Comment Letter 28 City Council 26 – 677 10/1/2024
Response to Comment L13: Teresa Saldivar dated August 12, 2024 Comment L13.1: This comment expresses the commenters’ support for the proposed Project as it would attract business to the area and provide new jobs and tax revenue to the City.

Response L13.1: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft Supplemental EIR or requirements of the proposed Specific Plan. The Draft SEIR was prepared pursuant to CEQA Statute and the CEQA Guidelines in order to provide a meaningful discussion of the proposed Project and its resulting potential environmental impacts as a means of public disclosure. Thus, no further response is required or provided; however, this comment will be forwarded to all decision makers as part of the Staff Report for the Project.
29 City Council 26 – 678 10/1/2024
Comment L14: Callie Callum (1 page) Late Comment Letter 30 City Council 26 – 679 10/1/2024
Response to Comment L14: Callie Cullum dated August 12, 2024 Comment L14.1: This comment requests that the planning commission limit the size of the buildings within the proposed Project as the area cannot handle the increased volume of people, increased crime and urbanization.

Response L14.1: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft Supplemental EIR or requirements of the proposed Specific Plan. As detailed throughout the Draft Supplemental EIR, specifically in Sections 3.0 Project Description, and 5.8 Land Use and Planning, the proposed Project is within the General Plan allowable density for the site. The existing General Plan District Center High (DC-5) land use designation has an allowable density of 125 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and maximum height of 25 stories, and the proposed development would result in a maximum density of 91 du/ac, which is 34 du/ac below the maximum allowed by DC-5, which was evaluated previously by the City in the GPU FEIR. Therefore, additional demands from buildout of the site have also been cumulatively evaluated as part of buildout of the City.

The substation would provide space for the expansion of policing services in the southern portion of the City and would provide the ability to quickly respond to emergency calls from within the Project site. The specific location would be determined prior to construction of the first phase of the proposed Project. Also, in Section 5.11, Public Services, it describes that the proposed Project would address typical residential security concerns by providing low-intensity security lighting, security cameras, electronic access to buildings, and onsite security personnel. Pursuant to the City’s existing permitting process, the Police Department would review and approve the final site plans to ensure that the City’s Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) measures (General Plan Policy PS-2.1) are incorporated appropriately to provide a safe environment, including areas within parking garages. 31 City Council 26 – 680 10/1/2024
Comment L15: William Taylor (1 page) Late Comment Letter 32 City Council 26 – 681 10/1/2024
Response to Comment L15: William Taylor dated August 12, 2024 Comment L15.1: This comment states that the Project should not be approved based on the traffic impact alone and that there will be a noise and pollution impact based on the project size. The comment states that there is already a lot of congestion in the area and adding units to the area would result in significant delay. The comment states that the area already has adequate grocery stores and restaurants so no more are needed and the area cannot handle that much population density. The comment states that the Project should be rejected.

Response L15.1: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR. As discussed in Section 5.1 Air Quality, Emissions from operation of the proposed Project would exceed SCAQMD’s thresholds for NOx and ROG after implementation of existing regulations and mitigation. The majority of NOx emissions are from vehicles and the majority of ROG emissions would be derived from consumer products, neither of which the Project applicant nor the City have the ability to reduce emissions of. Therefore, both NOx and ROG emissions from implementation of the proposed Project would result in both a project level and a cumulatively considerable significant and unavoidable impact.

Hence, Impacts AQ-1 and AQ-2 would be significant and unavoidable after mitigation.

However, the Project would result in a less than significant localized significance and health risk impact to the nearest sensitive receptors located 130 feet west of the Project site throughout all phases of development with the implementation of General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 as well as Project Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-6. In addition, as discussed in Section 5.9 Noise, noise impacts to the nearest sensitive receptors located 130 feet west of the Project site would be less than significant throughout all phases of development and full buildout of the Specific Plan. Therefore, the Project would not result in significant air quality or noise impacts on nearby residents.

Draft SEIR Section 5.13 Transportation, details that Senate Bill (SB) 743 changes include the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant impacts. As part of the 2019 amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines, SB 743 directed that the revised CEQA Guidelines “shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][1]); and that “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][2]). As such, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(2), the SEIR focuses on analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) criteria and improvements to the circulation system along the Project’s frontage to accommodate buildout of the proposed Project, pursuant to the City’s recent General Plan Update. Further yet, the SEIR is not required to analyze impacts related to traffic congestion. Nevertheless, a Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the Project and is publicly available on the City’s Project website. This comment will be forwarded to all decision makers as part of the staff report for the Project. 33 City Council 26 – 682 10/1/2024
Comment L16: Pete (2 pages) Late Comment Letter
34 City Council 26 – 683 10/1/2024
35 City Council 26 – 684 10/1/2024
Response to Comment L16: Pete dated August 12, 2024
Comment L16.1: This comment states that the Applicant is proposing funds for low-income housing and other funds for community benefit and that the areas around the Project will be greatly impacted by the Project. The comment states that the commenter feels that the area and City will benefit from sensible development. The comment states that previous development agreements were not delivered as promised (per the attached document).

Response L16.1: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact or provide any comments on the Draft or Final SEIR. CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). The Project’s potential economic and social effects are not considered effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15131(a)). Thus, consistent with CEQA, the Draft Supplemental EIR includes an analysis of the Project’s potentially significant physical impacts on the environment and does not include substantial discussion of the Project’s economic or social effects, such as economic effects related to the development agreement. This comment will be forwarded to City decision-makers as part of the staff report for the Project.

Comment L16.2: This comment states that the EIR reports that the traffic will increase in the area by 260 percent and that the Project will make congestion worse. The comment states that portions of Macarthur Boulevard are not ADA compliant and people with disabilities are forced into the streets.

The comment states that the flow of construction traffic is not discussed in the EIR and that residents will be impacted by construction trucks, commuters and increased noise, gas emissions, hazards and hazardous wastes. The comment states that the commenter would like to have better details on the mitigation of those effects.

The comment asks what the queuing on Macarthur Boulevard for Greenville Fundamental School would look like.

Response L16.2: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

In regard to increased noise, gas emissions, hazards and hazardous waste, the commenter is referred to the Draft SEIR’s discussions in Section 5.1, Air Quality, Section 5.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section 5.9, Noise, which include thorough discussions of Project impacts on those topic areas and further analysis of applicable mitigation measures, which would serve to reduce potential impacts. No further response is warranted.
36 City Council 26 – 685 10/1/2024
In regard to queuing on Macarthur Boulevard related to Greenville Fundamental School, the Project site is located over half a mile from the school and would not result in direct queuing impacts to or from the school.

Comment L16.3: This comment states that no funds were earmarked within the Community Benefits for improvements to the South Coast Neighborhoods and residents of Ward 4 will be the most affected by the development. The comment states that the commenter would like an oversight committee established to oversee the Development Agreement funds.

Response L16.3: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). The Project’s potential economic and social effects are not considered effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15131(a)). Thus, consistent with CEQA, the Draft SEIR includes an analysis of the Project’s potentially significant physical impacts on the environment and does not include discussion of allocation of Development Agreement funds. This comment will be forwarded to City decision makers as part of the staff report for the Project.
37 City Council 26 – 686 10/1/2024
Comment L17: Nhu Ngyen (1 page) Late Comment Letter
38 City Council 26 – 687 10/1/2024
Response to Comment L17: Nhu Nguyen dated August 12, 2024 Comment L17.1: This comment expresses concern over the number of units proposed for the Specific Plan.

The comment claims that the area does not have capacity for the potential growth induced from the Project resulting in additional traffic on Bristol Street and Macarthur Boulevard.

Response L17.1: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft Supplemental EIR or requirements of the proposed Specific Plan. As detailed throughout the Draft Supplemental EIR, specifically in Sections 3.0 Project Description, and 5.8 Land Use and Planning, the proposed Project is within the General Plan allowable density for the site. The existing General Plan District Center High (DC-5) land use designation has an allowable density of 125 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and maximum height of 25 stories, and the proposed development would result in a maximum density of 91 du/ac, which is 34 du/ac below the maximum allowed by DC-5, which was evaluated previously by the City in the GPU FEIR. Therefore, additional demands from buildout of the site have also been cumulatively evaluated as part of buildout of the City.

In regard to school services, as discussed in Section 5.11 Public Services, the need for additional school facilities is addressed through compliance with school impact fee assessment. SB 50 (Chapter 407 of Statutes of 1998) sets forth a state school facilities construction program that includes restrictions on a local jurisdiction’s ability to condition a project on mitigation of a project’s impacts on school facilities in excess of fees set forth in the Government Code. These fees are collected by school districts at the time of issuance of building permits for commercial, industrial, and residential projects. The existing Santa Ana Unified School District development impact fee is $4.08 per square foot for all new residential development, and $0.66 per square foot for new commercial development. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 applicants pay developer fees to the appropriate school districts at the time building permits are issued; and payment of the adopted fees provides full and complete mitigation of school impacts.

The substation would provide space for the expansion of policing services in the southern portion of the City and would provide the ability to quickly respond to emergency calls from within the Project site. The specific location would be determined prior to construction of the first phase of the proposed Project. Also, in Section 5.11 Public Services, it describes that the proposed Project would address typical residential security concerns by providing low-intensity security lighting, security cameras, electronic access to buildings, and onsite security personnel. Pursuant to the City’s existing permitting process, the Police Department would review and approve the final site plans to ensure that the City’s Crime Prevention 39 City Council 26 – 688 10/1/2024
through Environmental Design (CPTED) measures (General Plan Policy PS-2.1) are incorporated appropriately to provide a safe environment, including areas within parking garages. 40 City Council 26 – 689 10/1/2024
Comment L18: Lisa Lacey (1 page) Late Comment Letter
41 City Council 26 – 690 10/1/2024
Response to Comment L18: Lisa Lacey dated August 12, 2024 Comment L18.1: This comment states that the proposed Project would result in additional congestion and displace current businesses.

Response L18.1: Draft SEIR Section 5.13 Transportation, details that Senate Bill (SB) 743 changes include the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant impacts. As part of the 2019 amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines, SB 743 directed that the revised CEQA Guidelines “shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][1]); and that “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][2]). As such, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(2), the SEIR focuses on analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) criteria and improvements to the circulation system along the Project’s frontage to accommodate buildout of the proposed Project, pursuant to the City’s recent General Plan Update. Further yet, the SEIR is not required to analyze impacts related to traffic congestion. Nevertheless, a Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the Project and is publicly available on the City’s Project website. This comment will be forwarded to all decision makers as part of the staff report for the Project.

Regarding the displacement of businesses, CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). The Project’s potential economic and social effects are not considered effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15131(a)). Thus, consistent with CEQA, the Draft Supplemental EIR includes an analysis of the Project’s potentially significant physical impacts on the environment and does not include substantial discussion of the Project’s economic or social effects, including the displacement of businesses.
42 City Council 26 – 691 10/1/2024
Late Comment L19: Micheal J. Hixson (1 page) Late Comment Letter 43 City Council 26 – 692 10/1/2024
Response to Comment L19: Michael J. Hixson dated August 12, 2024 Comment L19.1: This comment letter offers the commenter’s support of the proposed Project as the Specific Plan would result in an upgrade of the existing commercial uses that would enhance the entire area.

Response to Comment L19.1: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft Supplemental EIR or requirements of the proposed Specific Plan. The Draft SEIR was prepared pursuant to CEQA Statute and the CEQA Guidelines in order to provide a meaningful discussion of the proposed Project and its resulting potential environmental impacts as a means of public disclosure. Thus, no further response is required or provided; however, this comment will be forwarded to all decision makers as part of the Staff Report for the Project. 44 City Council 26 – 693 10/1/2024
Comment Letter L20: Catherine Creech (2 pages) Late Comment Letter 45 City Council 26 – 694 10/1/2024
46 City Council 26 – 695 10/1/2024
Response to Comment L20: Catherine Creech dated August 12, 2024 Comment L20.1: This comment letter was provided by the applicant team includes an attached letters of support from a mix of residents, local and civil organizations, nonprofits, business and regional stakeholders.

Response to Comment L20.1: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft Supplemental EIR or requirements of the proposed Specific Plan. The Draft SEIR was prepared pursuant to CEQA Statute and the CEQA Guidelines in order to provide a meaningful discussion of the proposed Project and its resulting potential environmental impacts as a means of public disclosure. Thus, no further response is required or provided; however, this comment will be forwarded to all decision makers as part of the Staff Report for the Project. The letters of support included in the commenter letter have been included in this FEIR as Attachment A. 47 City Council 26 – 696 10/1/2024
Comment L21: Larry Rein (3 pages) Late Comment Letter
48 City Council 26 – 697 10/1/2024
49 City Council 26 – 698 10/1/2024
50 City Council 26 – 699 10/1/2024
Response to Comment L21: Larry Rein, dated August 12, 2024 Comment L21.1: This comment states that the Project will have a major impact on the character and nature of the neighborhood and the commenter believes that additional public input is needed. The comment states that the commenter has only attended the first Sunshine Meeting and has not attended any others are they were unaware of them. The comment states that the commenter has just scanned the environmental documents.

Response L21.1: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact or provide any comments on the Draft or Final SEIR. CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). The Project’s potential economic and social effects are not considered effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15131(a)). Thus, consistent with CEQA, the Draft Supplemental EIR includes an analysis of the Project’s potentially significant physical impacts on the environment and does not include substantial discussion of the Project’s economic or social effects, such as economic effects related to the character and nature of the community. This comment will be forwarded to City decision-makers as part of the staff report for the Project.

Comment L21.2: This comment states that the notice was sent to those who live within 1,000 feet of the Project, which is not adequate. The comment states that the hearing should be pushed back two weeks.

Response L21.2: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact or provide any comments on the Draft or Final SEIR. The commenter erroneously states the notice of public hearing was provided to a 1,000-foot radius. The notice of public hearing was sent to a 2,000-foot radius and included both owners and occupants. As such, adequate notice was provided to surrounding residents pursuant to the City Municipal Code and a continuation of the public hearing is not warranted.

Comment L21.3: This comment states that the Project would result in a large amount of residents and asks how the density compares to developments around Anaheim Stadium. The comment asks if future population growth will support the development given the outmigration from California.

Response L21.3: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft Supplemental EIR or requirements of the proposed Specific Plan. As detailed throughout the Draft Supplemental EIR, specifically in Sections 3.0 Project Description, and 5.8 Land Use and Planning, the proposed Project is within the General Plan allowable density for the site. The existing General Plan District Center High (DC-5) land use designation has an allowable density of 125 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and maximum height of 25 stories, and the proposed development would result in a maximum density of 91 du/ac, which is 34 du/ac below the maximum allowed by DC-5, which was evaluated previously by the City in the GPU FEIR. Therefore, additional demands from buildout of the site have also been cumulatively evaluated as part of buildout of the City. In regard to future population growth, CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). The Project’s potential economic and social effects are not considered effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15131(a)). Thus, consistent with CEQA, the Draft Supplemental EIR includes an analysis of the Project’s potentially significant physical impacts on the environment and does not include substantial discussion of the Project’s economic or social effects, such as outmigration from California and future population trends. This comment will be forwarded to City decision-makers as part of the staff report for the Project.

Comment L21.4: This comment provides concerns regarding overflow parking and states that improvements are needed to the local freeway exits if rush hour traffic is added and requests the City talk to Caltrans and OCTA about this. The comment requests that sidewalks are built and that the commenter 51 City Council 26 – 700 10/1/2024
was not impressed with traffic ingress and egress. The comment states that bus convenience has not been adequately addressed. The comment also states that mitigation should be required if windy day flight patterns are affected and additional air traffic occurs over single family homes. The comment further states that more electric charging stations are needed and the local electrical grid probably needs improvements.

Response L21.4: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR and presents the commenter’s opinion. The Project proposes a mixed-use infill development located in a TPA on an urban and developed site in the City of Santa Ana. As discussed in Section 5.13, Transportation, the City of Santa Ana Traffic Impact Study Guidelines Appendix A identifies that the Project site is located within a TPA. The Project area is served by six OCTA routes: Routes 55, 57, 76, 86, 150, and 553. Specifically, OCTA Route 57 serves as a high-quality bus stop with headways of 15 minutes or less during weekday peak commute hours. OCTA Bus Route 553 connects to the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center and OCTA Bus Route 86 connects to the Irvine Train Station. In addition, as shown on Figure 5.13-3 of the Draft SEIR, SCAG identifies that the Project site is within a High Quality Transit Area. As such, the proposed Project is located on an infill site within a TPA as defined under Public Resources Code Section 21099. Thus, the proposed Project’s parking impacts are not considered significant on the environment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099. This comment will be forwarded to City decision makers as part of the staff report for the Project.

The commenter provides no substantial evidence regarding impacts to Caltrans facilities. Regarding traffic safety, a queueing analysis was conducted for the Project site as part of a supplemental traffic analysis (as provided in Appendix A to this Final Supplemental EIR), which determined that the Project would result in adequate storage capacity for the Caltrans on- and off-ramps. At ramps in which the queueing exceeds the storage provided, spillover queues can be accommodated upstream of the turn pockets. Summaries of the results are provided in Tables 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the supplemental traffic analysis (as provided in Appendix A to the Final SEIR), which shows that none of the analysis scenarios would result in the potential for spill beyond the designated storage lane with the exception of the Year 2045 scenario for the Bear Street at the SR-73 northbound ramp. However, this potential spill beyond the designated storage lanes would also occur without the addition of the Project in year 2045. As such, the Project would not cause a potential safety concern at Caltrans intersections.

In regard to air traffic concerns, the Draft Supplemental EIR provides a comprehensive discussion related to the FAA FAR Part 77 Horizontal Obstruction Imaginary Surface for SNA. In Section 5.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, on page 5.6-3, it is described that FAA FAR Section 77.17 (Obstruction Standards) states that an object could be an obstruction to air navigation if it is higher than 200 feet above ground level or the 100:1 imaginary surface and therefore, requires notification to FAA (per FAR Part 77). As detailed on page

5.6-7, the Orange County AELUP states that an object that would be constructed within the height restriction or imaginary surface area of the airport is not necessarily incompatible but would be subject to FAA notification and an FAA aeronautical study to determine whether the proposed structures would constitute a hazard to air navigation or would affect the operation of the airport.

On page 5.6-12 of the Draft Supplemental EIR it is described that the Project site is located within the 206-foot-high imaginary surface area for SNA, which is shown on Figure 5.6-4; and therefore, FAA notification for the proposed Project would be required. Draft Supplemental EIR Figure 5.6-4 identifies the South Bristol Street Focus Area and the Project site’s location within the SNA Horizontal Surface Elevation of 206 feet AMSL. This information is also provided in Section 5.8, Land Use and Planning, on page 5.8-18 within the discussion of height restrictions.

Page 5 ends

approximately 285 feet above the existing ground level, which is approximately 30 feet above sea level.

Thus, the top of the tallest point on the buildings would be approximately 315 feet above sea level. It is 52 City Council 26 – 701 10/1/2024
further described that because the Project site is located 1.4 miles northwest of SNA and is not within the Airport’s safety zone, the proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard. However, as shown on Figure 5.6-1, the Project site is located within the 206-foot-high imaginary surface area for SNA, and the proposed Project may include structures of 25 stories that would extend to approximately 315 feet above sea level. Therefore, FAA notification and study of the proposed Project structures above 206-feet high is required.

In regard to additional electric vehicle chargers, pursuant to Mitigation Measure GHG-2, the Project would be required to provide facilities to support electric charging stations per the Tier 2 standards in Section A5.106.5.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) and Section A5.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the 2022 CALGreen Code.

In regard to electric infrastructure, the GPU FEIR determined that increased electricity demands at full buildout are within the forecasted demand in Southern California Edison’s service area; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. As the Project is within the forecasted growth analyzed by the GPU FEIR, there is adequate electric infrastructure within the vicinity of the Project.

Comment L21.5: This comment states that the whole neighborhood will be impacted by the loss of the current businesses and the development should coordinate with the adjacent Segerstrom development. The comment states that the base elevation for the site does not need to match the existing and that would reduce the amount of overexcavated materials. The comment states that a better solution to drainage would be to construct percolation wells for groundwater recharge and that pavement materials should be recycled.

Response L21.5: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR and presents the commenter’s opinion on potential additional improvements. This comment will be forwarded to City decision-makers as part of the staff report for the Project.

Comment L21.6: This comment provides comments and questions on the proposed resolutions for the Planning Commission Hearing item for the Project and reiterates previous comments.

Response L21.6: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR and is conclusionary in nature. This comment will be forwarded to City decision-makers as part of the staff report for the Project.
53 City Council 26 – 702 10/1/2024
Comment Letter L22: Douglas Richardson (1 page), Late Comment Letter City Council 26 – 703 10/1/2024
Response to Comment L22: Douglas Richardson dated August 12, 2024 Comment L22.1: This comment states that the commenter is against the proposed Project due to the Projects size and scope, length of time to complete, the upending of residents and businesses, and environmental impacts.

Response L22.1: The comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact or the need to recirculate the Draft Supplemental EIR. A general response to a general comment is sufficient. (Browning-Ferris Indus. v. City Council (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852, 862.) The Draft Supplemental EIR provides an accurate and thorough analysis of all of the Project’s potential environmental impacts pursuant to CEQA. As discussed throughout the Draft Supplemental EIR, mitigation measures would be required for impacts related to air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources as these impact areas are potentially significant after the imposition of existing regulations and standards conditions.

As detailed throughout the Draft Supplemental EIR, specifically in Sections 3.0 Project Description, and 5.8 Land Use and Planning, the proposed Project is within the General Plan allowable density for the site. The existing General Plan District Center High (DC-5) land use designation has an allowable density of 125 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and maximum height of 25 stories, and the proposed development would result in a maximum density of 91 du/ac, which is 34 du/ac below the maximum allowed by DC-5, which was evaluated previously by the City in the GPU FEIR. Therefore, additional demands from buildout of the site have also been cumulatively evaluated as part of buildout of the City.

The commenter incorrectly states that residents would be relocated due to implementation of the proposed Project, however there are currently no residents located within the Project site.

City Council 26 – 704 10/1/2024
Comment L23: Jennifer Richardson (1 page) late Comment Letter City Council 26 – 705 10/1/2024
Response to Comment L23: Jennifer Richardson, dated August 12, 2024 Comment L23.1: This comment states that the commenter is against the proposed Project due to the Projects size and scope, length of time to complete, and environmental impacts.

Response to Comment L23.1: The comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact or the need to recirculate the Draft Supplemental EIR. A general response to a general comment is sufficient. (Browning-Ferris Indus. v. City Council (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852, 862.) The Draft Supplemental EIR provides an accurate and thorough analysis of all of the Project’s potential environmental impacts pursuant to CEQA. As discussed throughout the Draft Supplemental EIR, mitigation measures would be required for impacts related to air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources as these impact areas are potentially significant after the imposition of existing regulations and standards conditions.

Comment L23.2: This comment urges the City to reject the Project due to the significant and unavoidable impacts, especially those regarding air quality impacts.

Response to Comment L23.2: The comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact or the need to recirculate the Draft Supplemental EIR. Ultimately, it is up to the City to determine what the Project benefits are and if they would outweigh any potential significant and unavoidable impacts. In accordance with CEQA Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guideline Section 15093, in order to approve the Project, the City is required to determine that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above may be considered acceptable due to specific considerations which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the Project. If the City approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the City shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. If the City decides to approve the project and makes a SOC, the statement will be included in the record of the project approval and will be mentioned in the notice of determination.

Per Public Resources Code § 21002.1 (a), the purpose of an environmental impact report is to identify the significant effects on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided.” Therefore, the Draft Supplemental EIR is not intended to serve as the justification for adopting a SOC or as basis for the approval or denial of the Project, but to disclose the environmental consequences of approving the Project and a SOC. Through the public hearing process, the decision-makers within the City will take into consideration the environmental impacts caused by the Project in if it decides to approve the Project, a SOC will be required. The SOC is included as Exhibit 1 to the Staff Report.

City Council 26 – 706 10/1/2024
Comment L24: Sally Day (1 page) Late Comment Letter
City Council 26 – 707 10/1/2024
Response to Comment L24: Sally Day, dated August 12, 2024 Comment L24.1: This comment states that the proposed Project would result in traffic congestion in the area.

Response to Comment L24.1: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft SEIR. Draft SEIR Section 5.13 Transportation, details that Senate Bill (SB) 743 changes include the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant impacts. As part of the 2019 amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines, SB 743 directed that the revised CEQA Guidelines “shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][1]); and that “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][2]). As such, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(2), the SEIR focuses on analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) criteria and improvements to the circulation system along the Project’s frontage to accommodate buildout of the proposed Project, pursuant to the City’s recent General Plan Update. Further yet, the SEIR is not required to analyze impacts related to traffic congestion. Nevertheless, a Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the Project and is publicly available on the City’s Project website. This comment will be forwarded to all decision makers as part of the staff report for the Project.

City Council 26 – 708 10/1/2024
Comment L25: Katherine Freeman (1 page) Late Comment Letter City Council 26 – 709 10/1/2024
Response to Comment L25: Katherine Freeman, dated August 12, 2024 Comment L25.1: This comment expresses a concern for heavy construction trucks traveling from the 55 freeway off ramp on Dyer Road which turns onto Segerstrom Avenue.

Response to Comment L25.1: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact. As discussed in Section 5.1, Air Quality, proposed Specific Plan Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Construction Exhaust and Dust Control requires the preparation of a construction traffic control plan detailing the locations of equipment staging areas, material stockpiles, proposed road closures, and hours of construction operations, and designing the plan to minimize impacts to roads frequented by passenger cars, pedestrians, bicyclist, and other non-truck traffic. As such, the Project would be required to follow a designated construction route to avoid residential areas in the vicinity of the Project.

City Council 26 – 710 10/1/2024
Letters of Support
On behalf of Related Bristol, we sincerely appreciate all of the stakeholders who have taken the time and effort to participate in our community outreach process. We have been greatly encouraged that the Project has been well-received and express sincere gratitude to our supporters who share our vision and aspirations for Related Bristol, Santa Ana, and Orange County.

Key Supporters Include:

Business Organizations & Companies
Existing Metro Town Square Retail Tenants
•
•
•
•
Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce
Travel Santa Ana •
•
•
•
•
•
Albertson's/Von's
Hans’ Homemade Ice Cream
The Boiling Crab
Orange County Business Council
Orange County Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce Grounded Planet, Inc.

Wang Cho BBQ •
•
•
•
Apartment Association of Orange County
California Apartment Association
Octane
South Coast Pediatric Dentistry
Neighborhood Associations, Community
Groups, and Individuals
S&A Management
• G7 Neighborhood Leaders Alliance
(represents leadership of 17 city
neighborhood associations)
Lee DeLeon, President and Founder of
Templo Calvario church
Nonprofit Organizations
•
•
•
Hope Builders
Goodwill of Orange County
Girl Scouts of Orange County (Santa Ana
Chapter)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sal Tinajero
•
•
•
•
•
Frida Theater & DTSA ArtWalk
Kidworks
Jeffrey Katz (Floral Park)
Irma Jauregui (Wilshire Square)
Michael Hixson (Sandpointe)
Timothy Rush (Wilshire Square)
Pam and Larry Marshburn (South Coast
Shores)
Orange County United Way
Mater Dei High School
Cristo Rey Orange County High School
(Santa Ana)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Maurizio Bertoldi (South Coast Shores)
Astrid and Michal Collins (Metro Classic)
Katherine Freeman (Republic Homes)
Elizabeth Hansburg, People for Housing
Kevin Ting, Santa Ana resident
Hundreds of other individuals
City Council 26 – 711 10/1/2024
Dave Elliott, President & CEO, Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce Dear Commissioners or Councilmembers,
My name is David Elliott, President & CEO of the Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce. On behalf of the Chamber, its Board of Directors and 400-plus business and community members, I’m proud to extend our full support for Related Bristol—a project that fits perfectly with the ethos and identity of Santa Ana as we look forward to growing the future of this great city.

At the Chamber, we aim to grow economic opportunity in Santa Ana by representing and attracting a wide range of businesses to the city. Our staff efforts run the gamut, from recruiting to marketing to employee training—and we believe it is working. Our city’s businesses are increasingly diverse and critical to Santa Ana’s bright future, ranging from healthcare and medical devices to manufacturing, retail and hospitality.

For that reason, we fully support Related Bristol because of its economic and community benefits. The project will be the single largest private investment in Santa Ana’s 154-year history at nearly $3 billion.

Moreover, Related Bristol will generate approximately $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to the city, create 5,900 jobs during construction and 1,700 permanent jobs once the development is completed. Plus, Related Bristol will provide sorely needed housing for professional class families and individuals. It’s the kind of project that has the potential for lasting impact on our city and economy.

Approval of Related Bristol will truly create a new destination for community and connection and become a new gateway to our wonderful city. I urge you to support Related Bristol for the benefit of our entire city.

Sincerely,
Dave Elliott
President & CEO, Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce
City Council 26 – 712 10/1/2024
Christa Sheehan, Deputy Director, Hope Builders
Dear Commissioners or Councilmembers,
My name is Christa Sheehan, Deputy Director of Santa Ana-based Hope Builders.

In every city in America, it is now a reality: employers lack a reliable pipeline for middle-skill jobs. Closer to home, Orange County companies are constantly seeking access to skilled talent— with the need growing every year.

At Hope Builders, established nearly three decades ago by the Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange, we believe the young adults needed to fill these opportuniIes are right here in our own backyard. They simply need a hand up and the proper training and mentorship to navigate a pathway to rewarding work, self-esteem and a future career.

Since 1995, Hope Builders has transformed the lives of 6,000 individuals mostly from challenged and troubled backgrounds by training and equipping them with job and life skills to graduate and secure lasIng employment. The results, I’m proud to share, have been profound: 97% of our trainees are hired upon graduaIon and 80%, on average, retain employment. This is a remarkable human success story for the graduates and their families right here in Santa Ana, where the need for our program has never been greater.

It is why Hope Builders is excited about Related Bristol and the transformaIve opportunity it presents to our community and especially our trainees. If approved and built, this visionary project with its mix of housing, retail, senior living and a hotel will create 7,600 construcIon and permanent jobs. As important, the developer, Related California, has commiWed to locally hire a minimum of 10% of the construcIon labor and acIvely market to Hope Builders and other local vocaIonal programs. Related and Hope Builders are already underway in discussions on how to collecIvely implement and maximize these local hiring and acIve market efforts together moving forward.

Hope Builders exists to unlock the greatness of young adults. Many of them have only known poverty, drugs, gangs, abuse and broken homes. Related Bristol won’t solve these deeply rooted societal issues, however it will provide opportunity and opImism right here in Santa Ana where nearly 80% of our graduates have grown up.

City Council 26 – 713 10/1/2024
Please join Hope Builders and say “yes” to Related Bristol and the overwhelming impact it will bring to our great city.

Sincerely,
Christa Sheehan
Deputy Director, Hope Builders
City Council 26 – 714 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 715 10/1/2024
September 29, 2023
euben Franco, CEO & President, Orange County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Dear Commissioners or Councilmembers,
Nearly four decades ago, the Orange County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce was established to serve the region’s rapidly growing number of Hispanic-owned businesses.

Today, I am honored to be the CEO and president of the Chamber that represents and serves Orange County’s 30,000 Hispanic-owned companies and businesses by providing opportunities for networking, access to capital, education, training programs and legislative advocacy. Santa Ana by virtue of its rich history, location in the heart of Orange County and large Hispanic population, has always been a vitally important city in our efforts to bring more opportunities to those businesses and their employees we represent.

Related Bristol is a special kind of mixed-used development that marries the best of what we advocate for:
local investment in the community, significant job creation and access to new opportunities and experiences for all individuals. The project will be the single largest private investment at $3 billion in Santa Ana’s 154-year history. Creating 7,600 new jobs and delivering $10.7 million in annual tax revenue is a game changer for Santa Ana as well as those businesses and individuals who will work at project during construction or once it is completed. Add to all of this the Related’s commitment to hire locally where possible and the project stands to set a new standard for development in Santa Ana.

Beyond the impressive economic benefits, Related Bristol will create what every thriving city needs, a new destination where people go to build community and learn about other cultures. This development on south Bristol Street in the South Coast Metro area will become a new gateway into Santa Ana, a city continuing to emerge as central hub of employment, new business and growth in our county.

The OCHCC is proud to support Related Bristol, and I humbly ask that you join us.

Sincerely,
CEO & President Orange County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Mailing Address:
27762 Antonio Pkwy Suite L1-463
Ladera Ranch, CA 92694
www.ochcc.org
(714) 953-4289
Office Address:

The Cove @ UCI
UCI Beall Applied Innovation
5270 California Avenue
Irvine, CA 92697
City Council 26 – 716 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 717 10/1/2024
October 11, 2023
Dear Commissioners or Councilmembers,
Since the founding of the Girl Scouts movement more than a century ago, our focus has been on empowering girls to become leaders in their communities by equipping them with critical life skills through exploration and confidence-building activities. Whether visiting a local animal shelter, performing community service, filming a movie, or camping outdoors, Girl Scouts learn to take risks and trust their instincts while working with others.

In Santa Ana, the Girl Scouts are making a difference. In fact, this past year alone, more than 1,500 girls from elementary to high school were part of a neighborhood troop – a record in the city. Girl Scouts also opened a new brick-and-mortar office near downtown Santa Ana to provide more local access to program services and muchneeded space for the girls and troop leaders to hold weekly gatherings. However, the organization’s future growth will not happen fast enough without more conveniently located meeting spaces in this city.

Council Headquarters
9500 Toledo Way,
Suite#100
Irvine, CA 92618
P: 949-461-8800
girlscoutsoc.org
The need for Girl Scouts and their mentoring and leadership services in the county’s second-largest city is unquestioned. However, the acute shortage of safe and secure places to hold meetings and activities that are walkable or near public transportation for young girls and their families is a challenge.

Related Bristol’s proposed development in south Santa Ana begins to address this challenge and offers real hope for the Girl Scouts and numerous other local groups. The developer plans to include a community center in its new mixed-use project for use by nonprofits, neighborhood associations, civic groups, and service organizations. The mix of residential, shops, services, restaurants, and open space would make the Related Bristol development project an ideal location for the Girl Scouts to continue growing its essential presence in Santa Ana.

Please join us in supporting projects like these to address a community need.

Sincerely,
Dr. Vikki Shepp
Chief Executive Officer
Girl Scouts of Orange County Girl Scouts of Orange County City Council 26 – 718 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 719 10/1/2024
Wendy Haase, President & CEO, Travel Santa Ana
Dear Commissioners or Councilmembers,
My name is Wendy Haase, president and Chief Executive Officer of Travel Santa Ana.

As founder of this organization in 2021, I believe deeply in our city as a highly desirable Orange County destination for business, leisure, meetings, sports and group travel. Centrally located and easy to access by car, train and air, Santa Ana has tremendous potential to grow as a travel and visitor market.

To reach that full potential, Santa Ana needs to continue adding exciting, new destinations to its existing mix of attractions. If built, Related Bristol can very quickly become part of Santa Ana’s growing allure as a place to visit for fun, hold business gatherings or simply live within walking distance of the office or a short drive to a multitude of unique activities. It will attract locals and visitors alike to the planned mix of unique shops, cafes and wide range of dining options at all price points planned for Related Bristol that will reflect the region’s diversity and history.

As Santa Ana’s primary tourism promotion organization dedicated to creating long-term economic growth for the city, I belief this type of project will set the standard for future development along the Bristol Street Corridor as well as across the city. It will contribute greatly to the city’s efforts to bring more positive attention—and significant sales and hotel bed tax revenues—to Santa Ana as we compete in our highly competitive Orange County market for leisure and business travelers.

Travel Santa Ana looks forward to all the incredible opportunities this project will bring to our city. Please join me in saying “Yes” to Related Bristol.

Thank you,
Wendy Haase
President & CEO Travel Santa Ana
City Council 26 – 720 10/1/2024
September 26, 2023
Dear Commissioners and Councilmembers,
As President and CEO of Goodwill of Orange County, I am delighted to share my support and enthusiasm for the Related Bristol development in south Santa Ana.

For nearly 100 years in our community, Goodwill has been commiꢀed to train people for meaningful jobs in a variety of industries, including retail sales, custodial services, maintenance, hospitality and more. Related Bristol will generate 7,600 new jobs, including 1,600 permanent jobs once the mixed-use project is complete. These will be much needed local hiring opportuniꢁes for our job training graduates, who leave our program in search of employment and a chance to secure what we all seek in life: economic independence and a beꢀer quality of life.

Related Bristol will also transform two-city blocks of our city, replacing an aging and increasingly vacant shopping center into a vibrant new desꢁnaꢁon for families and friends to connect, explore new cultures and build community, opportuniꢁes we all seek more of in our busy lives.

Through the years, Goodwill’s ability to impact and improve lives has been built on creaꢁng meaningful connecꢁons between people, and Related Bristol, as envisioned, will become a place for individuals to meet and socialize with others in a safer and more appealing environment.

As a Santa Ana-based nonprofit, with its corporate headquarters, a naꢁonally-recognized veteran’s services center and seven retail stores all located in the city, we care deeply about Santa Ana’s future. Related Bristol is the type of opportunity and future neighbor we need more of in our great city.

Please ensure our community does not miss out on this tremendous opportunity to improve our economy and quality of life in Santa Ana. I urge you to approve Related Bristol.

Thank you,
Nicole Suydam
President & CEO Goodwill of Orange County
City Council 26 – 721 10/1/2024
January 18, 2024
Dear Commissioners or Councilmembers,
My name is Scott Melvin, Vice President of School Relations at Mater Dei High School.

For nearly 75 years, Mater Dei High School has been proud to call Santa Ana its home. From its humble beginnings with 111 students in 1950 to the nationally recognized high school it is today with approximately 2,000 students, our leadership has enthusiastically embraced this city. We understand our success as a leading Catholic college preparatory school is inextricably tied to the positive growth of this city as an economic, cultural and social center of Orange County.

It is why we are excited about opportunities like the transformational mixed-use project Related Bristol in South Santa Ana just a few blocks from our campus on South Bristol Street.

Related Bristol is unprecedented in its vision and scale, and it will most certainly become the type of vibrant destination Mater Dei students and their families as well as faculty, alumni and our legions of supporters will frequent often and point to as evidence of Santa Ana’s forward thinking and approach to smart, urban planning.

Related Bristol will generate approximately $10.7 million in annual tax revenue for city use on a wide spectrum of projects and initiatives, and it will create 7,500 new jobs while serving as a catalyst to attract future positive investments in our city.

Equally important, nearly one-third of the proposed 41-acre Related Bristol site be will actively programmed open space for recreation, live musical and theatrical entertainment, art shows, seasonal events, craft fairs and farmer’s markets. These 13 acres of open space (about the equivalent of 12 football fields) is truly a game-changer in a historic city where park space for outdoor and leisure activities is sorely needed.

Approval of Related Bristol will truly create a new destination for community and connection in a city we have long embraced. As an institution that cares deeply about Santa Ana’s future, I urge you to support Related Bristol for the benefit of our entire city.

Sincerely,
Scott Melvin
Vice President of School Relations, Mater Dei High School City Council 26 – 722 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 723 10/1/2024
RE: Letter of Support for Related Bristol
October 9, 2023
Dear Commissioners & Councilmembers,
My name is Bill Carpou, Chief Executive Officer of Octane. As a nonprofit business organization, our mission is to connect people, resources and capital to help create 55,000 new high-paying jobs in the Orange County region by 2030, particularly in the rapidly expanding technology and medical technology sectors. Since our initiative’s launch in 2010, we have achieved more than 50% of that ambitious goal creating about 28,000 high-paying jobs, including many in greater Santa Ana.

However, attracting this skilled labor force, including engineers, software programmers, and computer system analysts to fill these critical job opportunities remains a challenge. A shortage of quality housing with sustainable and environmentally-friendly features desired today by younger job seekers is hampering recruiting efforts by many companies.

The housing that does exist or has been built recently does not follow an urban model for individuals who desire a walkable location and less reliance on cars to access everyday services, shops, restaurants, entertainment and recreation. They are seeking a vibrant community that matches their lifestyle whether working remotely, socializing with friends and colleagues or simply meeting new people. Related Bristol is the type of mixed-use development Octane believes can attract and retain the skilled labor pool needed to help drive our local economy.

Santa Ana sits squarely in the heart of Orange County, benefitting from easy access to major freeways, commuter trains and one of the best regional airports in the nation. As a result, more companies want to relocate and expand their footprint in the area. Related Bristol will undoubtedly become a centerpiece to the region’s economic success story because it will deliver the housing and lifestyle amenities many individuals seek today.

We are excited to support Related Bristol and we hope you will share our enthusiasm by supporting this visionary development.

Sincerely,
Bill Carpou
Chief Executive Officer
Octane
4041 MacArthur Blvd, Suite 260
Newport Beach, CA 92660
[email protected]
949 459 3366 Learn more at octaneoc.org
City Council 26 – 724 10/1/2024

LOGAN CROW

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
323-428-7411
[email protected]
305 E. 4th Street #100
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Esteemed Commissioners,
My name is Logan Crow, and I am the Executive Director of The Frida Cinema, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit arts organization and movie theater located in Downtown Santa Ana.

At the beginning of 2023, The Frida Cinema proudly took the reins of Santa Ana’s beloved monthly community cultural event, the DTSA First Saturday ArtWalk. As an organization dedicated not only to the cinematic arts, but to the larger conversation of the sharing, support of, and education of the arts at large, taking on and growing this initiative has been incredibly rewarding to our organization, as we deeply value our role and responsibility as one of so many organizations who dedicate themselves to advancing Santa Ana’s legacy as a vibrant home and destination for artists and arts enthusiasts, brimming with creative souls, galleries large and small, arts educational institutions, and fellow nonprofits who dedicate themselves to the arts.

When we reached out for partnership support for the ArtWalk program, the Related Bristol development in south Santa Ana was one of the first entities to answer the call. Curious to learn more, I took the initiative to visit their offices, and was provided with an extensive and detailed overview of their vision, of which I would like to communicate my deep and enthusiastic excitement and support. It was hard not to imagine the incredible opportunities their plans for art exhibits, live entertainment, outdoor cinema nights, craft fairs, and public art displays would provide for our community of artists, as well as the opportunities for repose and recreation that would be provided by their parks and open-air plazas. And I was so impressed that their team was welcoming these introductions and conversations with organizations such as The Frida so early in what I am sure will be a very long process.

I believe the arts are food for the soul, and in our bustling and chaotic world, the soul is often overlooked. As has been evidenced extensively, the arts are also an economic engine for local economies, as they attract adventurous souls who in turn support and engage with local businesses, helping to create the sort of landscape which fosters an increased sense of belonging and safety among residents. The arts connect, enrich, transform, and build communities. I am nothing but supportive of a development so keenly invested in ensuring that community access to the arts, and support of local artists and arts institutions, is a core paradigm of their model.

I hope you will join me and support Related Bristol.

Most sincerely,
Logan Crow
Executive Director, The Frida Cinema
THEFRIDACINEMA.ORG
Established February 21, 2014 as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit arts organization dedicated to enriching, connecting, and educating communities through the art of cinema. City Council 26 – 725 10/1/2024 1902 W. Chestnut Avenue
Santa Ana, CA 92703
Office: 714.834.9400
Fax: 714-834-9494
www.kidworksoc.org
Dear Commissioners or Councilmembers,
I am a longtime resident of the great City of Santa Ana. I believe in our city and its bright future.

Today, through my role at KidWorks, I have the privilege every day of supporting youth from underserved Santa Ana neighborhoods as they stretch themselves and grow to become young leaders.

At KidWorks, we believe every child is born with unique gifts and talents. Our youth are able use their talents to ultimately impact the world and create meaningful, lasting change in their community. From pre-kindergarten thru college, KidWorks guides students step-by-step to help them develop into confident, self-reliant adults who are equipped for the professional world and are motivated to give back. Since KidWorks was established 30 years ago, thousands of Santa Ana students have successfully participated in our programs. The results are inspiring: nearly 100% of the KidWorks students graduate high school on time and go on to college, and 98% are grounded in the belief that they are equipped to face life’s challenges.

Our success in large part is due to having committed community partners who believe in the mission and future of our organization, as well as the potential of our great city. Related California is one of those corporate believers and they are different than other real estate developers who build a project and then move on. Related is a long-term owner, who invests in their communities for the long run and takes pride in being a true community partner. I have witnessed this through their work in the Lacy Neighborhood and their housing development there a number of years ago.

Related’s genuine understanding of its role and opportunity to improve the quality of life for all Santa Ana residents and their track record of providing mixed-income housing, is why I support their proposed Related Bristol redevelopment project in south Santa Ana. It will deliver remarkable economic benefits, including 7,600 new jobs and millions of dollars in annual tax revenue to the city for needed projects citywide.

But just as impactful, Related will remain a long-term community partner because it is what they have done and will continue to do as the largest developer of mixed income housing California, including two affordable projects right here in Santa Ana.

Santa Ana needs more partners like Related, which is why I support Related Bristol and encourage you to do the same.

Thank you,
David Benavides
Executive Director/CEO
______________________________________________________________________________ KidWorks…We Unleash Youth Potential
City Council 26 – 726 10/1/2024
______________________________________________________________ 525 Cabrillo Park Drive, Suite 125, Santa Ana, CA 92701 Phone: (714) 245-9500
www.AAOC.com
November 17, 2023
Santa Ana Planning Commission
City of Santa Ana
22 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Dear Commissioners,
Orange County has long been one of the most attractive places to live and work in California. Our strong economy, close proximity to freeways and transportation centers, good schools, safe communities, and enviable weather have made this a desirable destination to live, work, play, raise families, invest capital, and locate businesses.

However, all of this is at risk from a severe shortage of housing in Orange County, a reality that is challenging communities small and large across California. Experts say the state must double its current rate of housing production to 180,000 units annually to keep up with the expected population growth and demand in coming years. Moreover, all cities, including Santa Ana, are facing state-mandated requirements to plan for new housing – single and multi-family – to accommodate future projected growth.

While Santa Ana is one of the few cities in California that has already met or exceeded its existing Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation by the state, the need for more high-quality housing in Santa Ana, particularly along South Bristol Street where the city’s General Plan calls for higher density residential, should remain a focus and priority for city leaders.

Related Bristol is exactly the type of visionary, mixed-use development the city and the region needs going forward. It will significantly benefit Santa Ana in terms of housing with 3,750 new units, it will deliver an expected $10.7 million in annual local tax revenue, and it will create 7,600 new jobs.

This is potentially a $3 billion private investment, the largest in the city’s 154-year history, and it would be transformational for Santa Ana and an example of modern, innovative mixed-use development done right. On behalf of the Apartment Association of Orange County, I urge you to support and ultimately approve Related Bristol.

Sincerely,
David J. Cordero
Executive Director
City Council 26 – 727 10/1/2024
Fighting for a future of abundant housing in Orange County. peopleforhousing.org
Honorable Councilmembers and Commissioners
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
January 20, 2023
Dear Commissioners or Councilmembers,
My name is Elizabeth Hansburg, Co-Founder and Director of People for Housing Orange County.

Our organization was founded in 2017 with a mission to advocate for more home building in Orange County to end the chronic and growing housing shortage, reduce housing costs and make room for current and future residents. We envision integrated Orange County communities, where every person has access to stable, affordable housing near jobs, community services, and high-quality educational opportunities.

Related Bristol is the type of mixed-use redevelopment we need to create more housing opportunities across Orange County. The redevelopment of this aging, 50-year old, auto-oriented shopping center is a rare and unique opportunity to provide new housing in a high quality, infill environment, which is essential given the scarcity of empty, developable land in Orange County. The walkability and live / work possibilities of this urban, mixed use environment helps address issues such as the high cost of traditional residential construction and the very real environmental concerns from a continued heavy reliance on carbon-emitting single-occupancy-vehicles. Projects like Related Bristol are the future of sustainability – both economic and environmental– in today’s urban Orange County.

Related Bristol’s mix of new, high-quality rental apartments, particularly for 27- to 50-year-old professionals who want a more walkable lifestyle close to major employers like Edwards Lifesciences, Anduril Defense Systems, Behr Paint and South Coast Plaza in central Orange County is critical. In addition, Related Bristol’s proposed senior continuum of care facility will address a seriously underserved need for more elder services and care as this population continues to remain and age in our local communities. This senior housing in particular provides opportunity for housing filtering, freeing up existing housing stock in adjacent communities for younger families or multigenerational families raising children.

City Council 1 26 – 728 10/1/2024
In sum, Related Bristol will help bridge multiple housing gaps. It is exactly the kind of forward thinking cities like Santa Ana not only need to consider, but embrace to create models of urban design and living for future generations.

For these reasons, People for Housing OC strongly supports Related Bristol and urges you to do the same.

Best regards,
Elizabeth Hansburg
Cofounder & Director
Fighting for a future of abundant housing in Orange County. peopleforhousing.org
2 City Council 26 – 729 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 730 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 731 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 732 10/1/2024

JEFFREY KATZ
1919 N. Heliotrope Dr.

Santa Ana, CA 92706
(714) 296-8309
November 10, 2023
Dear Commissioners or Councilmembers,
My name is Jeffrey Katz, a longtime resident of Floral Park in north Santa Ana, and a member of the G7 – an organization of 17 Neighborhood Association leaders in the city.

As a resident who cares deeply about Santa Ana and has worked and served on numerous initiatives and organizations to improve the quality of life in our great city, I am writing to strongly urge you to support the Related Bristol mixed-use project along South Bristol Street.

Projects of this importance and magnitude do not come along often, with profound economic and community benefits that will impact the entire city for generations, Related Bristol will be a major economic catalyst for our city generating 7,600 new construction and permanent jobs and $10.7 million in annual tax revenue. The total private investment of nearly $3 billion will ultimately be one of the largest in the city’s long history.

This is a potential windfall for our city, which needs this type of economic infusion to sustain growth and address the multitude of opportunities and needs facing our city in the years ahead.

Equally important, Related Bristol, with its mix of quality housing, shops, everyday services, senior housing and a hotel, will become a reimagined destination, replacing an aging 41-acre shopping center with a smart, sustainable model for future growth. It is the type of development envisioned by city planners and leaders in the General Plan, a more walkable, pedestrian-friendly environment where people and open space are the priority, not cars.

Public safety is an issue across our city and a planned police substation at Related Bristol will help improve patrol response times and provide a visible presence to protect and reassure residents and visitors. The project also includes a much needed community center with flexible meeting space to hold neighborhood, nonprofit and civic gatherings. These vital community benefits will serve not just the residents of Related Bristol but those living nearby who want and need these services.

City Council 26 – 733 10/1/2024
As a longtime Santa Ana resident of Santa Ana, I can say with confidence Related Bristol is one of those special opportunities I urge you to support and improve.

Thank you,
Santa Ana Resident and Attorney
City Council 26 – 734 10/1/2024
October 16, 2023
Dear Commissioners or Councilmembers,
As residents of Santa Ana, we believe Santa Ana is a special city, a place with a long history of influence and importance in the heart of Orange County. We moved here five years ago and bought a home in the Metro Classic neighborhood. We look forward to the potential improvements of amenities in the visionary Related Bristol development to go into our area.

With each presentation we heard, our excitement and belief has grown about what the project will become as a community space to gather with friends, play in the park, or dine in the evening.

We are excited for the addition of parks, plazas, and green open space, where people, not cars, are the priority. This pedestrian‐friendly village with a mix of shops, grocery store, restaurants, cafes, and outdoor spaces is just a short walk or bike ride for many of us who live in the area.

For cycling enthusiasts like us, the landscaped setbacks and protected bike lanes on the major thoroughfares around the project will add to our desire to visit Related Bristol often and safely.

A strong sense of community and culture as well as the ability to connect with friends, are important ingredients that contribute to quality of life and to the decision of where we want to live. The thoughtful, inclusive, and sustainable design of the project will greatly enhance the lifestyle and attractiveness of living in south Santa Ana and create a new model for future growth throughout our city.

We consider the addition of this development as a major perk to where we live and should increase the value of our home moving forward.

As a couple who invested in Santa Ana and simply want the very best for our city in the years ahead, we urge you to support the Related Bristol project.

Thank you,
Michael Collins TáàÜ|w VÉÄÄ|Çá
Astrid and Michael Collins (Metro Classic Neighborhood Residents) 1814 W Moore Ave
Santa Ana, CA 92604
[email protected]
949‐338‐6682
City Council 26 – 735 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 736 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 737 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 738 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 739 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 740 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 741 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 742 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 743 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 744 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 745 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 746 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 747 10/1/2024
Thursday, August 17, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant economic benefits, community benefits and additional housing it will provide for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

Redeveloping the aging, auto-centric suburban shopping center on South Bristol Street into a walkable, people-first community of residences, shops, restaurants and programmed open green space will be a major economic boost to the City.

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

Once built, nearly one-third of the development will be dedicated to open space with an active mix of programmed parks, open-air plazas and pedestrian-only paseos—a sharp contrast to the asphalt-heavy shopping center that exists there today. Open space on this scale in the heart of Orange County is in high demand, but short supply, which is why Related Bristol is such a vital—and refreshing—alternative to other urban developments.

Moreover, Santa Ana is central to many major employers and the City needs more housing to retain and attract skilled workers. Related Bristol will offer a diverse mix of housing and lifestyle options that will meet this critical regional need.

I believe Related Bristol is the type of mixed-use development that City officials envisioned and advocated in the General Plan for the South Bristol Street Corridor. Approval of this innovative and dynamic project is essential to sustain Santa Ana’s growth and prosperity for years to come and contribute to the economic, social and cultural expansion of one of the largest, most important cities in Orange County.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Sal Tinajero
Email
[email protected]
Address
3304 Aries Ct
Santa Ana, CA, 92704
City Council 26 – 748 10/1/2024
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Victor D Mendez <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 11:27AM
Subject: Support of the Proposed Related Bristol Mixed-use Project To: Amezcua, Valerie <[email protected]>, Phil Becerra City Of Santa Ana Council <[email protected]>, Lopez, Jessie <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Vazquez, Benjamin <[email protected]>, Hernandez, Johnathan <JRyanHernandez@santaana.org>, Phan, Thai <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant economic benefits, community benefits and additional housing it will provide for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

More importantly, having met the Project Lead for Related Bristol, Mr Steven Oh, I believe he brings the integrity, ethics, professionalism and personal demeanor needed for a project of this size and complexity.

Mayor Amezcua raised the concern over falling revenues at the November 7th Council. Her concerns were validated in the Staff budget report presented on November 21st indicating declining revenues in key industries in the City.

Furthermore, MainPlace Mall is losing its vitality and is not a competitive venue for consumers.

Finally, the residents have expressed little appetite for extending Measure X taxes.

It should be patently obvious it can no longer be business as usual in Santa Ana, if we are to maintain our quality of life and services for our residents.

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue, which will help fill the forthcoming Measure X Gap.

I believe Related Bristol is the type of mixed-use development that City officials envisioned and advocated in the General Plan for the South Bristol Street Corridor.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,

VICTOR D MENDEZ
2222 East First St. 2
City Council 26 – 749 10/1/2024
Monday, August 14, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Irma Jauregui
Email
[email protected]
Address
1305 S Birch Street
Santa Ana , CA, 92707
City Council 26 – 750 10/1/2024
Friday, May 5, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

Redeveloping the aging, auto-centric suburban shopping center on South Bristol Street into a walkable, people-first village of residences, shops, restaurants and programmed open space, will be a major economic boost to the City.

Thousands of new, high-quality construction and permanent jobs will be created and the consequential annual tax revenue generated from consumer sales will help fund the delivery and expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

In addition, I believe Related Bristol is the type of mixed-use development envisioned and advocated for by City officials in the recently amended General Plan for the South Bristol Street Corridor. It will become a highly desired destination for all residents of Santa Ana and the region, as well as a vibrant economic hub of retail and dining of all types and price points in the heart of Orange County.

Approval of this innovative and dynamic project is essential to sustain Santa Ana’s growth and prosperity for years to come and to contribute to the economic, social and cultural expansion of one of the largest and most important cities in the heart of Orange County.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Michael Hixson
Email
[email protected]
City Council 26 – 751 10/1/2024
Wednesday, June 21, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Timothy Rush
Email
[email protected]
Address
1225 S Broadway Street, Wilshire Square
Santa Ana, CA, CA, 92707
City Council 26 – 752 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 753 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 754 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 755 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 756 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 757 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 758 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 759 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 760 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 761 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 762 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 763 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 764 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 765 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 766 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 767 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 768 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 769 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 770 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 771 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 772 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 773 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 774 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 775 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 776 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 777 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 778 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 779 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 780 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 781 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 782 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 783 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 784 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 785 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 786 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 787 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 788 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 789 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 790 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 791 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 792 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 793 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 794 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 795 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 796 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 797 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 798 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 799 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 800 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 801 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 802 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 803 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 804 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 805 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 806 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 807 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 808 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 809 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 810 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 811 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 812 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 813 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 814 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 815 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 816 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 817 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 818 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 819 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 820 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 821 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 822 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 823 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 824 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 825 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 826 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 827 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 828 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 829 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 830 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 831 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 832 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 833 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 834 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 835 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 836 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 837 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 838 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 839 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 840 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 841 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 842 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 843 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 844 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 845 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 846 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 847 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 848 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 849 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 850 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 851 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 852 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 853 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 854 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 855 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 856 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 857 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 858 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 859 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 860 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 861 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 862 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 863 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 864 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 865 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 866 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 867 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 868 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 869 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 870 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 871 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 872 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 873 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 874 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 875 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 876 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 877 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 878 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 879 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 880 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 881 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 882 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 883 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 884 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 885 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 886 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 887 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 888 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 889 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 890 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 891 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 892 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 893 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 894 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 895 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 896 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 897 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 898 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 899 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 900 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 901 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 902 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 903 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 904 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 905 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 906 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 907 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 908 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 909 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 910 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 911 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 912 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 913 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 914 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 915 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 916 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 917 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 918 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 919 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 920 10/1/2024
Tuesday, December 12, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Karen Hulen
Email
[email protected]
Address
6281 Pacific Pointe Drive
Huntington Beach, CA, 92648
City Council 26 – 921 10/1/2024
Sunday, December 3, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Brian Altamirano
Email
[email protected]
Address
2808 S Baker St. APT D
Santa Ana, CA, 92707
City Council 26 – 922 10/1/2024
Wednesday, November 15, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Denali Linehan
Email
[email protected]
Address
22522 Meadowwood
Lake Forest, CA, 92630
City Council 26 – 923 10/1/2024
Wednesday, November 15, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Kaj Linehan
Email
[email protected]
Address
22522 Meadowwood
Lake Forest, CA, 92630
City Council 26 – 924 10/1/2024
Wednesday, November 15, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Timothy Linehan
Email
[email protected]
Address
22522 Meadowwood
Lake Forest, CA, 92630
City Council 26 – 925 10/1/2024
Wednesday, November 15, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Shaena Kwok Linehan
Email
[email protected]
Address
22522 Meadowwood
Lake Forest, CA, 92630
City Council 26 – 926 10/1/2024
Wednesday, November 15, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Asha Keramat
Email
[email protected]
Address
29709 Niguel Rd, Apt E
Laguna Niguel, CA, 92677
City Council 26 – 927 10/1/2024
Wednesday, November 15, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Colby Northridge
Email
[email protected]
Address
2230 Aralia St
Newport Beach, CA, 92660
City Council 26 – 928 10/1/2024
Tuesday, November 14, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Jan Johnson
Email
[email protected]
Address
23501 Avenida La Caza, #102
Coto De Caza, CA, 92679
City Council 26 – 929 10/1/2024
Tuesday, November 14, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Steve Johnson
Email
[email protected]
Address
23501 Avenida La Caza
Coto De Caza, CA, 92679
City Council 26 – 930 10/1/2024
Monday, October 30, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Deborah Hicks
Email
[email protected]
Address
2629 N Santiago Street
Santa Ana, CA, 92706
City Council 26 – 931 10/1/2024
Sunday, October 29, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Jose Ruvalcaba
Email
[email protected]
Address
213 pine St
Santa Ana , Ca, 92701
City Council 26 – 932 10/1/2024
Thursday, October 26, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Sergio Escobar
Email
[email protected]
Address
4709 W Henderson pl
Santa Ana, CA, 92704
City Council 26 – 933 10/1/2024
Thursday, October 19, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Kenia Cueto
Email
[email protected]
Address
12912 Villa Rose Dr.

Santa Ana, CALIFORNIA, 92705
City Council 26 – 934 10/1/2024
Wednesday, October 18, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Shogo Nakamura
Email
[email protected]
Address
426 Enclave Cir
Costa Mesa, CA, 92626
City Council 26 – 935 10/1/2024
Tuesday, October 17, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Britni Hageman
Email
[email protected]
Address
4026 Mt. Everest Blvd.

San Diego , CA , 92111
City Council 26 – 936 10/1/2024
Sunday, October 15, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Sasha Law
Email
[email protected]
Address
3926 S Timber St
Santa Ana, CA, 92707
City Council 26 – 937 10/1/2024
Sunday, October 15, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Michael Stanton
Email
[email protected]
Address
110 S. Tablerock Pl.

Anaheim, CA, 92807
City Council 26 – 938 10/1/2024
Sunday, October 15, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Sarah Sattar
Email
[email protected]
Address
110 S Tablerock Pl
Anaheim, CA, 92807
City Council 26 – 939 10/1/2024
Friday, October 13, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Elizabeth Kennard
Email
[email protected]
Address
5197 Vista Del amigo
Yorba Linda, CA, 92886
City Council 26 – 940 10/1/2024
Thursday, October 12, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Ryan Martin
Email
[email protected]
Address
1506 Weymount Pl
Santa Ana, CA, 92705
City Council 26 – 941 10/1/2024
Tuesday, October 10, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Warren Felson
Email
[email protected]
Address
12 Via Coralle
Newport Coast, CA, 92657
City Council 26 – 942 10/1/2024
Sunday, October 8, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Fred De La Riva
Email
[email protected]
Address
8257 E Merryweather Lane
Anaheim, CA, 92808
City Council 26 – 943 10/1/2024
Saturday, October 7, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Becky Clift
Email
[email protected]
Address
35 Windchime
Irvine, CA, 92603
City Council 26 – 944 10/1/2024
Friday, October 6, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Shannan Knitter
Email
[email protected]
Address
15231 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 100
Irvine, California, 92618
City Council 26 – 945 10/1/2024
Thursday, October 5, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Thu Doan
Email
[email protected]
Address
949 Vivid Ln
Costa Mesa, CA, 92626
City Council 26 – 946 10/1/2024
Thursday, October 5, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Arthur Alderete
Email
[email protected]
Address
5299 Alton Parkway
Irvine, CA, 92604
City Council 26 – 947 10/1/2024
Thursday, October 5, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Junsu Rim
Email
[email protected]
Address
5285 acorn dr
Huntington Beach, ca, 92649
City Council 26 – 948 10/1/2024
Wednesday, October 4, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Carl Wong
Email
[email protected]
Address
220 E Chapman Ave, Apt# 16
Placentia, California, 92870-4601
City Council 26 – 949 10/1/2024
Wednesday, October 4, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Kristine Peters
Email
[email protected]
Address
18012 Mitchell South
Irvine, CA, 92614
City Council 26 – 950 10/1/2024
Wednesday, October 4, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Lee de Leon
Email
[email protected]
Address
2501 W. 5TH ST.

Santa Ana, CA, 92703
City Council 26 – 951 10/1/2024
Wednesday, October 4, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Tjwan Tang
Email
[email protected]
Address
1613 N Hale Ave
Fullerton , Ca, 92831
City Council 26 – 952 10/1/2024
Wednesday, October 4, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Michelle Marston
Email
[email protected]
Address
20251 Cape Coral Lane 115
Huntington Beach, CA, 92646
City Council 26 – 953 10/1/2024
Wednesday, October 4, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Cynthia Kempner
Email
[email protected]
Address
3416, Summerset Circle
Costa Mesa, Ca, 92626
City Council 26 – 954 10/1/2024
Tuesday, October 3, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Jeremy Mintz
Email
[email protected]
Address
3916 Ballina Canyon Road
Encino, CA, 91436
City Council 26 – 955 10/1/2024
Tuesday, October 3, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Agnes Kim
Email
[email protected]
Address
12701 Arisotcrat Ave.

Garden Grove, CA, 92841
City Council 26 – 956 10/1/2024
Tuesday, October 3, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Glenda Tagle
Email
[email protected]
Address
15231 Laguna Canyon Rd, Suite 100
Irvine, CA, 92618
City Council 26 – 957 10/1/2024
Tuesday, October 3, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Margaret Gidula
Email
[email protected]
Address
721 Calle Divino
San Clemente, California, 92673
City Council 26 – 958 10/1/2024
Tuesday, October 3, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Lauren German
Email
[email protected]
Address
36 El Corazon
RSM, California, 92688
City Council 26 – 959 10/1/2024
Tuesday, October 3, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Elly Smith
Email
[email protected]
Address
14772 Candeda Pl.

Tustin, CA, 92780
City Council 26 – 960 10/1/2024
Tuesday, October 3, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Stuart Kirkland
Email
[email protected]
Address
122 Via Serena
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA, 92688
City Council 26 – 961 10/1/2024
Tuesday, October 3, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Michael Matonic
Email
[email protected]
Address
15231 Laguna Canyon Rd, Suite 100
Irvine, California, 92618
City Council 26 – 962 10/1/2024
Tuesday, October 3, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Mohamed Hassan
Email
[email protected]
Address
15231 Laguna Canyon Rd Ste 100
Irvine, California, 92618-7714
City Council 26 – 963 10/1/2024
Tuesday, October 3, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Ernie Bustamante
Email
[email protected]
Address
7300 East Kite Drive
Anaheim, CA, 92808
City Council 26 – 964 10/1/2024
Tuesday, October 3, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Oriana Diaz
Email
[email protected]
Address
15231 Laguna Canyon Road, Irvine, CA, U, Suite 100
IRVINE, CA, 92618
City Council 26 – 965 10/1/2024
Tuesday, October 3, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Kari Kitley
Email
[email protected]
Address
15231 Laguna Canyon Rd., Suite 100
Irvine, California, 92618
City Council 26 – 966 10/1/2024
Tuesday, October 3, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Maasa Alter
Email
[email protected]
Address
21237 Jasmines Way
Lake Forest, CA, 92630
City Council 26 – 967 10/1/2024
Tuesday, October 3, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Christopher Pham
Email
[email protected]
Address
26462 San Ramon Way
Mission Viejo, CA, 92692
City Council 26 – 968 10/1/2024
Tuesday, October 3, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Luis Porrello
Email
[email protected]
Address
24202 Mimosa Drive
Laguna Niguel, CA, 92677
City Council 26 – 969 10/1/2024
Tuesday, October 3, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Meg Rothi
Email
[email protected]
Address
21312 Avenida Manantial
Lake Forest, CA, 92630
City Council 26 – 970 10/1/2024
Tuesday, October 3, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Jeff Mixer
Email
[email protected]
Address
21 baldosa
rancho santa margarita, ca, 92688
City Council 26 – 971 10/1/2024
Tuesday, October 3, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Joel Richardson
Email
[email protected]
Address
7701 Warner Avenue, Apratment C42
Huntington Beach, CA, 92647
City Council 26 – 972 10/1/2024
Tuesday, October 3, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Claudia Neemia
Email
[email protected]
Address
168 Oxford Lane
La Habra, CA, 90631
City Council 26 – 973 10/1/2024
Tuesday, October 3, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Elias Mendez
Email
[email protected]
Address
6328 Sombrero Ave
Cypress, CA, 90630
City Council 26 – 974 10/1/2024
Tuesday, October 3, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Rosemary Siu
Email
[email protected]
Address
72 Tallowood, 100
Irvine, CA, 92620
City Council 26 – 975 10/1/2024
Tuesday, October 3, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Michelle Penrice
Email
[email protected]
Address
15231 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 100
Irvine, CA, 92618
City Council 26 – 976 10/1/2024
Tuesday, October 3, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Michael Baroody
Email
[email protected]
Address
24201 El Pilar
Laguna Niguel, CA, 92677
City Council 26 – 977 10/1/2024
Tuesday, October 3, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Bradley Nelson
Email
[email protected]
Address
252 ROBINHOOD LN.

COSTA MESA, CA, 92627
City Council 26 – 978 10/1/2024
Tuesday, October 3, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Meliss Brady
Email
[email protected]
Address
4 via frontera
Rancho Santa Margarita, California, 92868
City Council 26 – 979 10/1/2024
Tuesday, October 3, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Steve Neimeister
Email
[email protected]
Address
110 Collins Avenue
Newport Beach, CA, 92662
City Council 26 – 980 10/1/2024
Sunday, October 1, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
John Donahoejdonahoe7
Email
[email protected]
Address
1904 baycrest
Santa ana, Ca, 92704
City Council 26 – 981 10/1/2024
Thursday, September 28, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Bob Satmary
Email
[email protected]
Address
2822 Copa De Oro Dr
Los Alamitos, CA, 90720
City Council 26 – 982 10/1/2024
Thursday, September 28, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Lance Rava
Email
[email protected]
Address
30252 Pacific Island Drive , Apt 190
Laguna Niguel , CA, 92677
City Council 26 – 983 10/1/2024
Wednesday, September 27, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Kristina James
Email
[email protected]
Address
1101 W. MACarthur Blvd. #261
Santa Ana, CA, 92707
City Council 26 – 984 10/1/2024
Tuesday, September 26, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Lois Carpenter
Email
[email protected]
Address
3210 S Rene Dr
Santa Ana , CA, 92704
City Council 26 – 985 10/1/2024
Tuesday, September 26, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Randy Mai
Email
[email protected]
Address
2514 S Shelton St
SANTA ANA, CA, 92707
City Council 26 – 986 10/1/2024
Tuesday, September 26, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Ruben Jusi
Email
[email protected]
Address
314 west Stevens Ave.

Santa Ana, Ca,, 92707
City Council 26 – 987 10/1/2024
Saturday, September 23, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Jeffrey Katz
Email
[email protected]
Address
1919 N. Heliotrope Dr.

Santa Ana/Calloifornia, CA, 92706
City Council 26 – 988 10/1/2024
Saturday, September 23, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Les Card
Email
[email protected]
Address
1733 La Colina Dr
Santa Ana, CA, 92705
City Council 26 – 989 10/1/2024
Tuesday, September 19, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Matthew Campbell
Email
[email protected]
City Council 26 – 990 10/1/2024
Tuesday, September 19, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Maury Quintana
Email
[email protected]
Address
3302 Park Drive
Santa Ana, CA, 92707
City Council 26 – 991 10/1/2024
Tuesday, September 19, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Jonathan Restivo
Email
[email protected]
Address
100 Spectrum Center Dr, Suite 500
Irvine, California, 92618
City Council 26 – 992 10/1/2024
Tuesday, September 19, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Gina Cunningham
Email
[email protected]
Address
2310 North Flower Street
Santa Ana, CA, 92706
City Council 26 – 993 10/1/2024
Monday, September 18, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Susan Heiligman
Email
[email protected]
Address
1040 MacArthur Blvd, 93
Santa Ana , CA, 92707
City Council 26 – 994 10/1/2024
Saturday, September 16, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Laura Emerson
Email
[email protected]
Address
4000 Barranca Pkwy #250
Irvine, CA, 92604
City Council 26 – 995 10/1/2024
Friday, September 15, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
José Ruvalcaba
Email
[email protected]
Address
213 E pine St
Santa Ana , Ca, 92701
City Council 26 – 996 10/1/2024
Friday, September 15, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Richard Hoff
Email
[email protected]
Address
3113 S Maddock St.

Santa Ana, CA, 92704
City Council 26 – 997 10/1/2024
Friday, September 15, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Bryan Tan
Email
[email protected]
Address
3301 S Bear St
Santa Ana, CA, 92704
City Council 26 – 998 10/1/2024
Friday, September 8, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Carolina Collins
Email
[email protected]
Address
881 Bear Creek
Costa Mesa, CA, 92626
City Council 26 – 999 10/1/2024
Friday, September 8, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Paulette Lombardi-Fries
Email
[email protected]
Address
151 Kalmus Drive, Suite C110
Costa Mesa, CA, 92626
City Council 26 – 1000 10/1/2024
Friday, September 8, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
dave stot
Email
[email protected]
City Council 26 – 1001 10/1/2024
Thursday, September 7, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Jami Fox
Email
[email protected]
Address
749 Santa Florencia
Solana Beach, CA, 92075
City Council 26 – 1002 10/1/2024
Wednesday, September 6, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
nicole Caya
Email
[email protected]
Address
555 Raleigh ave
El Cajon , Ca, 92020
City Council 26 – 1003 10/1/2024
Tuesday, September 5, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Frank Gutierrez
Email
[email protected]
Address
1512 Freeman St
Santa Ana, CA, 92706
City Council 26 – 1004 10/1/2024
Sunday, September 3, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Erick Acuna
Email
[email protected]
Address
2660 W Segerstrom Ave
Santa Ana, CA, 92704
City Council 26 – 1005 10/1/2024
Saturday, September 2, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Frank Garcia
Email
[email protected]
Address
10372 Circulo De Juarez
Fountain Valley, CA, 92708
City Council 26 – 1006 10/1/2024
Friday, September 1, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
J.guadalupe Figueroa
Email
[email protected]
Address
2906S. Pacific ave
Santa Ana , Califiornia, 92704
City Council 26 – 1007 10/1/2024
Thursday, August 31, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Timothy Su
Email
[email protected]
City Council 26 – 1008 10/1/2024
Wednesday, August 30, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Bryan Rosas
Email
[email protected]
Address
1338 W CIVIC CENTER DR
Santa Ana, CA, 92703
City Council 26 – 1009 10/1/2024
Wednesday, August 30, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Eduardo Lopez
Email
[email protected]
Address
3113 S Douglas St
Santa Ana , CA, 92704
City Council 26 – 1010 10/1/2024
Wednesday, August 30, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Yvelyse Santiago
Email
[email protected]
Address
Santa Ana, CA, 92703
City Council 26 – 1011 10/1/2024
Tuesday, August 29, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Adela Chavez
Email
[email protected]
Address
2040, Cedar St
Santa Ana, California , 92707
City Council 26 – 1012 10/1/2024
Friday, August 25, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Johnson Syharath
Email
[email protected]
Address
2314 S Warbler St
Santa Ana, CA, 92704
City Council 26 – 1013 10/1/2024
Thursday, August 24, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Daniel Garcia
Email
[email protected]
Address
1012 N Towner St
Santa Ana, CA, 92703
City Council 26 – 1014 10/1/2024
Thursday, August 24, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Jennifer Bullard
Email
[email protected]
Address
2 Park Plaza, Suite 100
Irvine, CA, 92614
City Council 26 – 1015 10/1/2024
Tuesday, August 22, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Jon- Michael Gisler
Email
[email protected]
Address
4471 Dean Martin Drive, 3602
Las Vegas, NV, 89103
City Council 26 – 1016 10/1/2024
Tuesday, August 22, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Salve Carreon
Email
[email protected]
Address
2261 Pomona Ave. Apt. A
Costa Mesa, Ca., 92627
City Council 26 – 1017 10/1/2024
Monday, August 21, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Ralph Funes
Email
[email protected]
Address
218 w alton
Santa Ana , Ca, 92707
City Council 26 – 1018 10/1/2024
Thursday, August 17, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Luis Carrillo
Email
[email protected]
Address
2939 S Rosewood Ave
Santa Ana, CA, 92707
City Council 26 – 1019 10/1/2024
Wednesday, August 16, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Charles Conder
Email
[email protected]
Address
19598 Denair Ct
Riverside, CA, 92508
City Council 26 – 1020 10/1/2024
Tuesday, August 15, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
benjamin song
Email
[email protected]
Address
1103 tulare dr.
costa mesa, ca, 92626
City Council 26 – 1021 10/1/2024
Tuesday, August 15, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Lisa Laframboise
Email
[email protected]
Address
2522 Park dr.

City Council 26 – 1022 10/1/2024
Monday, August 14, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Pamela Brambila
Email
[email protected]
Address
3018 S Thornton St
Santa Ana, CA, 92704
City Council 26 – 1023 10/1/2024
Monday, August 14, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Jeffrey Almberg
Email
[email protected]
Address
550 Paularino Ave., #C102
Costa Mesa, CA, 92626
City Council 26 – 1024 10/1/2024
Friday, August 11, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name

PAUL SANFORD
Email
[email protected]
Address
936. W River Lane
Santa Ana , Ca, 92706
City Council 26 – 1025 10/1/2024
Tuesday, August 1, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Blair Troy
Email
[email protected]
Address
1907 Deborah Lane
Newport Beach, California, 92660
City Council 26 – 1026 10/1/2024
Wednesday, July 26, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Antonio Sears
Email
[email protected]
Address
92705
City Council 26 – 1027 10/1/2024
Sunday, July 16, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Archie Brown
Email
[email protected]
City Council 26 – 1028 10/1/2024
Thursday, July 6, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Mike Moser
Email
[email protected]
Address
120 s sierra
Solana beach, California, 92075
City Council 26 – 1029 10/1/2024
Thursday, June 29, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
andrew valverde
Email
[email protected]
Address
2514 W Chandler Ave
SANTA ANA, CA, 92704
City Council 26 – 1030 10/1/2024
Wednesday, June 28, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Chris Hodgman
Email
[email protected]
City Council 26 – 1031 10/1/2024
Wednesday, June 28, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Thomas Rubio
Email
[email protected]
Address
2172 Meyer Pl
Costa Mesa, CA, 92627
City Council 26 – 1032 10/1/2024
Wednesday, June 28, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Christopher Rogers
Email
[email protected]
Address
1510 West Surrey Circle
Santa Ana, CA, 92704
City Council 26 – 1033 10/1/2024
Monday, June 26, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Lada Phyakul
Email
[email protected]
Address
565 Anton Blvd.

Costa Mesa, CA, 92626
City Council 26 – 1034 10/1/2024
Sunday, June 25, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

Approximately 7,500 jobs will be created, along with an estimated $10.7 million in annual tax revenue to help fund the expansion of services and programs throughout Santa Ana.

I support Related Bristol and urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Jose Flores
Email
[email protected]
Address
211 N Sycamore Street
Santa Ana , Ca, 92701
City Council 26 – 1035 10/1/2024
Friday, June 16, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use development on South Bristol Street because of the significant and much-needed open space planned for the project.

About one-third of the development will become an active mix of programmed parks, open-air plazas and pedestrian-only paseos to explore, slow down and feel inspired. It will be a sharp contrast and welcomed replacement to the aging and asphalt-heavy shopping center that exists there today in South Santa Ana.

Open space on this scale in the heart of Orange County is in high demand, but short supply, which is why Related Bristol is such a vital—and refreshing—alternative to most urban developments.

I believe the developer is committed to creating a more inviting, sustainable and resilient model of community living and the plans to make programmed open space with seasonal events, public art installations, live music, dance performances and other outdoor art exhibits and activities a central feature of this innovative community are truly exciting.

From the earliest planning sessions, the lush and beautiful landscaped walkways and parks have been high priorities at Related Bristol to promote an outdoor lifestyle that will enhance wellness and fitness for all who live or visit there.

This commitment to a healthier, greener existence is why I strongly support Related Bristol.

I urge you to do the same, and approve Related Bristol.

Thank you,
Name
Eric Morley
Email
[email protected]
Address
151 Kalmus Drive, Suite A102
Costa Mesa, Ca, 92626
City Council 26 – 1036 10/1/2024
Friday, June 16, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use development on South Bristol Street because of the significant and much-needed open space planned for the project.

Open space on this scale in the heart of Orange County is in high demand, but short supply, which is why Related Bristol is such a vital—and refreshing—alternative to most urban developments.

This commitment to a healthier, greener existence is why I strongly support Related Bristol.

I urge you to do the same, and approve Related Bristol.

Thank you,
Name
Wing Lam
Email
[email protected]
Address
1185 Warner Avenue
Tustin, Ca, 92780
City Council 26 – 1037 10/1/2024
Sunday, June 4, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use development on South Bristol Street because of the significant and much-needed open space planned for the project.

Open space on this scale in the heart of Orange County is in high demand, but short supply, which is why Related Bristol is such a vital—and refreshing—alternative to most urban developments.

This commitment to a healthier, greener existence is why I strongly support Related Bristol.

I urge you to do the same, and approve Related Bristol.

Thank you,
Name
Adrian Velasco
Email
[email protected]
Address
526 S Ross
Santa ana, Ca
City Council 26 – 1038 10/1/2024
Sunday, June 4, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use development on South Bristol Street because of the significant and much-needed open space planned for the project.

Open space on this scale in the heart of Orange County is in high demand, but short supply, which is why Related Bristol is such a vital—and refreshing—alternative to most urban developments.

This commitment to a healthier, greener existence is why I strongly support Related Bristol.

I urge you to do the same, and approve Related Bristol.

Thank you,
Name
Michael Martinez
Email
[email protected]
Address
1505 w anahurst pl
Santa Ana , CA
City Council 26 – 1039 10/1/2024
Saturday, June 3, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use development on South Bristol Street because of the significant and much-needed open space planned for the project.

Open space on this scale in the heart of Orange County is in high demand, but short supply, which is why Related Bristol is such a vital—and refreshing—alternative to most urban developments.

This commitment to a healthier, greener existence is why I strongly support Related Bristol.

I urge you to do the same, and approve Related Bristol.

Thank you,
Name
Briana Harley
Email
[email protected]
Address
260 N Tustin St , Unit C
Orange, CA
City Council 26 – 1040 10/1/2024
Saturday, June 3, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use development on South Bristol Street because of the significant and much-needed open space planned for the project.

Open space on this scale in the heart of Orange County is in high demand, but short supply, which is why Related Bristol is such a vital—and refreshing—alternative to most urban developments.

This commitment to a healthier, greener existence is why I strongly support Related Bristol.

I urge you to do the same, and approve Related Bristol.

Thank you,
Name
Nancy Tlaseca
Email
[email protected]
Address
1111 w. Santa Ana blvd. , 24
Ca, Santa Ana
City Council 26 – 1041 10/1/2024
Thursday, May 25, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Adam Volkert
Email
[email protected]
Address
Fountain Valley, CA, 92708
City Council 26 – 1042 10/1/2024
Thursday, May 25, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Stephanie Mack
Email
[email protected]
Address
908 Magellan Street
Costa Mesa, CA, 92626
City Council 26 – 1043 10/1/2024
Wednesday, May 24, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
celia rice
Email
[email protected]
Address
415 15th Street Unit 12
Huntington Beach, CA, 92648
City Council 26 – 1044 10/1/2024
Wednesday, May 24, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Valerie Chang
Email
[email protected]
City Council 26 – 1045 10/1/2024
Wednesday, May 24, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Max Smith
Email
[email protected]
City Council 26 – 1046 10/1/2024
Wednesday, May 24, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Kasey Smith
Email
[email protected]
City Council 26 – 1047 10/1/2024
Wednesday, May 24, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Faith Escalera
Email
[email protected]
Address
5139 Residencia
Newport Beach , Ca , 92660
City Council 26 – 1048 10/1/2024
Wednesday, May 24, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Maribel Barrios
Email
[email protected]
City Council 26 – 1049 10/1/2024
Wednesday, May 24, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Rikki Hendricks
Email
[email protected]
Address
10860 San Leon Ave
Fountain Valley , CA, 92708
City Council 26 – 1050 10/1/2024
Wednesday, May 24, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Kaylee Mageean
Email
[email protected]
Address
10414 La Tortola Cir
Fountain Valley, CA, 92708
City Council 26 – 1051 10/1/2024
Wednesday, May 24, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Muna Dakelbab
Email
[email protected]
Address
20121 Imperial Cove Lane
Huntington Beach, CA, 92646
City Council 26 – 1052 10/1/2024
Wednesday, May 24, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Tony Jovanelly
Email
[email protected]
Address
1140 Buckingham Dr, Apt C
Costa Mesa, CA, 92626
City Council 26 – 1053 10/1/2024
Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Josh Gilbert
Email
[email protected]
City Council 26 – 1054 10/1/2024
Sunday, May 21, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Krystal Trinh
Email
[email protected]
City Council 26 – 1055 10/1/2024
Sunday, May 21, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Madi Goswick
Email
[email protected]
Address
410 Buckskin Ranch Rd
Imperial, CA, 92251
City Council 26 – 1056 10/1/2024
Sunday, May 21, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Barbara Laughrin
Email
[email protected]
Address
356 West Duarte Street
Brawley, CA, 92227
City Council 26 – 1057 10/1/2024
Sunday, May 21, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Rosanna Lipis
Email
[email protected]
Address
301 W K St
Brawley, CA, 92227
City Council 26 – 1058 10/1/2024
Sunday, May 21, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Tara Adkins
Email
[email protected]
Address
410 Buckskin ranch rd.

Imperial, CA, 92251
City Council 26 – 1059 10/1/2024
Sunday, May 21, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Madison Goswick
Email
[email protected]
Address
410 Buckskin Ranch Rd
Imperial, CA, 92251
City Council 26 – 1060 10/1/2024
Sunday, May 21, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Kaycee Schilling
Email
[email protected]
City Council 26 – 1061 10/1/2024
Saturday, May 20, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Briede Charbonnet
Email
[email protected]
Address
5331 Soledad Rancho Ct
San Diego, CA, 92109
City Council 26 – 1062 10/1/2024
Friday, May 19, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Safa Fatima
Email
[email protected]
Address
6431 Govin circle
Huntington Beach, CA, 92647
City Council 26 – 1063 10/1/2024
Friday, May 19, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Ashley Walker
Email
[email protected]
Address
17142 reimer street
Fountain valley , CA, 92708
City Council 26 – 1064 10/1/2024
Monday, May 15, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Gagan Sharma
Email
[email protected]
Address
300 Southridge Lakes Pkwy
Southlake, Texas, 76092
City Council 26 – 1065 10/1/2024
Monday, May 15, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Katelin Cortney
Email
[email protected]
Address
3104 Westcliff Road West
Fort Worth, TX, 76109
City Council 26 – 1066 10/1/2024
Monday, May 15, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Jonathan Ulrich
Email
[email protected]
City Council 26 – 1067 10/1/2024
Monday, May 15, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Alexander Geesbreght
Email
[email protected]
Address
6665 Trinity Heights Blvd
Fort Worth, TEXAS, 76132
City Council 26 – 1068 10/1/2024
Monday, May 15, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Holland Harper
Email
[email protected]
Address
1040 31st st Se
Paris, TX, 75460
City Council 26 – 1069 10/1/2024
Monday, May 15, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Brad Lyddon
Email
[email protected]
Address
4191 Chevy chase dr
La Canada flintridge , Ca , 91011
City Council 26 – 1070 10/1/2024
Monday, May 15, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Josh Hopkins
Email
[email protected]
City Council 26 – 1071 10/1/2024
Monday, May 15, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Raquel Ulrich
Email
[email protected]
City Council 26 – 1072 10/1/2024
Monday, May 15, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Troy Bussmeir
Email
[email protected]
City Council 26 – 1073 10/1/2024
Monday, May 15, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Bryan Cortney
Email
[email protected]
Address
3104 Westcliff Road West
Fort Worth, TX, 76109
City Council 26 – 1074 10/1/2024
Monday, May 15, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Celene Lyddon
Email
[email protected]
Address
4191 Chevy Chase Dr
La Canada flintridge , CA , 91012
City Council 26 – 1075 10/1/2024
Monday, May 15, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Claire Charbonnet
Email
[email protected]
Address
5331 Soledad Rancho Ct
San Diego, CA, 92109
City Council 26 – 1076 10/1/2024
Monday, May 15, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Chad Walker
Email
[email protected]
Address
17142 Reimer Street
Fountain Valley, CA, 92708
City Council 26 – 1077 10/1/2024
Monday, May 15, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Alice Callens
Email
[email protected]
Address
8856 Sutter Circle Unit 526b
Huntington Beach, CA, 92646
City Council 26 – 1078 10/1/2024
Thursday, May 4, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Laura Marttinen
Email
[email protected]
City Council 26 – 1079 10/1/2024
Thursday, May 4, 2023
Send a Letter in Support of
Related Bristol
To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of the proposed Related Bristol mixed-use project because of the significant and highly positive economic benefits it will have for the City of Santa Ana for decades to come.

This is why I support Related Bristol, and I urge you to approve this visionary development.

Thank you,
Name
Thu Doan
Email
[email protected]
City Council 26 – 1080 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 1081 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 1082 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 1083 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 1084 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 1085 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 1086 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 1087 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 1088 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 1089 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 1090 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 1091 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 1092 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 1093 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 1094 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 1095 10/1/2024
City Council 26 – 1096 10/1/2024
MacArthur
Intermediate
Taft
Elementary
3900 3600 3500
3400
3200 3100
700 600 300 200
100
100 100
Doubletree Clu
Hotel

MAIN ST

SUNFLOWER AV

ALTON AV
PARTON
AV
HARVEY
AV

MACARTHUR PL
AV

AURORA AVVAN NESS AV

ALPINE AV

PARTON AV

BELL AV

KELLER AV

BELL AV

ALPINE AV ALPINE AV

ALPINE AV

TIMBER ST TIMBER ST

OLIVE ST OLIVE ST OLIVE ST

SIERRA AV

CURIE AV

JUNIPER AV JUNIPER AV

BIRCH ST

BIRCH ST BIRCH ST
BINE

ALTON AV

KELLER AV

KELLER AV TIMBER ST TIMBER ST

COLUMBINE AV

NOBEL AV

NOBEL AV
T
T

JUNIPER

ALDER ST

AROL AV

CAROL AV
PL

STEVENS AV STEVENS AV

STEVENS AV

HARVEY AV

COLUMBINE AV

COLUMBINE A

LOWELL ST LOWELL ST
SIERRA
SIERRA

ROSS ST

ROSS ST
AV
AV

AV AV AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
ST
ST

GARNSEY ST

MURPHY AV
ORION
ORION
MACART

SYCAMORE ST

PASTEUR

STEVENS
A
A

SANDP OINTE
E
ES

WOODLAND AV

TEAKWOOD ST

WOODLAND PL

RAMONA DR RAMONA DR RAMONA DR

MACARTHUR

AURORA ROSS

AURORA AURORA
H R
N
R
R
C
C
U
MURPHY
COLUM
M

MACARTHUR PL
Sandpointe
Bomo
Koral
Park
Lillie
King
Park
Sandpointe
Park
City of Santa Ana
Residential Permit Parking
Sandpointe
District
Key to Permit Parking Zones
Streets with permit parking required all
day, everyday.

Streets with permit parking required 12
Midnight to 6 am everyday.

Streets with permit parking required 2am
to 6 am everyday.

Streets with permit parking required 8 am
to 5 pm everyday.
0 290 580
Feet
Map Date: 6/14/2023
EXHIBIT 1
City Council 26 – 1097 10/1/2024
MacArthur
Intermediate
Jefferson
Elementary
Esqueda Elementary
Saddleback High
Taft
Elementary
Washington
Elementary
3900
3600
3600
3500
3500
3400
3300 3200
3200 3100
2900 2800
2600
2300
2300
2300
2300
2200
2200
1800 1700
1600 1400
1300
1300
1300 1200
1200
1000 800
700
700
700
600
600
500
400
300 200
100
100
100
100

UNION PACIFIC RR

ARMSTRONG

RANCH RD SHEFFIELD RD

FOREST AV

DEEREFIELD RD

RED FOX RD

SEA BREEZE SADDLEBACK
CT

BLACKHAWK DR

MEADOWBROOKE DR

ROSEWOOD CT
FS
Bristol &
Sunflower
Plaza
Bristol
Warner
Village
Coastal
Communities
Hospital
Bristol
Place
South Coast Plaza
Park & Ride
Bristol
Plaza
Sunflower
Plaza
South Coast
Plaza
South Coast
Plaza Village

MAIN ST

BEAR ST
AV

SUNFLOWER AV

SEGERSTROM AV SEGERSTROM

DYER RD

WARNER AV

BRISTOL ST

FLOWER ST

MACARTHUR BLVD

DOUGLAS
ST
GARRY
AV
PARTON
AV
HARVEY
AV
BURNS
AV

COLUMBINE AV

LINDA WY

AURORA AVVAN NESS AV

SIE R RA

HALL AV

BIRCH ST

ALPINE AV
BREWER
AV

PARTON AV

BELL AV

GARRY AV

KELLER AV

CENTRAL AV

PACIFIC AV

PACIFIC AV PACIFIC AV

CARRIAGE DR RITA RITA

CENTRAL AV

BELL AV

GARNSEY ST

ALPINE AV ALPINE AV

ALPINE AV

TIMBER ST TIMBER ST

OLIVE ST

OLIVE ST OLIVE ST OLIVE ST OLIVE ST

HALL AV HALL AV SALTA ST

SALTA ST

HEMLOCK WY

SIERRA AV
CIR

CURIE AV

JUNIPER AV JUNIPER AV

RITA WY

BIRCH ST

BIRCH ST BIRCH ST
BINE
LINDA
LINDA

ALTON AV

KELLER AV

KELLER AV TIMBER ST TIMBER ST

COLUMBINE AV

ORION AV

LINDA WY

FLORA ST

PLAZA DR

NOBEL AV

MAGNOLIA AV

JUNIPER

BEAR ST

ALDER ST

CENTRAL AV

CAROL AV

CAROL AV
PL

FOREST AV

STEVENS AV

HARVEY AV

SAN LORENZO AV

BAKER ST BAKER ST

BAKER ST

SHELTON ST SHELTON ST

COLUMBINE AV

BAY CREST

LOWELL ST

LOWELL ST LOWELL ST
SIERRA
SIERRA

BURNS AV

PARTON ST

POPLAR ST

PARK DR

GARRY AV

ROSS ST

ROSS ST
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV AV
AV

CARRIAGE DR

CARRIAGE DR CARRIAGE DR SPRUCE ST ST ST
ST
ST

ADAMS ST ADAMS ST

GARNSEY ST

RENE DR

MURPHY AV

SY CAMORE ST

JOANE WY

THORNTON ST

BROADWAY PL
ORION
ORION

MOORE AV

MOORE AV MOORE AV

SECREST WY

SYCAMORE ST

WAKEHAM PL PASTEUR TOWNER ST TOWNER ST TOWNER ST TOWNER ST TOWNER ST

CALLENS COMM

STEVENS

SANDP OINTE

WOODLAND AV

TEAKWOOD ST

WOODLAND PL

RAMONA DR

RAMONA DR RAMONA DR RAMONA DR

PENDLETON

DOREEN WY

ROSEWOOD AV

ROSEWOOD AV ROSEWOOD AV

SPRUCE SPRUCE
SURREY

BRADFORD

HEMLOCK

AURORA ROSS

AURORA AURORA

BROADWAY
MURPHY
COLUM

ROWLAND
WY
WY
WY
WY
WY
WY
Sandpointe
South
Coast
South
Metro
Bomo
Koral
Park
Thornton Park
Lillie
King
Park
Sandpointe
Park
City of Santa Ana
Residential Permit Parking
South Coast
District
Key to Permit Parking Zones
Streets with permit parking required all
day, everyday.

Streets with permit parking required 12
Midnight to 6 am everyday.

Streets with permit parking required 2am
to 6 am everyday.

Streets with permit parking required 8 am
to 5 pm everyday.
0 540 1,080
Feet
Map Date: 6/14/2023 City Council 26 – 1098 10/1/2024
Greenville
Fundamental
Elementary
Jefferson
Elementary
Thorpe
Fundamental
McFadden
Institute of
Technology
Segerstrom High
Calvary
Chapel
High /
Maranatha
Christian
3600
3500
3500
3300
3300
3200
3200
2900
2900
2900
2900
2900
2900
2800
2800
2800
2800
2800
2600
2600
2500
2500
2500
2400
2400
2300
2300
2300
2300
2300 2200
2100
2100 1900
1800 1700
1600 1400
1300
1300
1300 1200
1200

UNION PACIFIC RR

ARMSTRONG

RANCH RD

SANTA FE
RAY
CIR
F ST
A ST
E ST
B ST
D ST

VILLAGE DR

SILVER SPUR TWILIGHT

SHEFFIELD RD

FOREST AV

DEEREFIELD RD

RED FOX RD

SEA BREEZE

SUMMER WIND

SADDLEBACK
CT

WEST WIND

BLACKHAWK DR

CRAWFORD GLEN

MEADOWBROOKE DR

NORTHWOOD

MEADOWOOD
Plaza Mobile
Estates
FS
Bristol &
Sunflower
Plaza
Bristol
Warner
Village
Coastal
Communities
Hospital
Bristol
Place
South Coast Plaza
Park & Ride
Bristol
Plaza
Sunflower
Plaza
South Coast
Plaza
South Coast
Plaza Village
South Coast
Marketplace

RAITT ST

BEAR ST

SUNFLOWER AV

SEGERSTROM AV

WARNER AV

FAIRVIEW ST

BRISTOL ST

MACARTHUR BL

WARNER AV

MACARTHUR BLVD

DOUGLAS
ST

GLENARBOR
ST
GARRY
AV

WARBLER
ST
HALL
AV
BURNS
AV

DEEGAN DR

MOORE AV

LINDA WY

PENDLETON AV

HALL AV

OCEAN CREST
ARIES CT ... WY
GARRY
AV
BREWER
AV

GARRY AV

PACIFIC AV

PACIFIC AV PACIFIC AV

CARRIAGE DR RITA RITA

LAURA LINDA LN

RAITT ST

SEA CLIFF

HALL AV

HALL AV HALL AV

HALL AV

SALTA ST

HEMLOCK WY

GOLDEN WEST AV
CIR

CURIE AV

ARTESIA ST

ARTESIA ST ARTESIA ST

RITA WY

GRISET PL

JUNIPER ST

FUCHSIA ST
LINDA
LINDA

ALTON AV

KELLER AV

ORION AV

LINDA WY

GREENVILLE ST

LINDA WY

GREENVILLE ST

FLORA ST

PLAZA DR

MANLY AV

MARINE ST

ASPEN VILLAGE WY

MAGNOLIA AV

BEAR ST

CENTRAL AV CENTRAL AV

CENTRAL AV

CENTRAL AV
PL
PL
PL

FOREST AV

KNOX AV KNOX AV

KNOX AV

SAN LORENZO AV

BAKER ST BAKER ST

BAKER ST

COLUMBINE AV

BAY CREST
GRISET
GRISET

TAURUS LN

BURNS AV

POPLAR ST

MANITOBA DR

GARRY AV

DIAMOND ST

CENTER ST

CENTER ST
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV

CARRIAGE DR CARRIAGE DR CARRIAGE DR

CARRIAGE DR

CHANDLER AV

SPRUCE ST ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST

ADAMS ST ADAMS ST

EVERGLADE ST

GREENWICH AV

AURORA ST

RENE DR

DOUGLAS ST

SAN LORENZO

JOANE WY

THORNTON ST

MOORE AV MOORE AV MOORE AV

SECREST WY

ROWLAND AV ROWLAND AV

DEEGAN DR DEEGAN DR

WAKEHAM PL

MADDOCK ST

CALLENS COMM

TOWNSEND ST

HURON DR

DIAMOND

PENDLETON

WOOD ST

HEMLOCK WY HEMLOCK WY

DOREEN WY
CENTER

SPRUCE SPRUCE
SURREY

DANBURY

GLENARBOR ST

HEMLOCK
GARRY
DOREEN

CHANDLER TOWNSEND
WY
WY
WY
WY
WY
WY
South
Metro
Adams
Park
Thornton Park
City of Santa Ana
Residential Permit Parking
South Metro
District
Key to Permit Parking Zones
Streets with permit parking required all
day, everyday.

Streets with permit parking required 12
Midnight to 6 am everyday.

Streets with permit parking required 2am
to 6 am everyday.

Streets with permit parking required 8 am
to 5 pm everyday.
0 540 1,080
Feet
Map Date: 6/14/2023 City Council 26 – 1099 10/1/2024
Resolution No. 2024-XXX

Page 1 of 4 ends

Santa Ana City CouncilOctober 1, 2024

Santa Ana City Council
October 1, 2024