Agenda packet — Santa Ana City Council, March 4, 2025 (part 3 of 4)

The right -of -way (ROW) width would be increased from 120 feet to 128 feet.

The 15- foot -wide parkway would be reduced to 6 feet in width.

The 10- foot -wide sidewalk would be reduced to 8 feet in width.

The Bristol Street centerline between Saint Anne Place and Saint Andrew Place would be shifted an additional four feet to the west. The Bristol Street centerline would remain unmodified north of Saint Andrew Place.

The resolution approving the Addendum to the FEIS /EIR ( Exhibit 4) is needed to allow expenditure of federal grant funding for right -of -way acquisition and construction of the project.

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution in accordance with the CEQA requirements.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this item supports the City's efforts to meet Goal # 6 Community Facilities & Infrastructure, Objective # 1 ( establish and maintain a Community Investment Plan for all City assets), Strategy G ( develop and implement the City' s Capital Improvement Program in coordination with the Community Investment and Deferred Maintenance Plans for Bristol Street widening).

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Pursuant to Section 15164(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act, City Council shall consider adopting a resolution approving the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Statement /Environmental Impact Report.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action
i- rec ousavipour
Exec ive Director
Public Works Agency

FM /EWG /ML
Exhibit: 1. Bristol Street FEIS /EIR (attached CD)

2. Location Map

3. Addendum to the FEIS /EIR

4. Resolution
75C -2
City Council 17 – 141 3/4/2025
Exhibit 1
Located on the city' s website:
http: // santaana. granicus .com /GeneratedAgendaViewer.php ?view id =2 & event id =350 A. Bristol Street Improvements and Widening Environmental Impact Study— Environmental Impact Review
B. Bristol Street Improvements and Widening Technical Studies C. Bristol Street Improvements and Widening Traffic Study D. Bristol Street Improvements and Widening Historical Property Survey Report E. Bristol Street Improvements and Widening Relocation Impact Study 75C -3
City Council 17 – 142 3/4/2025
75C -4
City Council 17 – 143 3/4/2025

ST ANDREW PL

CARLTON PL CARLTON PL

GLENWOOD PL GLENWOOD PL
CAMDENP `
1 CAMDEN PL
I 1
I

ST AN PL

T ANNE PL
I

ST GERTRUDE PL
r- i

ST GERTRUDE PL
J
J
L- 2

WARNER AV (DELHI RD)
1 r- ._ (

SCALE NTS)
PROJECT AREA EXHIBIT 2
RESOLUTION TO ADOPT ADDENDUM.,
TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT $ t
savrA ANA STATEMENT /ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CITY COUNCIL REPORT FOR THE BRISTOL STREET if
P W A AGENDA DATE:
u
IMPROVEMENTS AND WIDENING PROJECT —
PU9L C woaks a EN. APRIL 7, 2015 BETWEEN WARNER AVENUE AND SAINT ANDREW PLACE. PAGE 1 of 1
75C -5
City Council 17 – 144 3/4/2025
75C -6
City Council 17 – 145 3/4/2025
August 2014

CITY OF SANTA ANA
Bristol Street Widening Project
Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV)
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
PROJECTNUMBER;
733667
PRO ECTCONTACT,.

Court EMAIL: Morgan
court morgar@powerang. mm
PHONE: 949- 436 -3453
POWER s
ENGINEERS Exhibit 3
75C -7
City Council 17 – 146 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place ( Phase IV) Environmental Impact Report Addendum
PREPARED FOR: CITY OF SANTA ANA
PREPARED BY. COURTMORGAN
714- 507 -2764
CO URT. MOR GAN@POWERENG. COM
75C -8
City Council 17 – 147 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Wldeninq Prolect Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. 0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. .............................. 1

1. 1 PURPOSE OF AN ADDENDUM .............................................................................. 2

1. 2 PROJECT LOCATION ............................................................................................ 4

1. 1. 1 Existing Land Uses ........................................................................................................ 4

1. 3 PROJECT BACKGROUND ................................................................................... 10

1. 3. 1 Approved 1990 Final EM/ EIS ...................................................................................... 10

1. 3. 2 Adopted Transportation Improvement Program ........................................................... 10

1. 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................... 11

1. 4. 1 Bristol Street Widening Phase IV Project Area ........................................................... 11

1. 4. 2 Property Acquisition ..................................................................................................... 11

1. 4. 3 Changes as Compared to the Approved Project ............................................................ 15

1. 4. 4 Construction Timeframe ............................................................................................... 16

1. 5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS .................................................................................. 16

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ................................................................... 19

2. 1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 19

3. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .......................................................... 21

3. 1 AESTHETICS ........................................................................................................ 21

3. 2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................ 22

3. 3 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................... 23

3. 4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................. 32

3. 5 CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................... 33

3. 6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ....................................................................................... 34

3. 7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ......................................................................... 36

3. 8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........................................................ 37

3. 9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................ 39

3. 10 LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................... 43

3. 11 MINERAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 43

3. 12 NOISE .................................................................................................................. 44

3. 13 POPULATION AND HOUSING ............................................................................. 49

3. 14 PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................. 50

3. 15 RECREATION .................................................................................................... 51

3. 16 TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC ............................................................................. 51

3. 17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................................... 53

3. 18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ....................................................... 54 ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU i
75C -9
City Council 17 – 148 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project WarnerAve to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV)

4. 0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... ............................. 56

FIGURES
FIGURE 1 REGIONAL LOCATION ..................................................................................... ............................... 7 FIGURE 2 PROJECT LOCATION ........................................................................................ ............................... 8 FIGURE 3 EXISTING LAND USES FROM 1990 FINAL EIS/ EIR ......................................... ............................... 9 FIGURE 4 PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS ............................................................................ ............................... 14 FIGURE 5 PROPOSED PROJECT LAYOUT ....................................................................... ............................... 17 FIGURE 6 PROPOSED LANE GEOMETRICS - 1990 FINAL EIS/EIR ................................ ............................... 18 FIGURE 7A NOISE MONITORING AND MODELING LOCATIONS ................................... ............................... 46 FIGURE 7B NOISE MONITORING AND MODELING LOCATIONS ................................... ............................... 47 TABLES
TABLE 1 EXISTING LAND USES ...................................................................................... .............................. 4 TABLE 2 PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS ............................................................................ ............................... 12 TABLE 3 PROJECT RELATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS ........................................... ............................... 25 TABLE 4 YEAR 2015 WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS ..... ............................... 27 TABLE 5 YEAR 2035 WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS ..... ............................... 28 TABLE LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS ANALYSIS FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES .............. 30 TABLE 7 CO HOTSPOT ANALYSIS (PPM) ..................................................................... ............................... 31 TABLE 8 LOCAL SCHOOLS WITHIN THE PHASE IV PROJECT AREA ............................. ............................... 38

APPENDIX A
ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) USA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C -10 City Council 17 – 149 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place ( Phase IV)

1. 0 INTRODUCTION
This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended, to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed changes to the widening of Bristol Street, from Warner Avenue to Memory Lane as proposed in the Project Final Environmental hnpact Statement / Environmental Impact Report ( FEIS /EIR) approved in 1990 ( FHWA -CA- EIS- 89 -01- F; SCH No. 87071509).

This Addendum focuses on the segment of Bristol Street between Warner Avenue and Saint Andrew Place Phase IV, or Project) and is limited to the proposed improvements to this segment. This Addendum provides an assessment of potential environmental impacts associated with minor design modifications and the issue of climate change which was not addressed in the previously prepared and certified FEIS /EIR.

Design modifications to the Project, since approval of the 1990 FEIS /EIR, that are addressed in this Addendum include the following:

The proposed Project increases the total right -of -way width from 120 feet to 128 feet. The proposed Project right- of-way cross- section would maintain a curb -to -curb width of 100 feet, would accommodate a 7 -foot wide bike lane on each side of the roadway, and would not affect the number or width of vehicular travel lanes as compared to the right -of -way cross - section addressed in the 1990 FEIS/EIR. However, the proposed Project right -of -way cross section, as compared to the rightof-way cross section addressed in the 1990 FEIS /EIR, would reduce the width of the sidewalks from 10 to 8 feet and also accommodate a 6 -foot wide parkway on each side of Bristol Street to separate pedestrian and vehicular travel; a parkway was not included as part of the roadway cross section addressed in the 1990 FEIS /EIR. Acquisition of property resulting from the proposed Project right - of -way is accounted for in this analysis.

The centerline alignment has been shifted to the west starting at St. Gertrude instead of starting at Glenwood Place with the addition of 4 -feat to the original 20 -foot shift. The street centerline then shifted back 4 -feet to the east at St. Andrew in order to match the existing centerline north of St.

Andrew. By shifting the centerline at St. Gertrude, the Phase IV Project saved eight parcels from full take by reducing these parcels to partial acquisitions.

A bus turnout would be located at the Warner Avenue.

Change right -of -way requirement from full take to partial take of the following single - family residential parcels: 015- 215 -10 ( 150 square feet), 015- 215 -11 ( 50 square feet), 015- 214 -10 ( 50 square feet), 015- 234 -10 ( 50 square feet), 015- 233 -11 ( 50 square feet), 015- 233 -10 ( 50 square Feet), 015- 232 -11 ( 50 square feet), and (015- 232 -10 ( 50 square feet).

Change right -of -way requirement from full take to partial take of Parcel 408- 336 -17 ( 3, 466 square feet).

Land use for the current Project has been changed compared to the 1990 FEIS. The following parcels have been changed from Park to Park with Commercial Option: 015- 194 -38 and 015 -194-

39. Preceding project phase inclusive of the following parcel which is no longer included in the Phase IV Project right -of -way requirements: 015- 194 -40.

It should be noted that the 1990 FEIS and 2013 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Reevaluation URS Corporation) provided comprehensive noise barriers at all easterly parcel boundaries currently fronting the east side of Bristol Street between Warner Avenue and Saint Andrew Place and comprehensive noise barriers at all westerly parcel boundaries currently fronting the west side of Bristol Street between ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C -11 City Council 17 – 150 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place ( Phase IV) West Saint Gertrude Place and Saint Andrew Place. Using the California Department of Transportation' s Caltrans) May 2011 Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, the following noise barriers ( NB) were determined to be reasonable: NB -4, NB -5, NB -6, NB -7, NB -8, NB -9, NB -10, and NB -11. These noise barriers are generally equivalent to the recommended noise barriers shown in the 1990 FEIS and 2013 Reevaluation.

However, barriers NB -6, NB -7, NB -8, and NB -9 would need to be shifted to the west of the receivers parcels) that are no longer being acquired. The modifications and other refinements to the project would not create any additional impacts than what was identified in the 2013 NEPA Reevaluation; thus, there would be no changes or additions to the avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures.

Furthermore, as climate change is a relatively new area of discussion, the topic was not discussed in the Air Quality section of the previously approved FEIS /EIR. As such, this Addendum analyzes the effects of climate change associated with the construction and operation of the Project.

This Addendum to the previously certified 1990 Final EIS /EIR has been prepared because project - related modifications to the Bristol Street alignment do not trigger the need for further environmental analysis in a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR under the requirements of CEQA or CEQA Guidelines ( refer to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15164 and 15167).

1. 1 Purpose of an Addendum
Under CEQA, when an EIR has been certified for a project, no Subsequent FIR may be required for that project unless the lead agency determines, based upon substantial evidence, that one or more specified circumstances has occurred. Only if one or more of the following circumstances arises is a Subsequent FIR required:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revision of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revision of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following:

A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[ a])
A Supplement to an FIR (or Supplemental EIR), which is narrower in scope than a Subsequent EIR, may be prepared if any of the above criteria apply, but "[ o] nly minor changes or additions would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation" ( CEQA Guidelines Section 15163[ a]). In the absence of the need to prepare either a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR, an Addendum may be prepared. Section 15164 states:

ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C -12 City Council 17 – 151 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) a) The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FIR have occurred. b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration.
d) The decision making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project.
e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency' s findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. ( CEQA Guidelines Section 15164)
This Addendum to the previously certified Final EIS/EIR for the Approved Project has been prepared because the evaluation of the proposed modifications does not result in any of the circumstances requiring a Subsequent or Supplemental EIS/EIR. As shown in this Addendum, although the proposed modifications would result in development that differs from that in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR, they do not trigger the need for preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR under the criteria listed in Sections 15162(a) and 15163( a). Sections 2 and 3 of this Addendum demonstrate that no substantial changes are proposed in the approved project or have occurred in the area of the Bristol Street Widening Phase IV project located between Warner Avenue and St. Andrew Place that will require major revisions to the previously certified 1990 Final EIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Specifically, the proposed modifications do not result in new or substantially greater significant impacts because the scale and nature of the development proposed are sufficiently similar to that analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR that the impacts of the proposed modifications are within the levels and types of environmental impacts disclosed in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR.

Additionally, no substantial changes in circumstances under Section 15162( a)( 2) have occurred since the certification of the 1990 Final EIS /EIR for the approved project that would implicate new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of significant impacts previously identified, since the background environmental conditions have not significantly changed since that time. The City of Santa Ana has received no information indicating there has been a substantial change in any circumstances that would result in a new or substantially greater significant impact.

Furthermore, no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the 1990 Final EIS /EIR preparation, has been revealed that shows new or substantially greater significant impacts will result ( see CEQA Guidelines Section 15162( a)( 3)). In addition, there are no new or different Mitigation Measures or Alternatives that would substantially reduce one or more significant impacts of the approved project but that are not adopted. The proposed modifications do not identify or require adoption of any further Mitigation Measures or Alternatives beyond those provided in the certified 1990 Final EIS/EIR for the approved project, since additional Mitigation Measures are either not necessary or not feasible, and the Alternatives analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR represent a reasonable range as requested by CEQA see CEQA Guidelines Section 15162( a)( 3)).

The Addendum relies on the certified 1990 Final EIS/EIR and the related administrative record, in addition to the additional documentation included to support the Addendum, including the appendices. The Addendum is to be included or attached to the 1990 Final EIS/EIR and is not to be considered as an independent or separate document.

As this Addendum does not identify new or substantially greater significant impacts, circulation for public review and comment is not necessary pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164( c). However, the City ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 3
75C -13 City Council 17 – 152 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place ( Phase IV) Council will consider and adopt or reject this Addendum at a public meeting prior to the approval of the proposed Bristol Street Widening Phase IV project ( refer to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(4)). The findings of the City Council in its resolution of adoption of this Addendum, if adopted, will reflect this Addendum which provides the basis and substantial evidence for the decision not to prepare a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR (refer to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e)).

1. 2 Project Location
The project site is located on a segment of Bristol Street between Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place in the City of Santa Ana. The City of Santa Ana, located within the County of Orange, is surrounded by the Cities of Tustin, Orange, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, and Garden Grove. The proposed project site is located approximately 1. 5 miles north of the San Diego Freeway ( I -405) and approximately three miles south of State Route 22 ( SR -22). Refer to Figure 1 and Figure 2 for the regional map and project location map with proposed roadway alignment and widening.

1. 1. 1 Existing Land Uses
The project area and surrounding vicinity is located within a fully urbanized area of the City. The existing land uses along the project corridor consist of commercial and single - family residential developments. There are no outdoor activities associated with the commercial developments in the project area. The existing single - family residences consist of single -story homes of varying sizes, and include outdoor areas of frequent human use (i.e., rear and side yards).

According to the current City of Santa Ana General Plan, land use designation for the affected parcels fronting Bristol Street within the vicinity of the Bristol Street Widening Phase IV project area and existing land uses are summarized in the Table 1 Existing Land Uses.

The majority of surrounding areas beyond the project site are similar to the development typology along Bristol Street Widening Phase IV which includes single family residences, multi - family residences and various commercial and retail facilities. Figure 3 ( Existing Land Uses from the 1990 Final EIS/EIR]), illustrates the existing land uses identified for Bristol Street Widening Phase IV as part of the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. It should be noted that while the Phase IV project area stretches along Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place, Bristol Street at Edinger Avenue is also included as part of the project study area however, Bristol Street from Saint Andrew to Edinger has already been widened and is not a part of Phase IV. The locations of the full or partial acquisitions are shown on Figure 4.

TABLE 1 EXISTING LAND USES
ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) USA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C - 14
APN ADDRESS GENERAL PLAN ZONING EXISTING LAND U5E DESIGNATION 015- 191 -11
1235 W Saint OS SP1 Single Family Residential Gertrude PI 015 - 194 -17 2101 S Bristol St OS SP1 Commercial ( Mortgage Office) 015 - 194 -20 2115 S Bristol St OS SP1 Commercial ( Lawnmower/ Equipment Repair 015 - 194 -21 2119 S Bristol St OS SP1 Parking
015 - 194 -22 2123 S Bristol St OS SP1 Commercial ( Palm /Tarot Reading in Single Family Residential)
015 - 194 -23 2201 S Bristol St OS SP1 Single Family Residential 015 - 194 -24 2205 S Bristol St OS SP1 Single Family Residential ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) USA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C - 14 City Council 17 – 153 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) 015- 194- 25
algmg n-gl
MY
2209 S Bristol St Os SPI
IMP
Commercial ( Dentist)
015- 194-28 2223 S Bristol St PIC Spi Commercial ( Real Estate Office) 015- 194-29 2227 S Bristol St PIC Spi Commercial ( Costume Rental) 015- 194-36 2231 S Bristol St PIC Spi Commercial ( Dentist) 015- 194-38 2215 S Bristol St PIC Spi Commercial (Ambulance Services) 015- 194- 39 2219 S Bristol St PIC SPI Commercial (Ambulance Services) 015- 194-41 2109 S Bristol St OS Spi Commercial ( Dentist) 015- 214- 10 1241 Camden P1 OS Spi Single Family Residential 015- 215- 10 1241 Saint Anne P1 OS SPI Single Family Residential 015- 215- 11 1242 Camden PI Os Spi Single Family Residential 015- 216- 01 1242 Saint Anne PI OS SPI Single Family Residential 015- 232- 10
1242 W Saint AndrE
i
OS Spi Single Family Residential
015- 232- 11 1241 Carlton PI OS Spi Single Family Residential 015- 233- 10 1242 Carlton PI OS Spi Single Family Residential 015- 233- 11 1241 W Glenwood I OS SIDI Single Family Residential 015- 234- 10 1242 W Glenwood I OS SPI Single Family Residential 408- 332- 01
1302 W Saint AndrE
pi
OS SPI Single Family Residential
408- 332- 17 1305 W Carlton PI LR7 R2 Single Family Residential 408- 332- 18 1301 W Carlton PI OS SPI Single Family Residential 408- 333- 01 1302 W Carlton PI OS SPI Single Family Residential 408- 333- 02 1306 W Carlton PI LR7 R2 Single Family Residential 408- 333- 18 1301 W Glenwood I OS Spi Single Family Residential 408- 334- 01 2034 S Bristol St OS Spi Single Family Residential 408-334- 17 1305 W Camden PI LR7 R2 Single Family Residential 408-334- 18 1301 W Camden PI OS Spi Single Family Residential 408-335- 01 1302 W Camden PI OS Spi Single Family Residential 408-335- 02 1306 W Camden PI LR7 R2 Single Family Residential 408-335- 17 1305 W Saint Anne LR7 R2 Single Family Residential 408-335- 18 1301 W Saint Anne OS Spi Single Family Residential ANA 305- 194 ( PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C -15 City Council 17 – 154 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place ( Phase IV) La"} 5" k_ ai -.: - S e' i < j -., Ya i. '.'" - ;^ i' C a. 2 Fyt$ 4, N' i' I' *a s of 408- 336 -01 1302 W Saint Anne OS SP1 Single Family Residential 408 - 336 -02 1306 W Saint Anne LR7 R2 Single Family Residential 408- 336 -17 2040 S Bristol St LR7 /OS R2 /SP1 Vacant
408 - 471 -01 2102 S Bristol St GC C2 /SP1 Commercial ( Restaurant) 408- 471 -05 2222 S Bristol St GC C2 /SP1 Commercial ( Strip Mall) 408- 471 -06 2240 S Bristol St GC C21SP1 Commercial ( Florist) 408 - 471 - 17 2130 S Bristol St GC C2 /SP1 Commercial (Shopping Plaza) Notes:

General Plan Designations: GC = General Commercial, LR7 = Low Density Residential, OS = Open Space, PIC = Park with Commercial Zoning Designations: SP1= Bristol Street Corridor Specific Plan, R1= Single Family Residential, R2 = Two-Family Residential, C2 = General Commercial Parcel 015- 194 -40 located at 2235 S Bristol Stwas not included in this list as itwas acquired by the City of Santa Ana as partof a separate preceding project.

AN 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C -16 City Council 17 – 155 3/4/2025
FIGURE 1 REGIONAL LOCATION
ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) 75C -17 City Council 17 – 156 3/4/2025
KERN' CU.

OREGON IDAHO
F
d
s
V. L9master ' ate
5 NEVADA
UTAH'.
a
r. F
Imdale AdeldnI CALIFORNIA
i,RIZON
aKy S
Oyga pn
LEGEND

PROJECT LOCATION

PACIFIC OCEAN
F
1`
FIGURE 1

REGIONAL LOCATION
N

BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT
WARNERAVENUE TO ST. ANDREW PLACE
Miles ( PHASE IV)
0 5 10 15
75C -18 City Council 17 – 157 3/4/2025
FIGURE 2 PROJECT LOCATION
ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) 75C -19 City Council 17 – 158 3/4/2025
PC1Rk yitloaLy - i Ail Wypllhls fit 1 I I dl iv ciifri
r. I K GP
ii. i
55 wilw[PP6t i It (
mil
jl 1RlrNiandSt l t
3 e' i
7 WWISlenaP,
p
i
i I,.

II,
t 6 i
l
i. JA }t
J
n
tt 1--- c I` i Hev Ny PI.
m l if i
m,
w t
ir
if
Ell
if Il611 Si
i> p II i
I,
I
Lt I
91ddwd
i L I
it s
ll
i
WEld -f AVe h
It ` q Il r nl I
d L
n
zfl
9p)
iA
wTe
w`li bar
n
k( no 5ffi I. if
m
o wu, ifflsl
dV
st
r GartVm I
it
Hirvaril5t Foil
n4 l n' l
z gJ NwTSo-rHY r + G
II—W AneIUtfit P,I - if -. it _ - I i!
s w 1 1
U=
II
L
m
If
WHe1iVV li
if i S s I,
w.
l
mI ilk l
i ECxnIF
rot f I_
n
i ti _
w
If
t
1 2 p
L 1
3:
st
WH6'fevoRWnf. il .
to ifiPm)an a
t
Y9
p r
t1
e., . r AVc
i , n Ldllo
1 AbnA, c j
ll NIh3
y
tt
i n 1
1 VC. i= Ave W Be! AV,
W R1 3 t' ltlpt * 6lvtl I _
IIf, Av2 — qfu aR> r4 _ _
Ks
z cent itl R,
Santa Ana o K04 ,. ",
Costa Mesa
I
i
r ,. °• i..

LEGEND FIGURE 2

PROPOSEDIMPROVEMENTS PROJECT LOCATION
N

BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT
WARNER AVENUE TO ST. ANDREW PLACE
Feel PHASE IV)
0 1, 000 2, 000
FOI IRCF ARCGI.S ONI INF. NATPF0 WORT D MAP ACOFRSFO Ni 75C -20 City Council 17 – 159 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) FIGURE 3 EXISTING LAND USES FROM 1990 FINAL EIS /EIR
ANA 305494 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C -21 City Council 17 – 160 3/4/2025
tJwaQ
WN aw
M0 =
m
W Q WLU o 2
uj
ww
D
o¢
U M 0 ww
3AY pli V"
U) N wa
W w
VA V XpYOt am
UR
NY.

VAV Yip X103
v p,Sy •,r+ i' t + S
r
x >)q3 t a
1pplYli AW1X3Mtlt' 0.'e' lrTf' vi
y ++' MINOMV - It
pF
J li Mp11tlVp zUZO
Ll O
lv pO0MMi1t j
z
g
H
yuLL N , oa W m u D r7 ?
NV— O
NWM Z Oz
wy
UO
iXNY ' lt
S
J ' W'llll eNMY is ° L°
z w?
w
tp tl1Yi0 ' Lt ° > a
r w
I
z
wa
Fo
C
yw
3AY Yt MYVM
rN
Um0
NmOK
75C -22 City Council 17 – 161 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place ( Phase IV)

1. 3 Project Background

1. 3. 1 Approved 1990 Final EIRIEIS
The City of Santa Ana General Plan has designated Bristol Street as a Major Arterial Highway traveling in a north -south direction. As a result of significant growth and traffic congestion on Bristol Avenue, the City, in the late 1980s, proposed to widen Bristol Street from a four -lane roadway to a six -lane arterial in accordance with adopted County of Orange and City of Santa Ana standards for a Major Arterial Highway. A joint EIS /EIR was prepared and approved by the City of Santa Ana and Caltrans for the widening of Bristol Street in 1990. The 1990 project entailed a 3. 9 -mile segment of Bristol Street from Warner Avenue on the south to Memory Lane on the north. Due to significant costs associated with construction and availability of funding, the project was divided into several construction phases; Phase 1 from Warner Avenue north to First Street, Phase 2 consisting of the widening and reconstruction of the bridge which crosses Santiago Creels ( northerly limits of the street widening project), and Phase 3 between First Street and Memory Lane.

The 1990 Final EIS /EIR document (SCH No. 87071509) was approved on November 19, 1990. The 1990 Final EIS /EIR and associated technical studies, incorporated herein by reference, documented the environmental impacts of widening Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Memory Lane in the City of Santa Ana. As stated in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR, the purpose and goals of the Bristol Street Widening project were to:
1) Provide sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate current and future traffic demand. 2) Improve the performance and safety of the roadway for the benefit of the motoring public. 3) To reduce current and projected future delays experienced at major intersections and to design intersections to function at acceptable Levels of Service (LOS). 4) To design the roadway in manner conducive to the provision of public transportation, namely bus service provided by the Orange County Transit District (OCTD).

1. 3.2 Adopted Transportation Improvement Program
The Approved Project is included as project number ORA125 in the regional emissions analysis conducted by Southern California Association of Governments ( SLAG) for the conforming 2013 Federal Transportation Improvement Program ( FTIP) adopted by SCAG on September 19, 2012 and approved by FHWA on December 14, 2012. As provided in the FTIP, the Approved Project description reads as follows:

BRISTOL ST ( WARNER TO MEMORY LANE) WIDEN FROM 4 TO 6 LANES ( IMPV AT BRISTOL /WARNER (ADD ATIEBISB THRULNS; WB RT TRNLN) AND BRISTOL /FIRST (ADD

NBISB THRUINS, SBLFTIRTITRNINS
The Phase IV project is a component of the Approved Project. The Phase IV Project' s design concept and scope have not changed significantly from what was analyzed in the RTIP and FTIP. This analysis found that the plan and, therefore, the individual projects contained in the plan, are conforming projects, and would have air quality impacts consistent with those identified in the state implementation plans ( SIPS) for achieving the National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS). FHWA determined the RTIP to conform to the SIP.

The Phase IV Project' s open to the public year is consistent with (within the same regional emission analysis period as) the construction completion date identified in the FTIP and /or RTP. The FTIP gives priority to eligible Transportation Control Measures ( TCMs) identified in the SIP and provides sufficient funds to provide for their implementation. FHWA determined the TIP to conform to the SIP on December 2010.

ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 10
75C -23 City Council 17 – 162 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) The Phase IV Project is also included in the 2013 TIP adopted by SCAG on September 6, 2012 and approved by FHWA on December 14, 2012.

1. 4 Project Description

1. 4. 1 Bristol Street Widening Phase IV Project Area
Phase IV of the Bristol Street Widening Project involves the widening of Bristol Street ( between Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place) from 4 lanes to 6 lanes with a 150- foot -wide right -of -way cross section including a 14 -foot wide raised landscaped median; three 12- foot -wide through travel lanes in each direction; a 7 -foot wide Class 1I bike lane on each side of the roadway; a 15 -foot wide parkway, and 10 -foot sidewalk with curb ramps for wheelchair access pursuant to American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) requirements on both sides of the roadway.

As Bristol Street approaches the intersections between Warner Avenue and Saint Andrew Place, and between Warner Avenue and Glenwood Place, the landscaped center median would taper to accommodate right -tarn pockets and left -turn lanes in each direction. The landscaped center median would then continue north of the Glenwood Place intersection to match the existing raised center median approximately 380 feet south of Edinger Avenue. The addition of the landscaped center median would improve safety by preventing left -tum access to /from Saint Gertrude Place, Saint Anne Place, Camden Place, and Carlton Place to the newly widened Bristol Street. ( Note: the intersection of Bristol Street and Saint Andrew Place would be converted to a right -turn only intersection in both directions.) Additionally, cul -de -sacs would be included on the west side of Bristol Street at Saint Anne Place, Camden Place, and Carlton Place to improve safety by preventing access to /from these streets to the newly widened Bristol Street. The location of the Phase IV Project is shown in Figure 1 and in Figure 2.

Street signs and utilities including electric power lines, telephone poles, and street lighting would be relocated to new locations within the project area along Bristol Street. Street furniture, including the benches and bus shelters, will be provided at bus stop locations.

During the one -year construction ( approximately mid -2016 to mid- 2017), one lane in each direction would remain open and existing driveway accesses along Bristol Street would be retained at all rimes. Maximum excavation depth would be three feet for roadway excavation and 10 feet for utility /drainage excavation.

Construction equipment would be those consistent with other similar roadway widening projects and likely would include excavators, loaders, backhoes, dump trucks, graders, pavers and rollers, and other construction trucks.

1. 4.2 Property Acquisition
To accommodate the street widening proposed by the Bristol Street Widening project, a combination of full and partial acquisition of right of way is required from a total of 43 residential and commercial parcels fronting Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place ( refer to Figure 4 [Property Acquisitions] for the locations of affected properties). Table 2 includes a listing of properties affected and the disposition of acquisition requirements.

ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C -24 City Council 17 – 163 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place ( Phase IV) TABLE 2 PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS
ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) CSA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 12 75C - 25
015 - 191 - 11 1235 W. Saint Gertrude Place Single - Family Residential Full 6, 493 015 - 194 -17 2101 S. Bristol Street Mortgage Full 5, 389 015 - 194 -20 2115 S. Bristol Street Lawnmower/ Equipment Repair Full 5, 881 015 - 194 -21 2119 S. Bristol Street Parking Full 6, 000 015 - 194 -22 2123 S Bristol Street Palm /Tarot Reading in SingleFamily ResidentialFull 6, 720 015 - 194 -23 2201 S. Bristol Street Single - Family Residential Full 6, 720 015 - 194 -24 2205 S. Bristol Street Single - Family Residential Full 6, 600 015 - 194 -25 2209S. Bristol Street Dental Office Full 5, 880 015 - 194 -28 2223 S. Bristol Street Real Estate Office Full 6, 120 015 - 194 -29 2227 S. Bristol Street Costume Rental Full 6, 120 015 - 194 -36 2231 S. Bristol Street Dental Office Full 5, 940 015 - 194 -38 2215 S. Bristol Street Ambulance Services Full 5, 760 015 - 194 -39 2219 S. Bristol Street Ambulance Services Full 5, 640 015 - 194 -41 2109 S. Bristol Street Dental Office Full 11, 402 015 - 214 -10 RD 1241 Camden Place Single - Family Residential Partial 53 015 - 215 -10 RD 1241 Saint Anne Place Single - Family Residential Partial 209 015- 215 -11 RD 1242 Camden Place Single - Family Residential Partial 48 015 - 216 -01 1242 Saint Anne Place Single - Family Residential Full 6, 556 015 - 232 -10 RD 1242 W. Saint Andrew Place Single - Family Residential Partial 50 015 - 232 -11 RD 1241 Carlton Place Single - Family Residential Partial 52 015 - 233 -10 RD 1242 Carlton Place Single - Family Residential Partial 46 015 - 233 -11 RD 1241 W. Glenwood Place Single - Family Residential Partial 51 015 - 234 -10 RD 1242 W. Glenwood Place Single - Family Residential Partial 50 408 - 332 -01 1302 W. Saint Andrew Place Single - Family Residential Full 8, 262 408 - 332 -17 1305 W. Carlton Place Single- Family Residential Partial 450 408 - 332 -18 1301 W. Carlton Place Single- Family Residential Full 8, 286 408 - 333 -01 1302 W. Carlton Place Single - Family Residential Full 8, 286 408 - 333 -02 1306 W. Carlton Place Single - Family Residential Partial 450 ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) CSA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 12 75C - 25 City Council 17 – 164 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) 4 g
iE
ssYe 1 T4sLNJ U
lt$
408- 333 -18 1301 W. Glenwood Place Single - Family Residential Full 8, 262 408 - 334 -01 2034 S. Bristol Street Single - Family Residential Full 7, 531 408 - 334 -17 1305 W. Camden Place Single - Family Residential Partial 150 408 - 334 -18 1301 W. Camden Place Single - Family Residential Full 7, 012 408- 335 -01 1302 W. Camden Place Single - Family Residential Full 7, 009 408- 335 -02 1306 W. Camden Place Single - Family Residential Partial 150 408- 335 -17 1305 W. Saint Anne Place Single - Family Residential Partial 150 408 - 335 -18 1301 W. Saint Anne Place Single - Family Residential Full 7, 012 408- 336 -01 1302 W. Saint Anne Place Single - Family Residential Full 7, 012 408- 336 -02 1306 W. Saint Anne Place Single - Family Residential Partial 150 408 - 336 -17 RD 2040 S. Bristol Street Vacant Partial 3, 466 408 - 471 -01 2102 S. Bristol Street Restaurant Full 11, 079 408 - 471 -05 2222 S. Bristol Street Strip Mall Partial 1, 415 408 - 471 -06 2240 S. Bristol Street Florist Full 21, 169 408 - 471 -17 2130 S. Bristol Street Shopping Plaza Partial 17, 076 Source: POWER Engineers, 2014.

NOTES
RD: Change in parcel boundaries or parcel impact subsequent to the 1990 FEIS and 2013 Reevaluation.

No Change.

The acquisition of property, as described herein, would comply with policies pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as implemented by the City of Santa Ana.

ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C -26
13 City Council 17 – 165 3/4/2025
FIGURE 4 PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS
ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) 75C -27
14 City Council 17 – 166 3/4/2025
w Fc 9' u• a R i
p d " i . Fd
City Council 17 – 167 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Proiect Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place ( Phase IV)

1. 4.3 Changes as Compared to the Approved Project
It should be noted that project phasing has been revised from the original three phases identified in thel990 Final EIS /EIR. Construction phasing of the entire project segment has been further subdivided as follows:

St. Andrew Place to McFadden Avenue (Constructed in 2002) Elm Street to Memory Lane (Constructed in 2003)
Pine Street to 3` d Street ( Constructed in 2009)
Phase I: McFadden Avenue to Pine Street (Constructed in 2011)' Phase IL• 3` d Street to Civic Center Drive (Construction to be completed in 2014) Phase IIIA: Civic Center Drive to Washington Avenue
Phase IIIB: Washington Avenue to 17 "' Street
Phase IV: Warner Avenue to St. Andrew Place
Phase V: 17`1i Street to Elm Street
The proposed street widening design configuration for the current Phase IV segment differs from the original configuration of the 1990 Final EIS /EIR, as follows:

The proposed Project increases the total right -of -way width from 120 feet to 128 feet. The proposed Project right -of -way cross - section would maintain a curb -to -curb width of 100 feet, would accommodate a 7 -foot wide bike lane on each side of the roadway, and would not affect the number or width of vehicular travel lanes as compared to the right -of -way cross - section addressed in the 1990 FEIS /EIR. However, the proposed Project right -of -way cross section, as compared to the right - of -way cross section addressed in the 1990 FEIS /EIR, would reduce the width of the sidewalks from 10 to 8 feet and also accommodate a 6 -foot wide parkway on each side of Bristol Street to separate pedestrian and vehicular travel; a parkway was not included as part of the roadway cross section addressed in the 1990 FEIS /EIR. Acquisition of property resulting from the proposed Project right - of -way is accounted for in this analysis.

The centerline alignment has been shifted to the west starting at St. Gertrude instead of starting at Glenwood Place with the addition of 4 -feet to the original 20 -foot shift. The street centerline then shifted back 4 -feet to the east at St. Andrew in order to match the existing centerline north of St.

Andrew. By shifting the centerline at St. Gertrude, the Phase IV Project saved eight parcels from full take by reducing these parcels to partial acquisitions.

A bus turnout would be located at the Warner Avenue.

Change right -of -way requirement from full take to partial take of the following single - family residential parcels: 015 - 215 -10 ( 150 square feet), 015- 215 -11 ( 50 square feet), 015- 214 -10 ( 50 square feet), 015- 234 -10 ( 50 square feet), 015- 233 -11 ( 50 square feet), 015- 233 -10 ( 50 square feet), 015- 232 -11 ( 50 square feet), and ( 015- 232 -10 ( 50 square feet).

I Phase numbers were assigned to the Bristol Street Widening Project subsequent to cancelation of the CenterLine Light Rail Transit Project and associated reallocation of funding from that canceled project to the Bristol Street ANA 305494 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C -29
15 City Council 17 – 168 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) Change right -of -way requirement from full take to partial take of Parcel 408- 336 -17 ( 3, 466 square feet).Land use for the current Project has been changed compared to the 1990 FEIS. The following parcels have been changed from Park to Park with Commercial Option: 015- 194 -38 and 015 -194-

39. Preceding project phase inclusive of the following parcel which is no longer included in the Phase IV Project right -of -way requirements: 015- 194 -40.

It should be noted that the 1990 FEIS and 2013 NEPA Reevaluation ( URS Corporation) provided comprehensive noise barriers at all easterly parcel boundaries currently fronting the east side of Bristol Street between Warner Avenue and Saint Andrew Place and comprehensive noise barriers at all westerly parcel boundaries currently fronting the west side of Bristol Street between West Saint Gertrude Place and Saint Andrew Place. Using the California Department of Transportation' s ( Caltrans) May 2011 Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, the following noise barriers were determined to be reasonable: NB -4, NB -5, NB -6, NB -7, NB -8, NB -9, NB -10, and NB -11. These noise barriers are generally equivalent to the recommended noise barriers shown in the 1990 FEIS and 2013 NEPA Reevaluation. However, barriers NB -6, NB -7, NB -8, and NB -9 would need to be shifted to the west of the receivers ( parcels) that are no longer being acquired.

The modifications and other refinements to the project would not create any additional impacts than what was identified in the 2013 NEPA Reevaluation; thus, there would be no changes or additions to the avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures.

The proposed Phase IV Project lane configurations are shown in Figure 5, whereas the lane configurations from the original approved 1990 Final EIS/EIR are shown in Figure 6.

An assessment of construction and Project related GHG emissions was also not addressed in the 1990 FEIS /EIR, and as a result is addressed in this Addendum.

1. 4.4 Construction Timeframe
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would occur following acquisition of the required parcels. Construction of the Project is anticipated to begin in mid -2016 and be completed within approximately one year (mid- 2017).

1. 5 Discretionary Actions
The Addendum document must be adopted by the City of Santa Ana City Council as to its adequacy in complying with the requirements of CEQA and the previously approved 1990 Final EIS /EIR. The City Council will consider the information contained in the Addendum and the 1990 Final EIS/EIR in making a decision to approve or deny the proposed project. No discretionary actions with regards to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), or changes are proposed pursuant to NEPA.

ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 16
75C -30 City Council 17 – 169 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) FIGURE 5 PROPOSED PROJECT LAYOUT
ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C -31 City Council 17 – 170 3/4/2025
I
v
f.A1l n,i 6 k v v. r
e
UYI i4W ( 1 Np. ' 9E C
yr
7 V;
k IF
Y
City Council 17 – 171 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place ( Phase IV) FIGURE 6 PROPOSED LANE GEOMETRICS - 1990 FINAL EIS /EIR ANA 305494 (PER 02) CSA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 18
75C -33 City Council 17 – 172 3/4/2025
ltEt
VN
art" sites
SOURCE: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTIENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, PROPOSED WIDENING OF BRISTOL STREET FROM WHILSHIREAVENUE TO WARNER AVENUE IN THE CITY OF SANTAANA, WILLDAN ASSOCIATES. 1990, FIGURE

PROPOSED LANE GEOMETRICS
1990 FEISIEIR)

BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT
WARNER AVENUE TO ST. ANDREW PLACE

PHASE IV)
75C -34 City Council 17 – 173 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV)

2. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

2. 1 Background
Project Title:

Bristol Street Widening Phase IV Project
Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, M -36
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Contact Person and Phone Number:

Kenny Nguyen, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer City of Santa Ana (714) 647 -5632 Project Location:

Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place in the City of Santa Ana.

Project Sponsor' s Name and Address:

City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, M -36
Santa Ana, CA 92702
General Plan Designation:

General Commercial ( GC), Low Density Residential ( LR -7), Open Space ( OS), Park with Commercial P /C)
Zoning:

Specific Plan ( SP1), General Commercial ( C -2), Single Family Residential ( RI), Two Family Residential R2)
Description of Project:

The City of Santa Ana is proposing to widen the Bristol Street between Warner Avenue and Saint Andrew Place as part of the previously approved Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Memory Lane Project, for which an EIS/EIR was certified in 1990.

The Build Alternative involves the widening of Bristol Street ( between Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place) from 4 lanes to 6 lanes with a 150 -foot wide right -of -way cross section including a 14 -foot wide raised landscaped median; 3 12 -foot wide through travel lanes in each direction; a 7 -foot wide Class II bike lane on each side of the roadway; a 15 -foot wide parkway, and 10 -foot sidewalk with curb ramps for wheelchair access pursuant to ADA requirements on both sides of the roadway.

As Bristol Street approaches the intersections between Warner Avenue and Saint Andrew Place, and between Warner Avenue and Glenwood Place, the landscaped center median would taper to accommodate right -turn pockets and left -turn lanes in each direction. The landscaped center median would then continue north of the Glenwood Place intersection to match the existing raised center median approximately 380 feet south of Edinger Avenue. The addition of the landscaped center median would improve safety by preventing left -turn access to /from Saint Gertrude Place, Saint Anne Place, Camden Place, and Carlton Place to the newly widened Bristol Street. ( Note: the intersection of Bristol Street and Saint Andrew Place would be converted to a right -turn only intersection in both directions.) Additionally, cul-de- sacs would be included on the west side of Bristol Street at Saint Anne Place, Camden Place, and Carlton Place to improve safety by preventing access to /from these streets to the newly widened Bristol Street.

ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 19
75C -35 City Council 17 – 174 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) The widening would require full and partial takes of several parcels fronting Bristol Street as detailed in Table 2 (Property Acquisitions).

Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The project site is located within a fully developed urban area within the City of Santa Ana. Areas surrounding the project site consist of various urban uses such as commercial and retail facilities, and single and multi - family residences.

Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required ( e. g., permits, financing, or participation agreement):

City of Santa Ana
ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 20
75C -36 City Council 17 – 175 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place ( Phase IV)

3. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This section describes the effects of the proposed modifications to the Bristol Street Widening Phase IV project compared to those identified in the previously approved 1990 Final EIS/ EIR document, and to existing conditions and any changes in regulatory setting since the previously approved 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Furthermore, this section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The issue areas evaluated in this document include the following, pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, and have been modified to evaluate the proposed project changes for which a Final EIS/EIR has been previously approved (in 1990) to assist in the determination of the need for a supplemental EIS /EIR or an Addendum. The modified Initial Study checklist is found in Appendix A.

Aesthetics
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/WaterQuality
Land Use
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation /Traffic
Utilities /Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
A summary of impacts of the previously approved project and the mitigation measures imposed is provided along an analysis of the potential impacts resulting from the proposed project and whether those impacts substantially exceeds those discussed in the previously approved 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

3. 1 Aesthetics
This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, subsections A, Landform Modification, G, Urban Landscaping, J, Light and Glare, and K, Aesthetic Considerations of the previously approved 1990 Final EIS /EIR.
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The proposed project would not result in any significant modifications or changes from the previously approved 1990 Final EIS /EIR. The Bristol Street Widening Phase IV intersections are located within a highly developed urban area of the City. No scenic vistas are located within the project area. No impact to scenic vistas would result from the proposed project.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
There are no state designated scenic highways within the project area. The project is located within a highly developed and urbanized area of the City. No scenic highways are located within close proximity, nor is the project area visible from any scenic highways. No impacts are anticipated in this regard.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.

ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 21
75C -37 City Council 17 – 176 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place ( Phase IV) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The proposed project involves a total of 43 parcels of which 35 would result in the full take and eight would result in partial take. Field observations indicated that the potentially affected properties ( residential and nonresidential) do not have unique characteristics related to their age or condition that would be difficult to replace, or possess attributes that are unique. The proposed project would result in a reduced number of acquired units in comparison to the 1990 Final EIS/ EIR and would not result in substantial changes in visual character as analyzed in the previously approved 1990 Final EIS/EIR. Implementation of mitigation measures as included in the previously approved 1990 Final EIS /EIR would ensure that impacts are reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures
No additional new mitigation measures are required.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Light and glare are currently generated from existing vehicular uses within the Phase IV project area, commercial and retail businesses, signage, street lighting, and parking lot lighting. The proposed project does not involve the construction of any structures other than relocation of street lighting fixtures. Therefore, no new sources of light or glare are anticipated with implementation of the proposed project. The proposed project would not generate additional daytime or nighttime illumination beyond that currently experienced within the area. Implementation of the proposed project would not create more significant light and glare impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No additional new mitigation measures are required.

3. 2 Agricultural Resources
The previously approved 1990 Final EIS /EIR did not include evaluation for agricultural resources, as no agricultural resources are located within the area of analysis. a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? The project site is located within a fully developed, urban area of the City of Santa Ana. No Prime, Unique, or Farmland or Statewide Importance is located in the vicinity of the project site. No impacts would result from the proposed project. The proposed project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No additional new mitigation measures are required.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? The project site is located within a fully developed, urban area of the City of Santa Ana. The project area is designated as General Commercial, Park with Commercial, Open Space, and Low Density Residential by the City of Santa Ana General Plan with a combination of Specific Plan ( SPI), General Commercial ( C), Two Family Residential ( R2), and Single Family Residential ( RI) zoning designations. No agricultural uses exist on site or in the vicinity, and the project would not conflict with a Williamson Act contract. The proposed project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 22
75C -38 City Council 17 – 177 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to SaintAndrew Place (Phase IV) Mitigation Measures
No additional new mitigation measures are required.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning, of, forest land ( as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220( 8)), timberland ( as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production ( as defined by Government Code section 51104( 8))?
The project site is located within a fully developed, urban area of the City of Santa Ana. No timberland or forest resources exist on site or in the vicinity. The project area is either designated as General Commercial, Park with Commercial, Open Space, or Low Density Residential by the City of Santa Ana General Plan with a combination of Specific Plan ( SP1), General Commercial ( C2), Two Family Residential ( R2), and Single Family Residential ( R1) zoning designations. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No additional new mitigation measures are required.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? The project site is located within a fully developed, urban area of the City of Santa Ana. No forest land is located on site or in the vicinity. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No additional new mitigation measures are required.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use
The project site is fully developed with no agricultural uses within or in the vicinity. No impact would result from the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No additional new mitigation measures are required.

3. 3 Air Quality
This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, subsections H, Air Quality and V. Construction Impacts of the previously approved 1990 Final EIS /EIR. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The Bristol Street Widening Phase IV project is a component of the Proposed Widening of Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Memory Lane, which was approved in 1990. The Bristol Street Widening Phase IV Project is included as project number ORA125 in the regional emissions analysis conducted by SCAG for the conforming 2013 FTIP adopted by SLAG on September 19, 2012 and approved by FHWA on December 14, 2012. As provided in the FTIP, the Approved Project description reads as follows:

ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 23
75C -39 City Council 17 – 178 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) BRISTOL ST ( WARNER TO MEMORY LANE) WIDEN FROM 4 TO 6 LANES ( IMPV AT BRISTOL /WARNER ( ADD NBIEBISB TI3RU LAS, WB RT TRY LN) AND BRISTOL /FIRST (ADD NBISB THRULNS; SB LFTIRTITRN LNS
The Phase IV Project' s design concept and scope have not changed significantly from what was analyzed in the RTIP and FTIP. This analysis found that the plan and, therefore, the individual projects contained in the plan, are conforming projects, and would have air quality impacts consistent with those identified in the state implementation plans ( SIPS) for achieving the National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS). FHWA determined the RTIP to conform to the SIP.

The Phase IV Project' s open to the public year is consistent with (within the same regional emission analysis period as) the construction completion date identified in the FTIP and/ or RTP. The FTIP gives priority to eligible TCMs identified in the SIP and provides sufficient funds to provide for their implementation. FHWA determined the TIP to conform to the SIP on December 2010.

The Phase IV Project is also included in the 2013 TIP adopted by SCAG on September 6, 2012 and approved by FHWA on December 14, 2012.

The Proposed Widening of Bristol Street, from Warner Avenue to Memory Lane project has been included in the federal TIP since 1992. The federal TIP gives priority to eligible TCMs identified in the SIP and provides sufficient funds to provide for their implementation. FHWA determined the TIP to conform to the SIP on April 2, 2009. No significant impacts would occur. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Furthermore, the South Coast Air Basin ( SCAB) is designated by the state and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as nonattaimnent for ozone ( 03 ), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5 ). The South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD) developed regional emissions thresholds to determine whether or not a project would contribute to air pollutant violations. If a project exceeds the regional air pollutant thresholds, then the project would substantially contribute to air quality violations in the SCAB. In addition, a project would also contribute to air pollutant violations if localized emissions result in an exceedanee of the ambient air quality standards (AAQS).

Short -term emissions generated during project - related construction activities would not exceed the SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds for any of the criteria pollutants and also would not substantially elevate localized concentrations of these pollutants. Consequently, the project would be consistent with the AQMP. Long -tern emissions generated by the project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for regional emissions and would therefore also not contribute to an increase in frequency or severity of air quality violations.

The proposed project would be consistent with the Major Arterial designation of the City of Santa Ana General Plan Circulation Element and the County of Orange' s Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Additionally, the project would improve traffic flow and result in a reduction in air pollutant emissions.

Mitigation Measures
No additional new mitigation measures are required.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Short -tern emissions were modeled for the construction phase of the proposed street widening project.

Construction activities associated with the project would include demolition of pavement and buildings, fine grading, trenching, paving, and development of ancillary strictures. During construction activities, emissions from heavy equipment exhaust, delivery trucks, and fugitive dust would be generated for a short duration. To ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 24
75C -40 City Council 17 – 179 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project WarnerAve to Saint Andrew Place ( Phase IV) accurately determine the significance of air quality impacts from construction activities, construction emissions are quantified and compared to the significance thresholds set by the SCAQMD. Project - specific data, such as construction timelines and dimensions of the project site, along with general operating guidelines, were used as inputs to the SCAQMD' s California Emissions Estimator Model ( CalEEMod) Model ( version 2011. 1. 1) to quantify construction emissions. As shown in Table 3, emissions calculated by this model were compared to the SCAQMD' s regional significance thresholds.

As shown in Table 3, emissions attributable to construction of the proposed project were found to be below the significance thresholds adopted by the SCAQMD for all the analyzed air pollutants. Because emissions were found to be below the SCAQMD' s significance thresholds, project related construction emissions are not considered by the SCAQMD to result in a significant impact. In addition, mitigation measures included in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR would further reduce construction- related air quality impacts. ii0:1 d; 14Wi% 94nW *H61d; 11141 1[ O] 1111146 1619101069 Source: URS Corporation, January 2013.

An assessment of regional emissions associated with the operations phase of the proposed project was also conducted which compared emissions with and without the proposed project. Air pollutant emissions generated by roadway vehicles are quantified based on emissions rates that vary based on vehicle speed. Because the Proposed Project would increase the roadway capacity along Bristol Street, traffic congestion would be alleviated and average vehicle speeds would increase along improved roadway segments. Table 4 shows the emissions that would occur with and without the proposed Project based on the average vehicle speeds. As shown in Table 4, air pollutant emissions would be less under the With Project Alternative as opposed to the No Project Alternative due to the lower emission rates associated with higher average vehicle speeds. The SCAQMD has established significance thresholds to determine whether the operations phase of projects would result in significant impacts to regional air quality. The proposed project would result in air pollutant emissions which are below these significance thresholds and would result in a beneficial impact in emissions due to improvements in operational phase efficiencies along project roadway segments for the 2015 project opening year.

Emissions occurring during the 2035 design year were also quantified based on the LOS, average vehicle speed and emission rates that would occur with and without the proposed project. As shown in Table 5, air pollutant emissions occurring under the With Project Alternative would be less than under the No Project Alternative due to lower emission rates associated with higher average speeds. Consequently, the Proposed Project for the 2035 ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) CSA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 25 75C - 41
VOC NOx CO S02 PM10 I PM2. 5
Demolition 8 64 43 1 12 3
Trenching 4 33 19 1 2 2
Grading 7 52 31 1 5 4
Paving 3 15 11 1 1 1
Maximum 8 64 43 1 12 3
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: URS Corporation, January 2013.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) project design year would likewise result in emissions which are below the SCAQMD' s significance thresholds and would result in a beneficial impact relative to GHG emissions due to improvements in operational phase efficiencies along project roadway segments.

Mitigation Measures
No additional new mitigation measures are required.

ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) USA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C -42
26 City Council 17 – 181 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place ( Phase IV) TABLE 4 YEAR 2015 WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS tl .. ..

Year 2015 No Project
Bristol Street Between Glen wooc 15 76 5 13 0 2 1
Place and Warner Avenue
Bristol Street Between St Andrew 15 23 2 4 0 1 0
Place and Glenwood Place
Bristol Street Between Edinger 15 56 4 9 0 1 1
Avenue and St Andrew Place
Total 155 1 11 1 26 1 0 1 4 3
Year 2015 With Project
Bristol Street Between Glenwood
32 54 2 10 0 1 1 Place and Warner Avenue
Bristol Street Between St Andrew
32 16 1 3 0 0 0
Place and Glenwood Place
Bristol Street Between Edinger
Avenue and St Andrew Place 32 40 2 7 0 1 1
Total 110 5 20 0 2 2
Difference between No Project and With Project Emissions Bristol Street Between Glenwood
22 3 3 0 1 1 Place and Warner Avenue
Bristol Street Between St Andrew
7 1 1 0 0 0
Place and Glenwood Place
Bristol Street Between Edinger
Avenue and St Andrew Place 16 2 2 0 1 1
Total 45 6 6 0 2 1
SCAQMD Significance
550 55 55 150 150 55
Thresholds
Exceeds Thresholds No No No No No No
Notes: mph = miles per hour
Source. URS Corporation, January 2013,
ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 27
75C -43 City Council 17 – 182 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place ( Phase IV) TABLE 5 YEAR 2035 WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS F
c'` ^' iT' d 3N. -[ z'F
3aa + r nv+u . ....' w. N?.. - iv v'•Y -. i`... n2x - ' ji` +. hmr t d4 1u.'% tva'.. 5 -. v 'w- m iS°FcYS'.3< vn Year 2035 No Project
Bristol Street Between Glenwood 13 41 3 7 1 3 2
Place and Warner Avenue
Bristol Street Between St Andrew
13 12 1 2 1 1 1
Place and Glenwood Place
Bristol Street Between Edinger
13 30 2 5 1 2 1
Avenue and St Andrew Place
Total 83 6 13 1 5 4
Year 2035 With Project,
Bristol Street Between Glenwood
25 32 2 5 1 2 1
Place and Warner Avenue
Bristol Street Between St Andrew
25 10 0 1 1 0 0
Place and Glenwood Place
Bristol Street Between Edinger
25 24 1 4 1 1 1
Avenue and St Andrew Place
Total 65 1 3 1 10 1 0 3 2
Difference between No Project and With Project Emissions Bristol Street Between Glenwood
g 2 2 1 1 1
Place and Warner Avenue
Bristol Street Between St Andrew
3 0 1 1 0 0
Place and Glenwood Place
Bristol Street Between Edinger
7 1 1 1 1 1
Avenue and St Andrew Place
Total 18 3 4 1 2 2
SCAQMD Significance
550 55 55 150 150 55
Thresholds
Exceeds Thresholds No No No No No No
Notes: mph = miles per hour
Source: URS Corporation, January 2013,
ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) USA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C -44
28 City Council 17 – 183 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard ( including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
The SCAB is designated by the EPA and the State as being nonattainment for 03 , PM10 , and PM2.5 . In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily threshold values does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. Since the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD' s significance thresholds for construction activities or the operations phase, the SCAQMD does not consider emissions from the project to add significantly to any cumulative impact.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the proposed project would increase the capacity at three out of the four study intersections ( Bristol Street at Edinger Avenue has already been widened) during both AM and PM peak hours. Increases in roadway capacity would result in improvement in the LOS along Bristol Street. The improvement in LOS would result in increases in average vehicle speed and reductions in the amount of delay vehicles experience at intersections thereby resulting in both lower emissions and lower emissions rates associated with higher vehicle speeds. As such, the project would continue to result in a beneficial impact.

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No additional new mitigation measures are required.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? A project could have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations if it would cause or contribute substantially to elevated pollutant concentration levels or place the project in an area with elevated pollutant concentrations. An evaluation of air pollutant emissions as it affects local sensitive receptors has been conducted for both the construction and operations phases of the project.

Localized Construction Impacts
Localized air pollutant emissions are evaluated relative to the exposure of local sensitive uses to air pollutant concentrations generated by the proposed Project. These are pollutant concentrations which can be directly correlated to the health -based ambient air quality standards. This differs from regional emissions which were discussed previously in that regional emissions are used to assess how much air pollution is generated within an air basin and does not have a direct correlation with health effects.

Localized Significance Thresholds ( LSTs) have been developed by the SCAQMD for NOx , CO, PM10, and PM2.5 . The LSTs determine whether project- related emissions would substantially contribute to or exceed the ambient air quality standards and expose sensitive receptors to excessive concentrations of air pollutants.

The LSTs differ based on distance such that a greater allowance in air pollutant emissions is allowed for construction activities occurring further from a sensitive use and a lesser allowance in emissions is given for construction activities occurring closer to sensitive uses.

Only short- teen emissions occurring at the project site for the Project' s constriction phase were included to determine if sensitive receptors local to the project site would adversely affected. Emissions generated by construction activities disperse rapidly with distance from the construction site. Individual construction phases were compared against the SCAQMD' s LST significance criteria. As shown in Table 6, project emissions would not exceed the LST screening level criteria for CO, NO2 , PM10 , or PM2.5 . Because emissions associated with this alternative would be less than the LST, onsite construction emissions would not be expected to exceed the federal or California AAQS at the nearest sensitive receptors. As such, no significant air quality impacts related to localized air pollutants would occur from the construction phase.

ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 29
75C -45 City Council 17 – 184 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) TABLE 6 LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS ANALYSIS FOR CONSTRUCTION

ACTIVITIES
Intersection Hot - Spots
While the proposed Project would not result in any direct sources of localized emissions due to the roadway street lighting being powered by electricity, changes in LOS or traffic volumes due to the project may cause indirect sources of localized emissions. While emissions of motor vehicles have improved due to more stringent vehicle emissions standards and the use of cleaner burning fuels, they continue to be the primary source of local emissions within the study area. Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed national and / or state standards for CO are known as hotspots. The SCAQMD defines typical sensitive receptors as residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long - term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes.

Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to AAQS is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called " hot spots." These pockets have the potential to exceed the state one - hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight - hour standard of 9. 0 ppm. Note that the federal levels are based on one- and eight - hour standards of 35 and 9 ppm, respectively. Thus, an exceedance condition would occur based on the state standards before the federal standards.

The following intersections were modeled for CO hotspots:

Bristol Street and Warner Avenue
Bristol Street and Glenwood Place
Bristol Street and St. Andrew Place
Bristol Street and W. Edinger Avenue
As shown in Table 7, both the 1 - hour and 8 - hour CO concentrations at the intersections that were affected by the proposed project would be substantially below the California and federal ambient air quality standards for CO, potential CO impacts related to the project alternatives are below AAQS and would not result in a significant air quality impact from CO hotspots.

ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) CSA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 30 75C - 46
LI UTAf. fi(ud) L
t)( Rl1Tl PMFlSE
NOx CO PM10 PMze
x r.
r
Demolition 61 40 4 3
Grading 52 30 5 4
Trenching 33 19 2 2
Paving 15 1 11 1 1 1 1
SCAQMD Threshold 183 1, 253 13 7
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Source: URS Corporation, January 2013.

Intersection Hot - Spots
While the proposed Project would not result in any direct sources of localized emissions due to the roadway street lighting being powered by electricity, changes in LOS or traffic volumes due to the project may cause indirect sources of localized emissions. While emissions of motor vehicles have improved due to more stringent vehicle emissions standards and the use of cleaner burning fuels, they continue to be the primary source of local emissions within the study area. Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed national and / or state standards for CO are known as hotspots. The SCAQMD defines typical sensitive receptors as residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long - term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes.

The following intersections were modeled for CO hotspots:

ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) CSA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 30 75C - 46 City Council 17 – 185 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) TABLE 7 CO HOTSPOT ANALYSIS (PPM)
As discussed previously, the proposed project would not result in air pollutant concentrations that exceed the SCAQMD' s Localized Significance Thresholds for construction activities. In addition, the operations phase of the project would not result in CO hotspots. As such, the constriction and operations phases of the project would not result in significant impacts to air quality which would expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations.

Mitigation Measures
No additional new mitigation measures are required.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Construction activities associated with the proposed Project may generate detectable odors from heavy- duty construction equipment and exhaust. Odors associated with diesel and gasoline fumes are transitory in nature and would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The impacts from these odors would be short - tern, would cease upon project completion and are not anticipated to be significant.

Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS / EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No additional new mitigation measures are required.

ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) CSA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 31 75C - 47
WE
Bristol Street and Warner Avenue`
Northeast Receptor 6. 8 20 4. 6 9. 0 No No
Southeast Receptor 6. 9 20 4. 7 9.0 No No
Southwest Receptor 6. 9 20 4. 7 9.0 No No
Northwest Receptor 6. 9 20 4. 7 9.0 No No
Bristol Street and Glenwood Place
Northeast Receptor 6. 5 20 4.4 9.0 No No
Southeast Receptor 6. 5 20 4.4 9.0 No No
Southwest Receptor 6. 6 20 4. 5 9.0 No No
Northwest Receptor 6. 6 20 4. 5 9. 0 No No
Bristol Street and St. Andrew Place
Northeast Receptor 6. 4 20 4. 3 9. 0 No No
Southeast Receptor 6. 4 20 4. 3 9. 0 No No
Southwest Receptor 6. 5 20 4. 4 9. 0 No No
Northwest Receptor 6. 5 20 4. 4 9. 0 No No
Bristol Street and St„ Andrew Place
Northeast Receptor 7. 1 20 4. 8 9. 0 No No
Southeast Receptor 7. 1 20 4. 8 9. 0 No No
Southwest Receptor 7. 2 20 4. 9 9. 0 No No
Northwest Receptor 7. 1 20 4. 8 9. 0 No No
Source: URS Corporation, January 2012.

As discussed previously, the proposed project would not result in air pollutant concentrations that exceed the SCAQMD' s Localized Significance Thresholds for construction activities. In addition, the operations phase of the project would not result in CO hotspots. As such, the constriction and operations phases of the project would not result in significant impacts to air quality which would expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations.

Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS / EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No additional new mitigation measures are required.

ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) CSA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 31 75C - 47 City Council 17 – 186 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV)

3. 4 Biological Resources
This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, subsection E, Streambed Modification, of the previously approved 1990 Final EIS /EIR. a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special - status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The project site is located within a fully developed urban area within the City of Santa Ana. No special natural habitat exists on or in the vicinity of the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Refer to response in 3. 4 ( a), above. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities are identified in the project area or vicinity. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Refer to response in 3. 4 ( a), above. No federally protected wetlands are identified in the project area or vicinity. The proposed project is located within a fully developed urban area of the City. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
The proposed project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites, as none are located within the project area. The proposed project is located within a fully developed urban area of the City. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 32
75C -48 City Council 17 – 187 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project WarnerAve to Saint Andrew Place ( Phase IV) preservation policy or ordinance?
The proposed project may involve the removal of existing landscaping, including trees. Any removal or planting of trees is required to comply with the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code, Article VII, Regulation of the Planting, Maintenance, and Removal of Trees. Furthermore, the proposed project would not conflict with the City' s tree ordinance. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The proposed project site is not a part of any habitat conservation plan. The project site is developed with urban uses and no natural conservation plans are adopted for the area. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.

3. 5 Cultural Resources
This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, subsection T, Cultural Resources, of the previously approved 1990 Final EIS /EIR. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as de£med in § 15064. 5?
The proposed project would not involve changes that were not addressed in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR. Based on aerial photographs and a windshield survey, the structures do not appear to be of historical significance due to unique architecture and are not anticipated to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Land uses within the Phase IV project area affected parcels include single family residential, parking lots, strip malls, shopping plazas, and various office uses. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064. 5?
Due to the limited area of disturbance, within an existing developed and urban area, and limited depth of proposed excavations, the potential to uncover archaeological resources is considered low. However, implementation of mitigation measures as included in the previously approved 1990 Final EIS /EIR would reduce impacts to archaeological resources yet uncovered or undiscovered. The proposed project would not result in archaeological impacts greater than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 33
75C -49 City Council 17 – 188 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) As shown in Chapter VI, Resources Element, of the County of Orange General Plan, the project site is not located in an area of paleontological sensitivity. Also, the proposed project would involve only shallow excavation. Furthermore, since the project area is already developed, the potential for discovering paleontological resources during construction is low. Soils occurring in the project area are mostly Quaternary Alluvium. Typically, these deposits are less than 10, 000 years old, and not likely to contain important fossils.

No greater impacts to paleontological resources than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR would result from project implementation.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? The project site is located within a fully developed urban area of the City. No formal cemeteries are located within the project area or vicinity. However, in the event that human remains are uncovered during grading or excavation, contractors are required to comply with the procedures and requirements set forth in the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050. 5 and Public Resources Code Section 2098. 98. The County Coroner and, in the event that the remains are Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission would be notified and, in turn, would notify those persons believed to be most likely descended from the deceased for appropriate disposition of the remains. The proposed project would not result in human remains impact greater than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.

3. 6 Geology and Soils
This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, subsections A, Landform Modification, B. Seismic Hazards, C. Erosion Impacts, and F. Water Quality, of the previously approved 1990 Final EIS /EIR.
a) i Rupture of a known earthquake fault, iv
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
substantial evidence of a known fault? Re
Publication 42.
delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo
State Geologist for the area or based on other
er to Division of Mines and Geology Special
The City of Santa Ana is not included in the Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. The project site is not underlain by an active fault and the closest fault, the Newport- Inglewood Fault, is approximately eight miles to the west. The proposed widening would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
a) ii Strong seismic ground shaking?
The Newport - Inglewood Fault is the closest fault to the project site and is the most likely source of ground shaking impacts. The proposed project is an intersection widening project and would not expose people or structures to adverse ground shaking impact. The proposed widening would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 34
75C -50 City Council 17 – 189 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project WarnerAve to Saint Andrew Place ( Phase IV) Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
a) iii Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? The project site is not identified by the 1990 EIS /EIR as having a high liquefaction potential but is near areas classified as high to medium liquefaction potential. In addition, the project would be constructed to achieve the standards outlined in the California Building Code to reduce impacts in this regard. Consequently, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential liquefaction impact. The proposed widening would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
a) iv Landslides?
The proposed project site is generally flat and does not contain any significant slopes. The proposed Project would not result in greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Exposure of barren rock and soil surfaces during construction would result in soil erosion. However, considering the slight gradient, anticipated erosion impact is minimal. Furthermore, the project would be subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permitting regulation, including the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) during construction activities. The SWPPP requires construction contractors to implement best management practices ( BMPs) to reduce sediment from impacting the stormwater system. The increased erosion impact due to the intersection widening would not be substantially greater than previously analyzed. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
The 1990 EIS /EIR indicated that there are no instances of midisturbed, natural soils. The project site is underlain by well- drained alluvial fan or flood plains and is not included in the areas of high subsidence or high liquefaction hazard ( but located south of an area identified as high to medium subsidence for liquefaction). The project area is fully developed with urban uses within the City. The proposed project will be constructed in accordance with the standards of the Uniform Building Code ( UBC). The proposed project would not create greater impact than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code ( 1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 35
75C -51 City Council 17 – 190 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to SaintAndrew Place (Phase IV) The proposed project would not include the construction of any structures other than relocation of existing utilities. The proposed project would not create substantial risks to life or property and the proposed project would not create greater impacts than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? The proposed project would not generate any sewage or wastewater and would not require installation of any septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems. No impacts are anticipated in this regard.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.

3. 7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, subsection H, Air Quality, and V. Construction Impacts of the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
The 1990 Final EIS /EIR did not evaluate global climate change or greenhouse gas ( GHG) impacts.

Construction activities would consume fuel and result in the generation of GHG emissions. Construction of the project is anticipated to begin in the early 2015 and be complete later that year. Construction- related GHG emissions would cease upon completion of the project. Due to the length of construction activities, GHG emissions associated with construction activities are anticipated to be minimal. Because construction emissions are not substantial and would cease after completion of construction, GHG emissions would not be significant.

Furthermore, the project proposes intersection widening of Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place, therefore only carbon dioxide ( CO2 ) emissions from mobile- sources are evaluated. Similar to the other criteria pollutants, the highest emissions would occur between 0 to 10 mph and 50 mph and above.

Because the project would improve traffic flow within the Phase IV project area, the project would result in reduced CO2 emissions. Consequently, GHG emissions associated with the project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The proposed project would not conflict with applicable plans, policy or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG. The proposed project would result in improved traffic flow, reduced vehicle idling times and congestion. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts to GHG.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.

ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 36
75C -52 City Council 17 – 191 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV)

3. 8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, subsections V, Construction Impacts, X, Hazardous Materials, of the 1990 Final EIS/EIR. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
The proposed project would result in demolition of structures. Compliance with the standard protocol surveys and abating procedures would be required prior to any demolition activities that would potentially disturb existing building materials. Furthermore, specific requirements limiting asbestos emissions from building demolition activities are set forth in SCAQMD Rule 1403 ( Asbestos Emission From Demolition /Renovation Activities). The existing structures to be demolished and roadway paintings and markers are also required to be surveyed for lead -based paint prior to demolition, in compliance with the applicable local, state, and federal regulations administered through the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure that impacts are not greater than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EISBIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Refer to response in 3. 8 ( a), above. Compliance with existing regulations and mitigation measures from the 1990 Final EISBIR would ensure that impacts are not greater than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? There are two schools that lie within one - quarter mile of the project site. Table 8 provides a summary of schools within the Bristol Street Widening ,Phase IV project area.

ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) CSA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 37 75C -53 City Council 17 – 192 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) TABLE 8 LOCAL SCHOOLS WITHIN THE PHASE IV PROJECT AREA
Sa=6 I L Oi. " CSx4"'Cx;p' V' 4 3' K{ i C L"'IY' r' L
5^ W'.2C' 3 3r' t C' Ti -`'H"
Jose Andres Sepulveda 1801 S Poplar Street, Santa Ana, CA West of Bristol Street at Saint 0, 11 miles
Elementary School 92704 Andrew Place intersection
1202 West Edinger Avenue, Santa Ana, Northeast of Bristol Street at Saint Mater Del High School 0. 25 miles
CA 92707 Andrew Place intersection
Hazardous materials can be classified into four basic categories: toxins, flammables, irritants, and explosives. Toxins include a broad range of industrial chemicals and agricultural pesticides that may cause serious illness or death to humans. Irritants can cause inflammation or destruction of living tissue with effects ranging from mild to severe, depending on the degree of exposure and material involved.

Flammables pose the threat of combustion at low ignition temperatures and rapid burning characteristics.

Explosives can produce rapid chemical reactions causing damage from blast and flash fire.

Because of their widespread use, it was assumed that each type of hazardous material was transported through, used, or stored to some degree, within the project area. Storage and use of hazardous materials was, and still is, generally limited to the industrial area to the west although hazardous materials are used or stored along Bristol Street at businesses such as gas stations, auto service shops, metal polishing and plating operations, and medical clinics. Both Mater Dei High School and Jose Andres Sepulveda Elementary School were identified and evaluated for potential impact in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. It is not anticipated that the project would increase risk of upset beyond previous conditions. Therefore, health risks associated with project construction activities would be less than significant and impacts are not greater than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962. 5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
The proposed project site involves the widening of an existing intersection. The project area is developed with commercial and retail uses. Compliance with existing regulations and mitigation measures from the 1990 Final EIS /EIR would ensure that impacts are not greater than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The project site is not within an airport land use plan. The closest airport to the site is John Wayne — Orange County Airport, miles southeast of the project site. The proposed widening would not introduce any new risks or increase risks associated with the project.

ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C -54
38 City Council 17 – 193 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street 1Mdeninq Protect Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not create any safety hazard. The proposed project would not create additional significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The disruption of traffic and restricted access along Bristol Street between Warner Avenue and Saint Andrew Place during construction would affect the mobility of emergency vehicles. However, provisions would be made for interim access and traffic control plans would be prepared prior to each step in the construction process. Advance warning and information signs would be used to reduce the confusion motorists may experience during the construction process. It is expected that Bristol Street would remain open during construction. Although the proposed project may interfere with an emergency evacuation plan, it would be short term during construction, and the mobility would improve once the project is completed.

Compliance with mitigation measures from the 1990 Final EIS /EIR would ensure that impacts are not greater than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
The proposed project site is developed with various urban uses within the City. There are no wildlands in the project vicinity and no new significant impacts would result with project implementation.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.

3. 9 Hydrology and Water Quality
This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, subsections C, Erosion Impacts, D, Floodplain /Floodway Encroachment, and F, Water Quality of the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? As part of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the EPA has established regulations under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) program to control direct stormwater discharges. The proposed project would be required to comply with the NPDES program for the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB).

ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C -55
39 City Council 17 – 194 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) Construction Activities
Grading and excavation and use of hazardous materials during construction would create potential sources of polluted discharge. The construction contractor is required to conform to the requirements of the Statewide NPDES Storm Water Permit. Pursuant to the CWA, in 2001, the State Water Quality Control Board ( SWRCB) issued a statewide general NPDES Permit for stormwater discharges from construction sites ( NPDES No. CAS000002). Under this Statewide General Construction Activity permit, discharges of stormwater from construction sites with a disturbed area of one or more acres are required to either obtain individual NPDES permits for stormwater discharges or to be covered by the General Permit. In addition, best management practices ( BMPs) specified in the Caltrans Storm Water Management Plan ( SWMP) are also applicable. The construction contractor is required to conform to the requirements of the General NPDES Permit for Construction Activities and any subsequent General Permit in effect at the time of project construction.

As part of the statewide NPDES permit, the construction contractor would be required to implement BMPs into their construction operations to reduce potential water quality impacts to the maximum extent practicable through preparation of a SWPPP. The General Permit contains requirements that BMPs must meet, including:

Erosion Control
Erosion control, also called stabilization, is the protection of the soil surface so that soil particles do not become detached by water or wind; and trapping soil particles that do become detached and are moved by water or wind.

Non - Stormwater Management
Non- stormwater management is the reduction or avoidance of discharges other than stonnwater, such as from cleaning of vehicles and equipment, and spills of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. Nonstormwater management includes requirements for the use and storage of hazardous substances so as to avoid spills and minimizes pollution by cleaning spills that do occur.

The SWPPP contains BMPs chosen for a project based on the specific activities that would be conducted as part of that project, and the amounts of stormwater and non - stormwater runoff that are anticipated. The 1990 Final EIS /EIR included a mitigation measure to control stormwater runoff associated with construction activities. Impacts would be less than significant and would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS/ EIR. Moreover, the project would comply with the updated NPDES requirements, as described above.

Operational Phase
Operation of the proposed intersection has the potential to degrade water quality as a result of vehicular travel, including increases in such pollutants as oil, gasoline, grease, lead, and dust. Discharge from the proposed project to stormwater facilities would consist of non -point sources. Stormwater quality is generally affected by the length of time since the last rainfall, rainfall intensity, urban uses of the area, and the quantity of transported sediments. Typical urban water quality pollutants usually result from motor vehicle operations, oil and grease residue. The majority of pollutant loads are usually washed away during the first flush of the storm occurring after the dry season period. Due to the nature of the proposed project, generally occurring within an existing developed area, project impacts are not considered adverse. Consequently, impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.

ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C -56
40 City Council 17 – 195 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place ( Phase IV) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level ( e. g., the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
The project site is already developed and is not a groundwater recharging area. The proposed Bristol Street Widening Phase IV project would not result in increased water consumption and would not deplete groundwater supplies. No impact to groundwater supplies would result from the proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site?
The project site is already developed and the existing drainage pattern would not be changed due to the implementation of Bristol Street Widening Phase IV project. The storm drain improvements would be limited to relocation and /or construction of catch basins as necessary. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite due to drainage alteration.

No mitigation measures are necessary. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off -site? The project site is already developed and the existing drainage pattern would not be changed due to the Bristol Street Widening Phase IV. 'Be storm drain improvements would be limited to construction of properly designed curb and gutter as necessary. The proposed project would not result in substantial reduction in impervious ground surfaces. The proposed project would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff to create on- or offsite flooding. Impacts would not be greater than previously analyzed in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
The project site is already developed and the existing drainage pattern would not be changed due to the Bristol Street Widening Phase IV project. The storm drain improvements would be limited to construction of catch basins as necessary. The proposed project would not result in substantial increase in impervious ground surfaces. The proposed project would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff to create onor offsite flooding. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) USA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C -57
41 City Council 17 – 196 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
The project site is currently developed and the proposed project would not result in substantial changes to the volume or nature of the urban runoff. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. The proposed project would be required to adhere to water quality regulatory requirements, as described above.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? The proposed widening would not place any housing within a 100 -year flooding zone as mapped by the FIRM. No impact would result from the proposed project. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
The Bristol Street Widening Phase IV project would not place any structures within a 100 -year flood hazard zone. No impact would result from the proposed project.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? The proposed street widening does not involve development of any above -grade structures except for the relocation of utility poles. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant flooding risk any greater than what is already existing onsite. No impact would result from the proposed project.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
The project site is approximately 10 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. The likelihood of tsunami impacting a site more than five miles inland is minimal. The project site and its vicinity are built out with urban uses and there is no unusual slope or geologic feature in the area. The potential for seiche, tsunami, or mudflow impacting the project site is less than significant. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 42
75C -58 City Council 17 – 197 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project WarnerAve to Saint Andrew Place ( Phase IV) Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.

3. 10 Land Use and Planning
This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, subsection A, Landfonn Modification, of the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. a) Physically divide an established community?
The project area is developed with various urban uses and the proposed widening would not divide an established community. Although there would be partial and full takes, the project would not create a physical barrier to separate a community. The proposed project would not introduce any significant land use impacts than previously analyzed. No significant impact would result from the project implementation.

Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project ( including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The proposed project would not result in changes to the land use designation of the acquired parcels. The proposed project is in compliance with the existing designation and would not create a new conflict. No significant impact is anticipated. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
The project site is not a part of any habitat conservation plan. The project site is already fully developed and the proposed widening would not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community. No impact is anticipated. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.

3. 11 Mineral Resources
This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, subsection W, Consumption of Renewable and Non - Renewable Resources of the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
The project site is currently developed and does not contain any areas for the extraction of mineral resources. The proposed project would not involve excavation that would likely identify previously ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C -59
43 City Council 17 – 198 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place ( Phase IV) unidentified mineral resources. No impact to mineral resources would result from the proposed project. hnpacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The project site is currently developed and is not delineated as a mineral resources recovery site by the City of Santa Ana General Plan. Implementation of the proposed project would have no impact on the mineral resources and no mitigation measures are necessary. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.

3. 12 Noise
This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, Subsection I, Noise, and V, Construction Impacts of the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? The proposed project involves widening of Bristol Street between Warner Avenue and Saint Andrew Place.

The land uses in between Warner Avenue and St. Gertrude Place, and adjacent to the project, are commercial ( Category C) on the west side of Bristol Street, and a mix of residential and commercial land uses on the east side of Bristol Street. The land uses on both sides of Bristol Street between St. Gertrude and St. Andrew Place are residential. Mater Dei High School is located along the east side of Bristol Street north of St. Andrew Place. Jose Andres Sepulveda Elementary School is west of Bristol Street in this same area.

The future noise modeling results of the 1990 Final EIS /EIR indicated that future noise levels would be no more than one dBA higher with the project as compared to levels without project improvements (noise level changes of less than 3 dBA are normally inaudible to the human ear).

The 1990 Final EIS /EIR ( and 2013 NEPA Reevaluation) provided comprehensive noise barriers at all easterly parcel boundaries currently fronting the east side of Bristol Street between Warner Avenue and Saint Andrew Place and comprehensive noise barriers at all westerly parcel boundaries currently fronting the west side of Bristol Street between West Saint Gertrude Place and Saint Andrew Place. The following noise barriers were determined to be reasonable: NB -4, NB -5, NB -6, NB -7, NB -8, NB -9, NB -10, and NB -11.

These noise barriers are generally equivalent to the recommended noise barriers shown in the 1990 FEIS and 2013 Reevaluation. However, barriers NB -6, NB -7, NB -8, and NB -9 would need to be shifted to the west of the receivers ( parcels) that are no longer being acquired in whole such that these barriers are now proposed at the westerly parcel boundaries that front the east side of Bristol Street between Saint Anne Place and Saint Andrew Place ( refer to Figure 7a and Figure 7b). Furthermore, the reasonable noise barriers would be constructed at a height of 8 feet, as opposed to 6 feet as identified in the 1990 FEIS and 2013 NEPA Reevaluation. The modifications and other refinements to the project would not create any additional impacts than what was identified in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR.

With implementation of the mitigation measures from the 1990 Final EIS /EIR, noise impacts would be similar to that identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C -60
44 City Council 17 – 199 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.

ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 W 45
75C -61 City Council 17 – 200 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) FIGURE 7A NOISE MONITORING AND MODELING LOCATIONS
ANA 305 -194 ( PLR 02) CSA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 46
75C -62 City Council 17 – 201 3/4/2025
GEERRTRUDE PLACERzI
City Council 17 – 202 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place ( Phase IV) FIGURE 7B NOISE MONITORING AND MODELING LOCATIONS
ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 PU
75C -64
47 City Council 17 – 203 3/4/2025
IW 11A
t
K `
idreas ged
ntary,'h
i
ool - M 1h ' 1
Al
dM 2aF
M- 2h
f
u
I<
its r( b
Mater Del
High School
ry
Al
M- 2h
City Council 17 – 204 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Refer to response in 3. 12 ( a.) above. Project construction will involve typical groundborne noise and vibration. However, the majority of construction activities will consist of standard procedures, and will be relatively limited for any particular area. Construction activities would comply with the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code, which limits construction noise to the least noise sensitive portions of the day. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR with implementation of mitigation measures as included in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Refer to response in 3. 12 ( a.) above. During construction of the proposed project, the noise associated with construction may intermittently dominate the noise environment in the immediate area of construction.

Typical construction equipment for roadway construction is expected to generate noise levels ranging from 74 to 89 decibels ( 0) at a distance of 50 feet. However, no additional adverse noise impacts from construction are anticipated as construction would comply with the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code, which limits construction noise to the least noise sensitive portions of the day. Construction equipment would be properly fitted and maintained according to the manufacturer' s specifications. Furthermore, construction noise would be short-tern, temporary and cease upon completion of the proposed project.

Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR with implementation of mitigation measures, as identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Refer to responses 3. 12 ( c), above, for discussion regarding temporary noise impacts associated with construction.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The project site is not located within an airport land use plan. The nearest airport is the John Wayne Airport approximately 3. 5 miles southeast of the southernmost Phase IV project intersection. No impacts would occur. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C -66
48 City Council 17 – 205 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) Refer to response 3. 12 ( e.), above. The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.

3. 13 Population and Housing
This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, subsections L, Population, M, Housing Displacement, N, Business Displacement, O, Impacts on Neighborhood Character and Minority Groups, and R, Effect on Assessed Property Values, of the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. No take of residential parcels is proposed as part ofthis project. a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly ( for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure?
Bristol Street and Warner Avenue are currently heavily traveled roadways and the City of Santa Ana is fully built out. The proposed project is designed to accommodate the existing and future traffic volume and would not create significant numbers of new trips. The proposed widening would not result in additional impact.

Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The proposed project' s Build Alternative is anticipated to result in full or partial acquisitions of approximately 43 parcels along the project study area. The acquired parcels are defined as distinct locations where residential and non - residential displacement could occur along the project alignment. The project is anticipated to result in the acquisition of 27 single - family residential units. This compares to a total of 28 single - family residential units ( 6 partial and 22 full acquisitions) as identified in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR. Of the 27 residential units that would be displaced as part of the proposed Project, 14 parcels would be considered partial acquisitions and 13 parcels would be considered full acquisitions. Since comparable relocation properties appear to be available in the metropolitan Santa Ana area in sufficient quantity, the need for replacement housing would not be triggered due to project implementation. The number of displacees resulting from the Proposed project are anticipated to be less than identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR due to the reduction in number of full acquisition of single - family residential units.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The proposed project requires the acquisition of 27 single - family units could possibly result in displacing approximately 82 residents ( URS Corporation, November 2011). The construction of replacement housing elsewhere would not be necessary because comparable relocation properties appear to be available in the metropolitan Santa Ana area in sufficient quantity. The project involves the widening Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place in an urbanized, residential/commercial area of the City of Santa Ana. The required relocations would not disproportionately affect any specific group or groups of ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C -67
49 City Council 17 – 206 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place ( Phase IV) individuals. Before any displacement occurs, residential and non - residential displacees will be presented with a list of comparable replacement properties that are available within the last six months for rent, lease, or purchase regardless of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, and would be consistent with the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.

3. 14 Public Services
This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, subsections P, Impacts on Community Facilities, and V, Construction hnpacts of the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. a) Fire Protection?
The proposed project is an intersection widening project and no increase in demand for fire protection services would occur with implementation of the proposed project. Furthermore, the proposed project would result in positive impacts as a result of greater congestion relief and increased mobility in the vicinity for motor vehicles including emergency vehicles. hnpacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
b) Police Protection?
Refer to response for Section 3. 14 ( a), above. The proposed project would reduce congestion and traffic idling times, and therefore, increase mobility of emergency vehicles, including police vehicles. The proposed project would not result in the need or increase the demand for police services in the area.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
c) Schools?
No schools would be impacted by the proposed project and no school services would be affected by the proposed project. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS/ EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
d) Parks?
The proposed project is a road widening project and no park site would be acquired as part of the project. No park services would be increased or impacted by the proposed project and no impact would result from the proposed project. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
e) Other public facilities?
ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 50
75C -68 City Council 17 – 207 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) The proposed project is an intersection widening project and would not generate demands for public facilities. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.

3. 15 Recreation
This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, subsection P, Impact on Recreational Facilities, of the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
The proposed project is not a growth- inducing project and would not create demand for recreation services.

Physical deterioration of recreational facilities would not result from the proposed intersection widening and no impact would result from the project implementation. No mitigation measures are required with regards to recreational resources. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed intersection widening would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities and no adverse physical impact would be generated. No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.

3. 16 Transportation /Traffic
This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, subsections U, Impacts to Transportation Facilities, and V, Construction Impacts of the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit.

The Bristol Street Widening Phase IV project is consistent with the applicable plans, ordinances and policies establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system as described in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. The widening of Bristol Street was designated in the Orange County Master 'Plan, and was recommended in the Bristol Street Corridor Study — Final Report by Mohle, Grover & Associates in 1983. It was also recommended in the Arterial Highway Element — Santa Ana Element — Santa Ana Transportation Corridor State II Alternative Analysis prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc., in 1983.

The proposed widening is also in agreement with the recommendation found in the Intercity Liaison Committee — Five -Year Transportation Study Update to 1990 prepared by Basmaeiyan- Darnell, Inc., in ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C -69
51 City Council 17 – 208 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project WarnerAve to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) 1985. Furthermore, the proposed project would result in an improvement to the Bristol Street at Warner Avenue, Glenwood Place, and Saint Andrew Place intersections. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? The proposed project would result in an improvement to Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place. Once the project has been implemented, all roadway segments would operate at LOS D or better. The proposed project would not cause the County congestion agency' s LOS standards to be exceeded. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? The closest airport to the site is John Wayne — Orange County Airport, located approximately 3. 5 miles southeast of the project site. The proposed project would have no impact on air traffic patterns. The proposed project would not introduce any new risks or increase risks. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ( e. g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses ( e. g., farm equipment)? The proposed project would improve the traffic flow along Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place and would not create any sharp curves or other incompatible uses. The proposed project would not create any significant hazards beyond what was previously analyzed. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
The proposed project would improve traffic flow along Bristol Street in the long -term. However, during the construction phase, the disruption of traffic and restricted access along Bristol Street could temporarily affect the mobility of emergency vehicles. Provisions would be made for interim access, and traffic control plans would be prepared prior to construction. Additionally, advance warning and information signs would be used to reduce the confusion motorists may experience during the construction process. Bristol Street would remain open during construction. Although the proposed project may interfere with emergency access in the short -tern, it would improve emergency access once the project is completed. The proposed project would not result in a more significant impact to emergency access than previously analyzed, and with the implementation of mitigation measures as prescribed in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR.

ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C -70 City Council 17 – 209 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place ( Phase IV) Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? The proposed project supports the use of public transportation and it would not conflict with any alternative transportation plan and would increase safety. The proposed project would not result in impacts greater than as described in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.

3. 17 Utilities and Service Systems
This section corresponds with Section IV, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, subsections S, Effect on Utilities, and V, Construction Impacts of the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
The proposed project would not generate any sewer demand and would not change the sewer quality. No impacts are anticipated in this regard.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The proposed road widening project would not generate the need for water and wastewater services from the City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency and the Orange County Sanitation District, respectively. The existing sewer and water lines beneath Bristol Street would not be relocated. The proposed project would not create any new significant environmental impact. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The project site is already fully developed and the proposed project would not change the runoff volume significantly. Instead, the proposed project would improve existing drainage flow by constructing properly designed curb and gutter along the edges of Bristol Street. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental impact. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.

ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C -71
53 City Council 17 – 210 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
The proposed project would not result in any increase in water consumption. Landscape improvements, if applicable, would not require any new or expanded water entitlements. The proposed project would not create any new significant environmental impact. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project' s projected demand in addition to the provider' s existing commitments?
The proposed roadway widening project would not generate any sewer demands. No new significant impact is anticipated. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project' s solid waste disposal needs?
The proposed project would generate construction waste on a short -term basis. The City has two haulers, Waste Management and Ware Disposal, which provide recycling services for construction and demolition projects. Construction waste that cannot be recycled would be taken to available landfills. The predominant receiving landfill for the City is the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill at 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road in Irvine. The landfill, which is owned and operated by the Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department, opened in 1990 and is scheduled to operate until approximately 2022. The facility has adequate landfill capacity to serve the proposed project and no new significant environmental impact would result from the project implementation. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The proposed project would comply with the City' s established reduction, reuse, and recycling programs. No new significant solid waste impact would result from the proposed project. Impacts would be similar to those identified in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No new additional mitigation measures are required.

3. 18 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Based on this Addendum, the Bristol Street Widening Phase IV project has not substantially changed in regard to the setting, design, impacts, and mitigation measures as described in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. New ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 54
75C -72 City Council 17 – 211 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project WarnerAve to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV) circumstances or new information, including any new or revised environmental laws, regulations, or policies have not modified the impacts of the proposed project.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? The proposed project would not result in greater impacts as compared with the 1990 Final EIS /EIR and does not have the potential to degrade the environment, reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, threaten plant or animal communities, reduce or restrict endangered plant or animal species or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Due to the relatively limited nature of the proposed project and in consideration of mitigation measures addressed in the 1990 Final EIS/EIR, the project would not involve impacts that are cumulatively considerable.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Construction - related activities are anticipated to have some minor, temporary impacts, which can be mitigated with implementation of measures included in the 1990 Final EIS /EIR. Furthermore, potential longterm impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of required mitigation measures.

ANA 305 -194 (PER 02) CSA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C -73
55 City Council 17 – 212 3/4/2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUM
Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Ave to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV)

4.0 REFERENCES
Air Quality Conformity Analysis — Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV), URS Corporation. January 2013.

City of Santa Ana General Plan, Adopted September 1982 ( with updates and reformatting through January 2010).

City of Santa Ana Website: www .ei.santa- ana. ca.us.Community Impact Assessment — Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place (Phase IV), URS Corporation. October 2010.

Relocation Impact Statement — Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place Phase IV), URS Corporation. November 2011.

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Widening of Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Memory Lane, in the City of Santa Ana. Wildan Associates. 1990.

Noise Study Report — Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place, URS Corporation. November 2012.

Southern California Association of Governments, Orange County RTIP, Project Listing Report. 2008, www.seag.ca.gov.

Traffic Impact Analysis — Bristol Street Widening Project Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place, URS Corporation. October 2010.

ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 56
75C -74 City Council 17 – 213 3/4/2025

APPENDIX A MODIFIED INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C -75 City Council 17 – 214 3/4/2025
Modified Initial Study Checklist
The following Modified Initial Study (MIS) Checklist is based on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial Study Checklist. It is modified to evaluate the proposed project changes for which environmental impact reports /statements have previously been completed to assist in the determination of the need for supplemental environmental documents, in this case, a Supplemental EIS/ EIR or an Addendum under Public Resources Code 21166 and Guideline Sections 15162, 15163, and 15164. For purposes of this study, references to " the proposal' in the left hand column questions refer to the proposed project changes.

The first four columns to the right of the MIS questions identify whether the proposed project changes would result in new impacts and if so whether these impacts would be less than significant, less than significant after mitigation, or significant.

The fifth column asks whether or not the impacts associated with project changes, if any, were sufficiently disclosed in the previous environmental documents (Not Addressed).

Finally, the last column indicates whether or not a Supplemental EIS /EIR is needed. A Supplemental EIS /EIR would be needed if there were new significant unmitigated or substantially more severe impacts which would result from the project changes and which were not sufficiently disclosed in the previous environmental documents.

Discussion in support of the conclusions indicated on the checklist is provided in Chapter 3 ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133967 YU
75C -76 City Council 17 – 215 3/4/2025
A

MODIFIED INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) USA ( AUGUST 2014) 133967 YU
75C - 77
New Impacts of Project Changes -` PreviousFEIRandFEIS - ess an
Significant
ess an
Significant
otentia VV
Significant pp
uppp ement
al EIR/ EIS
robsP Impact After Impact DiscloseG? Required?
Mitigation

1. AESTHETICS.

Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect X YES NO
on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and X N/ A NO
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site

X YES NO
and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare, which X YES NO
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Z AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance ( Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the

X N/ A NO
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non- agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act

X NIA NO
contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning, of, forest land ( as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220( g)), timberland ( as
defined by Public Resources Code

X N/ A NO
section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production ( as defined
by Government Code section
51104( 8))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non -

X NIA NO
forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the
existing en vironm ant wh ich, due to
their location or nature, could result X N/A NO
in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use?
ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) USA ( AUGUST 2014) 133967 YU
75C - 77 City Council 17 – 216 3/4/2025
ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) CSA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C - 78
New Impacts of Project Changes Previous FOR and FEIS
Impact P
Less an
Significant
Less an
Significant Potentially Significant DiscPosed?
uppp emenl
al EIRIEIS
Impact After Impact`. Required?
Mitigation

3. AIR QUALITY.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct

X YES NO
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or

X YES NO
contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non - attainment under an

X YES NO
applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard ( including
releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to X YES NO
substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of

X YES NO
people?

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive,

X YES NO
or special- status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect
on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, X YES NO
policies, or regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect
on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not limited X YES NO
lo, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) CSA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C - 78 City Council 17 – 217 3/4/2025
ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) CSA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C - 79
New Impacts ofProject Changes Previous FOR and FEIS
Impact No
Less I han
Significant
Less I han
Significant Significant Potentially Disclosed? Impacts
Supplement
at EIR/ EIS
Impact After Impact Required?
Mitigation
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or X YES NO
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological X YES NO
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or stale habitat
conservation plan?
5, CULTURAL RESOURCES.

Wouldthe project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a X YES NO
historical resource as defined In §
15064. 5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an X YES NO
archaeological resource pursuant to
15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or

X YES NO
site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of X NA NO
formal cemeteries?

6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.

Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the X YES NO
State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.

ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) CSA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C - 79 City Council 17 – 218 3/4/2025
ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) USA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C - 80
New Impacts of Project Changes Previous FOR and FEIS
Impact
Less an
Significant
an
Significant
otentia V
Significant Disclosed?
ulp ement
at EIR/ EIS
Impact After Impact Required?
Mitigation
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X YES NO
iii) Seismic - related ground failure, X YES NO
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? X YES NO
b) Result in substantial soil erosion X YES NO
or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in onX YES NO
or off -site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18 -1 - B of the
Uniform Building Code ( 1994), X YES NO
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste X NA NO
water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?

7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or X NO NO
indirectly, that may have a significant
Impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the X NO NO
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?

8. HAZARDS,
Would the project involve:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through

X YES NO
the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) USA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C - 80 City Council 17 – 219 3/4/2025
New Impacts of Project Changes .. Previous: FOR and FEIS.

No Less I ran
Significant
Less I nan
Significant Ppienual Significant Impacts Su lament
al EIR EIS Impact Impact After Impact Disclosed? Required? Mitigation .
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and X YES NO
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or X NIA NO
waste within one - quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5

X YES NO
and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within

X NIA NO
two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project X NIA NO
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
g) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted X YES NO
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to X NIA NO
urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with
wildlands?

9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER.

QUALITY
a) Violate any water quality X YES NO
standards or waste discharge
requirements?
ANA 305 -194 ( PER 02) CSA (AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C -81 City Council 17 – 220 3/4/2025
ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) CSA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C - 82
New Impacts of Project Changes Previous FEIR and FEIS
Impact NoP
ess I Man
Significant
Less I Man
Significant
Potemially
Significant Disclosed? Impacts Icposed?
upppement
al EIWEIS
Impact After Impact Required?
Mitigation
E) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local

X YES NO
groundwater table level ( e.g., the
production rate of pre- existing
nearby wells would drop to a level
that would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a

X YES NO
manner that would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off -site?
d) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or X YES NO
substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
that would result in flooding on - or
off -site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned storm water X YES NO
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade X YES NO
water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100 -year
flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or

X YES NO
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood

X YES NO
hazard area structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding X YES NO
as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam?
ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) CSA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C - 82 City Council 17 – 221 3/4/2025
ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) USA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C - 83
New Impacts of Project Changes Previous FEIR and FEIS
Less : an
Significant
Less an
Significant Potentially Significant Supplement
atEIRIEIS Impact Impact After Impact Discosed? Required? ' Mitigation
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or X N/ A NO
mudflow?

10. LAND USE AND PLANNING.

Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established X N/A NO
community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land
use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the
project ( including, but not limited to
the general plan, specific plan, local X YES NO
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable
habitat conservation plan or natural X N/ A NO
community conservation plan?

11. MINERAL RESOURCES. -
Wouldtheproject:
a) Result in the loss of availability of
a known mineral resource that would X YES NO
be of value to the region and the
residents of the stale?
b) Result in the loss of availability of
alocally- important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local X YES NO
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?

12. NOISE.

Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or
generation of noise levels in excess
of standards established in the local X YES NO
general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive X YES NO
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase
In ambient noise levels in the project X YES NO
vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) USA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C - 83 City Council 17 – 222 3/4/2025
ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) CSA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 10 75C - 84
New Impacts of Project Changes Previous FOR and FEIS
Impact
Less an
Significant
Less an
Significant PotentiallySignificant Disclosed?
uppp ement

EIR/ EIS
Impact After Impact Required? Required?
Mitigation
d) A substantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient noise X YES NO
levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public X N/ A NO
use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise
levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project X N/ A NO
expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise
levels?

13. POPULATION AND HOUSING..

Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes X YES NO
and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads
or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the X YES NO
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the X YES NO
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?

14. PUBLIC SERVICES.

Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical Impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance ob'ecllves for any of the
a) Fire protection? X YES NO
b) Police protection? X YES NO
c) Schools? X YES NO
ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) CSA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 10 75C - 84 City Council 17 – 223 3/4/2025
Appendix A
ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) CSA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C - 85
New Impacts of Project Changes Previous FOR and FEIS
No ess inan
Significant
Less I man
Significant Significant Potentially . Impacts uppp ement al EIRIEIS Impact Impact After Impact: Disclosed? Required..

Mitigation
d) Parks? X YES NO
e) Other public facilities? X YES NO

15. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the
use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational

X YES NO
facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include
recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of X YES NO
recreational facilities that might have
an adverse physical effect on the
environment?

16. TRANSPORTATIONIfRAFFIG.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan,
ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation
system, taking Into account all
modes of transportation including X YES NO
mass transit and non - motorized
travel and relevant components of
the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets,
highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable
congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of
service standards and travel demand X YES NO
measures, or other standards
established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an increase

X NO NO
in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards
due to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)

X YES NO
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) CSA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C - 85 City Council 17 – 224 3/4/2025
ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) USA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 12 75C - 86
New Impacts ofProject Changes. Previous FOR and FEIS
Impact No. P
ess an
Significant
Less an
Significant PotentiallySignificant Disclosed? Imacts
upppement
al EIR/EIS
Jmpact After Impact Required?
Mitigation
e) Result in inadequate emergency X YES NO
access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies,
plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian X YES NO
facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such
facilities?

17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS.

Would the ' ect
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable X YES NO
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b) Require or result in the
construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or X YES NO
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the
construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of X YES NO
existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources,

X YES NO
or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that
it has adequate capacity to serve the X YES NO
project' s projected demand In
addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to X YES NO
accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and
local statutes and regulations related X YES NO
to solid waste?
ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) USA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU 12 75C - 86 City Council 17 – 225 3/4/2025
Appendix A
ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) USA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C - 87
New Impacts ofProject Changes Previous FOR and FEIS .

No ess I : an
Significant
Less I ham
Significant
Potentiall
SignificantOisclosed?
impacts upppement—
al EIRIEIS Impact Impact After Impact Required?
Mitigation

18. MANDATORY

FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the
potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self -
sustaining levels, threaten to X YES NO
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts
that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a

X YES N
project are considerable when 0
viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have
environmental effects which will X YES NO
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
Note: NIA = Not applicable

19. EARLIER ANALYSES.

Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063( c)(3)( D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and slate where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

ANA 305 - 194 ( PER 02) USA ( AUGUST 2014) 133867 YU
75C - 87 City Council 17 – 226 3/4/2025
75C -88 City Council 17 – 227 3/4/2025
ROH — 04/ 07/15
RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -xx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA

APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 89 -01 FOR THE

BRISTOL STREET WIDENING PROJECT BETWEEN WARNER AVENUE

AND SAINT ANDREW PLACE ( PHASE IV)

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows:

A. On November 19, 1990, the City Council approved the Final Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report ( EIS 89 -01) for the widening of a 3.9 -mile segment of Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Memory Lane, hereinafter referred to as the "Project".

B. City Council has been asked to approve the commencement of Phase IV of the Project, widening Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Saint Andrew Place. Phase IV includes minor design modifications to the Project approved in EIS 89 -01.

C. On April 7, 2015, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana considered the request for approval of the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Study / Environmental Impact Report (EIS 89 -01).

Section 2. The City Council previously approved and adopted Final Environmental Impact Study / Environmental Impact Report ( EIS 89 -01). In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), an Addendum to EIS 89 -01 was prepared for Phase IV of the Bristol Street Widening Project. A true and correct copy of the Addendum is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference.

The City Council reviewed the information contained in the Addendum, which includes reference materials, all of which are hereby incorporated by reference, and as a result of its consideration and the evidence presented at the hearings on this matter, determined that, as required pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the Addendum adequately addresses the expected environmental impacts of this Project.

Based upon the studies, the City Council determines that there are no new significant impacts or any increases in the severity of the impacts previously identified in the original FEIS /EIR.

Resolution No. 2015 -

Page 1 of 3 ends

75C -89 City Council 17 – 228 3/4/2025
Section 3. The City Council hereby certifies and approves the Addendum to EIR 89 -01, and directs that any necessary Notice of Determination be prepared and filed with the County Clerk of the County of Orange in the matter required by Law.

Section 4. These decisions are based upon the Request for Council Action dated April i, 2015, and exhibits attached thereto; the public comments; and, the Final Environmental Impact Study / Environmental Impact Report ( EIS 89 -01), all of which are incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 5. This decision rendered by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana is final and is subject to judicial review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.8.

ADOPTED this day of April, 2015.

Miguel A. Pulido
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Sonia f arvalhp, City Attorney
M
li
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers
Resolution No. 2015 -

Page 2 of 3 ends

75C -90 City Council 17 – 229 3/4/2025

CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2015 -XXX to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on
Date:

Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
75C -91
Resolution No. 2015 -

Page 3 of 3 ends

City Council 17 – 230 3/4/2025
75C -92 City Council 17 – 231 3/4/2025

EXHIBITA
Please note that Exhibit A referenced in the resolution is Exhibit 3 of the 75C Staff Report.
75C -93 City Council 17 – 232 3/4/2025
75C -94 City Council 17 – 233 3/4/2025
FY 24/25 FY 27/28 FY 28/29 FY 29/30
22,354,493 - - -
2,235,449 - - -
405,560 - - -
2,398,370 - - -
27,393,872 - - -
FY 24/25 FY 27/28 FY 28/29 FY 29/30
748,415 - - -
632,183 - - -
680,000 - - -
1,611,810 - - -
11,910,023 - - -
1,596,614 - - -
2,535,113 - - -
770,440 - - -
672,108 - - -
3,173,750 - - -
27,393,872 - - -
AGENCY: DIVISION: CONTACT: DATE:

Public Works CIP Engineering Jason Gabriel, Principal Civil Engineer 4-Mar-2025

TOTAL - - -

WATER CAPITAL - - -

TSIA AREA F - - -

TSIA AREA E - - -
RMRA SB1 - - -
-

RESIDENTIAL STREET IMPROV - - -
OCTA BRISTOL ST CORRIDOR 3,063,416 - - - - -
MEASURE M2 COMPETITIVE - - -
M2 LOCAL FAIRSHARE - - -

GENERAL FUND - - -

GAS TAX - - -
DAF: DA-IV - - -
SOURCE OF FUNDS FY 25/26 FY 26/27 FY 30/31

TOTAL - - -
Engineering - - -
Other - - -
PROJECT COSTS FY 25/26 FY 26/27 FY 30/31
Construction - - -
Contingency - - -
CITY OF SANTA ANA FY 24/25CIP

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WORKSHEET
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The Bristol Street Improvements project was planned and designed to incorporate complete street concepts with storm water quality features. The improvements include widening of the street from four lanes to six lanes, with bus turnouts, raised median, bike lanes, enhanced storm drain system, and sound walls. The project also brings native and organic landscaping that beautifies a fully developed urban area.

PROJECT NEED:

Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to St. Andrew Place (Phase 4) is part of the City's plan to widen Bristol Street from Warner Avenue to Memory Lane, which was approved by City Council in 1990 and reevaluated in 2015. Existing roadway has only 2 lanes in each direction and is operating at a Level of Service (LOS) F. This widening is needed to improve traffic flow and create complete streets features.

PROJECT TITLE:

Bristol St Impr & Widening: Ph 4 -
Warner - St Andrew
PROJECT CATEGORY:

Street Improvements
Street/Bridge Improvements & Widening

LOCATION MAP
EXHIBIT 8
City Council 17 – 234 3/4/2025
City Council 17 – 235 3/4/2025
Community Development Agency
www.santa-ana.org/community-development
Item # 18
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Staff Report
March 4, 2025
TOPIC: Pre-Commitments of $10,727,571 of Affordable Housing Funds for Habitat for Humanity of Orange County

AGENDA TITLE
Approve a Pre-Commitment of $9,807,571 in HOME Program Funds for the Development of 40 New Affordable Ownership Units Located at 621 W. Alton Avenue, and Approve a Pre-Commitment of up to $920,000 in Inclusionary Housing Funds for Eligible Homebuyers to Purchase Nine (9) Existing Rental Units that will be Converted into Affordable Ownership Condominium Units Located at 425 E. Wellington Avenue for a total of $10,727,571

RECOMMENDED ACTION

1. Authorize the City Manager to execute a pre-commitment letter with Habitat for Humanity of Orange County for $9,807,571 in HOME Investment Partnerships Program funds for the development of 40 new affordable ownership units located at 621 W. Alton Avenue, Santa Ana, CA (APN 410-351-02) (Agreement No. A-2025- XXX).

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a pre-commitment letter with Habitat for Humanity of Orange County for up to $920,000 in Inclusionary Housing Funds for eligible homebuyers to purchase nine (9) existing rental units that will be converted into affordable ownership condominium units located at 425 E. Wellington Avenue, Santa Ana, CA (APN 398-028-12) (Agreement No. A-2025-XXX).

GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES: Yes

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At a special meeting on December 13, 2024, the Community Development Commission recommended the City Council to approve recommended action No. 1 and No. 2 above by a vote of 5:0. However, recommended action No. 2 was amended by staff following the Commission meeting to add $20,000 and adjust the language of the award to comply with California Government Code §§ 7260 or 66300.6 relocation assistance obligations regarding the conversion of market rate rental units.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In October 2023, City Council directed staff to invest affordable housing funds exclusively for the development of affordable ownership opportunities. Following the City Council 18 – 1 3/4/2025
Pre-Commitments of $10,727,571 of Affordable Housing Funds for Habitat for Humanity March 4, 2025

Page 2 ends

issuance of a Request for Proposals approved by City Council, staff is now recommending an award of over $10.7 million to produce 49 new affordable ownership opportunities for low- and moderate-income families. The homes would be developed and purchased by Habitat for Humanity of Orange County at two sites. If approved by City Council, this will be the single largest investment in affordable ownership opportunities in the history of the City of Santa Ana. This will also double the number of affordable homes that Habitat for Humanity of Orange County has created in the City and will be the highest number of affordable homes they have created in any city in Orange County. If this award is approved, the City of Santa Ana will have invested over $15.8 million in new funding for affordable homeownership opportunities over the last three years.

DISCUSSION
On October 17, 2023, the City Council authorized the Community Development Agency (“CDA”) to release a Fiscal Year 2023-24 Request for Proposals (“RFP # 23-156”) to develop affordable ownership projects in the City of Santa Ana (“City”) with funding from the HOME Investment Partnerships (“HOME”) Program (Exhibit 1). The RFP was prepared in compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing Funds Policies and Procedures. The RFP was published on the City’s website and Planet Bids; a public notice was published in the OC Register on October 25, 2023; and an e-mail was sent out to Orange County’s largest affordable housing membership associations, interested developers, and nonprofit organizations from CDA’s RFP Process Database.

A Review Panel, composed of City staff from the Community Development Agency and Planning and Building Agency together with an affordable housing consultant, used the Scoring and Selection Criteria from the RFP to review all of the proposals. Habitat for Humanity of Orange County, Jamboree Housing, THRIVE Santa Ana, Mary Erikson, and Orange County Community Housing Corporation (“OCCHC”) each submitted a proposal during the period that the RFP was open. Jamboree Housing and THRIVE Santa Ana ended up withdrawing their proposals. The proposal from OCCHC that was scored and reviewed did not meet the minimum threshold requirements and the proposal from Mary Erikson was determined to be infeasible because it was cost prohibitive. Following this review and scoring process, and substantial due diligence, the Review Panel is recommending the following awards for two projects for Habitat for Humanity to create 49 new affordable ownership opportunities:

Developer: Habitat for Humanity of Orange County
• 621 W. Alton Avenue: $9,807,571 in HOME Program funds for the development of 40 new affordable ownership units including 30 homes for low-income families at 80% Area Median Income (“AMI”) and 10 homes for moderate-income families at 120% AMI.
• 425 E. Wellington Avenue: Up to $920,000 in Inclusionary Housing Funds for eligible homebuyers to purchase nine (9) existing rental units that will be converted into affordable ownership condominium units City Council 18 – 2 3/4/2025
Pre-Commitments of $10,727,571 of Affordable Housing Funds for Habitat for Humanity March 4, 2025

Page 3 ends

including: (1) an allocation of $720,000 to the City's Down Payment Assistance Program, and (2) a conditional award up to $200,000 for eligible relocation costs.

Background on Habitat for Humanity of Orange County
Habitat for Humanity of Orange County (“Habitat for Humanity”) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing affordable housing for qualifying families. Since 1988, the organization has completed and sold 239 homes in Orange County, including 32 affordable homes in the City of Santa Ana. Habitat for Humanity is currently building an additional six (6) new homes in the City at 1921 W. Washington Ave for low-income families at 80% of the AMI that was made possible with $2.2 million from the City’s Inclusionary Housing Fund. Habitat for Humanity also currently administers the City’s Residential Rehabilitation Grant Program with $500,000 per year in Community Development Block Grant funds. The organization is the largest provider of affordable ownership opportunities in Orange County and also advocates for fair housing policies, addresses substandard housing conditions, and offers families training and resources to achieve homeownership.

Project Description - 621 W. Alton Avenue
The first pre-commitment letter for 621 W. Alton Avenue, Santa Ana, CA (APN 410-351- 02) between the City and Habitat for Humanity provides an enforceable funding commitment of $9,807,571 in HOME Program funds for the development of 40 new affordable ownership units (Exhibit 2). The letter is referred to as a pre-commitment because the HOME Program has strict commitment requirements under 24 CFR Part 92 that must be met before a full commitment can be issued in the form of a Conditional Grant Agreement. Specifically, Habitat for Humanity proposes to demolish the existing structures on the property to build 40 new homes for affordable ownership. The project will include 30 three-bedroom, one and a half-bath homes for low-income households earning up to 80% of the AMI ("Low-Income Households") and 10 three-bedroom, one and a half-bath homes for moderate-income households earning up to 120% AMI ("Moderate-Income Households"). The AMI is currently $129,000 for a four-person household, as published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Households must also meet the eligibility requirements for Habitat for Humanity’s Affordable Homeownership Program with a residency preference for local residents and workers in Santa Ana in accordance with Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 8-3500.

In a preliminary design drafted by Habitat for Humanity, each unit will have a two-story in a duplex configuration and will be approximately 1,070 square feet in size. At least two (2) of the homes will be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant. The site bridges the larger scale of existing multi-family properties to the north and east of the project site with the existing single-family homes to the west. The proposed units are arranged along paseos with a modest central courtyard located at the paseo intersection, complementing the large park (Lillie King Park) across the street. Each unit features a front porch and private patio. Garages and guest parking are accessed via a looping alley, allowing efficient movement for trash collection and emergency vehicles.

City Council 18 – 3 3/4/2025
Pre-Commitments of $10,727,571 of Affordable Housing Funds for Habitat for Humanity March 4, 2025

Page 4 ends

There will be two parking spaces adjacent and dedicated to each home (one enclosed and one surface). There will also be 16 additional surface parking stalls for guests, including two ADA-accessible stalls.

The overall design and materials of the new construction will be compatible with and complement the variation of styles within the neighborhood. Overall, the project will include a design and quality construction materials that will ensure that the project ages well for the duration of the building’s lifetime. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (“KMA”) estimates the low income affordable sales prices at $300,200 and Habitat for Humanity is currently estimating the moderate income affordable sales prices at $389,500.

This project is being developed in partnership with Bill Taormina who is the current owner of the land. Mr. Taormina will be holding title of the land through the entitlement and building process. As such, he will continue to be responsible for holding costs and pay for the property taxes and required insurance for the duration of the project and up until the new homes are sold. Habitat for Humanity and Mr. Taormina have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the agreed upon terms and details of the partnership and land purchase.

The project will require relocation of the existing religious organizations currently occupying and renting the existing structures on the property in compliance with the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (“Uniform Relocation Act”), and all state and local relocation requirements. Currently, three religious organizations rent the existing structures including Faith Community Church of Santa Ana, Fundamentalist Baptist Church, and Turning Point Fellowship.

These tenants will be provided relocation assistance that complies with the federal Uniform Relocation Act as required by the HOME Program federal funds. Per Habitat for Humanity, Federal relocation requirements stipulate that the maximum relocation assistance for businesses is $53,200 plus three months of rent payments, if required.

As such, Habitat for Humanity estimates the total relocation assistance at $213,000.

Once the three religious organizations vacate the existing structures, Habitat for Humanity will pay Mr. Taormina the rent paid by the vacating occupants and begin the process to demolish the buildings.

From an initial review of the project by the City’s Planning and Building Agency, the timeline for processing the application and obtaining necessary approvals is expected to take approximately seven (7) to 12 months. The property is currently zoned as LR-7 (Low Density Residential, seven (7) units per acre). To the extent required under state housing laws, Habitat for Humanity may need to request a General Plan Amendment and zone change. Habitat for Humanity may also be required to comply with the City’s Sunshine Ordinance, which includes holding two community meetings. A California Environmental Quality Act review may be required and a Density Bonus Agreement may also be necessary, depending on the concessions and waivers needed for the development of the project.

City Council 18 – 4 3/4/2025
Pre-Commitments of $10,727,571 of Affordable Housing Funds for Habitat for Humanity March 4, 2025

Page 5 ends

The pre-commitment letter shall not obligate the City or any department thereof to approve any application or request for, or take any other action in connection with, any planning approval, permit, or other action necessary for the construction, rehabilitation, installation, or operation of the project. The pre-commitment letter will be conditional on Habitat for Humanity obtaining approval of all required entitlements and discretionary actions to allow the construction of 40 affordable ownership units to be located at 621 W. Alton Avenue.

In compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing Funds Policies and Procedures, KMA completed a preliminary financial gap analysis by reviewing the developer’s estimates and projections of sales prices, expenses, reserves, and development costs; and confirming the project’s underwriting and other requirements pertinent to the funding sources (Exhibit 3). Following this analysis and completion of the procurement process, KMA confirmed the preliminary financial gap and the Review Panel’s recommendation to award $9,807,571 in HOME Program funds. The project’s economics are described in detail in KMA’s analysis attached as Exhibit 3 to this report.

Project Description - 425 E. Wellington Avenue
The second pre-commitment letter for 425 E. Wellington Avenue, Santa Ana, CA (APN 398-028-12) between the City and Habitat for Humanity provides an enforceable funding commitment of up to $920,000 in Inclusionary Housing Funds for eligible homebuyers to purchase nine (9) existing rental units that will be converted into affordable ownership condominium units including: (1) an allocation of $720,000 to the City's Down Payment Assistance Program, and (2) a conditional award up to $200,000 for eligible relocation costs (Exhibit 4). The letter is referred to as a pre-commitment because, similar to the HOME Program, the City has requirements that must be met before a full commitment can be issued in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding.

Specifically, this project involves the conversion of an existing nine-unit apartment building into condominiums, which will be made available for homeownership to Low and Moderate-Income households earning less than 120% of the AMI. The existing building on the property was rehabilitated in May 2024 and includes one two-bedroom unit and eight one-bedroom units, each with a single bathroom. Unit sizes range from 420 to 846 square feet and are move-in ready. The building recently underwent over $1 million in renovations, which included new flooring, electrical upgrades (new outlets and fixtures), updated kitchen cabinets, and complete bathroom remodels. Doors, windows, shutters, garage doors, stairways, and railings were restored or replaced as needed to meet code compliance.

Current residents of the property with household incomes of less than 120% AMI and that qualify to purchase a unit within the Property will be given the right of first refusal to purchase a unit at an affordable purchase price (eight of the nine units are currently occupied). KMA estimates the moderate income affordable sales prices at $310,400 for the eight (8) one-bedroom units and $350,500 for the one (1) two-bedroom unit. The allocation of $720,000 to the City’s Down Payment Assistance Program will be available for down payment assistance to individual households to purchase a unit, structured as City Council 18 – 5 3/4/2025
Pre-Commitments of $10,727,571 of Affordable Housing Funds for Habitat for Humanity March 4, 2025

Page 6 ends

a silent mortgage based on homebuyer eligibility. Homebuyers must meet the eligibility requirements for Habitat for Humanity’s Affordable Homeownership Program with a residency preference for local workers and residents of Santa Ana in accordance with Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 8-3500. The conditional award of up to $200,000 for eligible relocation costs will be available upon a determination by the City that the Project is subject to relocation benefits under California Government Code §§7260 or 66300.6. The specific amounts utilized for relocation benefits will be based on actual amounts determined immediately prior to the relocation of existing tenants.

The City and Habitat for Humanity will enter into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") that sets forth the terms under which the City will provide the homebuyer Down Payment Assistance and conditional relocation award. The MOU will specify that the project is not undertaken by the City and is not in furtherance of a City program. Rather, the MOU is a response to Habitat for Humanity’s request for financial assistance to enhance affordability for qualified homebuyers by providing homebuyer Down Payment Assistance through an existing City program. The MOU will require that Habitat for Humanity execute an affordable housing covenant to offer the nine (9) affordable units to households with income that does not exceed the limits for Low and ModerateIncome Households for an affordable sales price that complies with the limits for an "affordable housing cost," as defined in California Health and Safety Code §50052.5.

The affordable housing covenant will run with the land for a period of forty-five (45) years.

This second pre-commitment letter shall not obligate the City or any department thereof to approve any application or request for, or take any other action in connection with, any planning approval, permit, or other action necessary for the construction, rehabilitation, installation, or operation of the project. The pre-commitment letter will also be conditional on Habitat for Humanity obtaining approval of all required entitlements and discretionary actions to allow the construction, improvement, conversion, and/or development of nine (9) affordable ownership units at 425 E. Wellington Avenue.

In compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing Funds Policies and Procedures, KMA completed a second preliminary financial gap analysis for this project (Exhibit 5).

Following this analysis and completion of the procurement process, KMA confirmed the preliminary financial gap and need for the Review Panel’s recommendation to award up to $920,000 in Inclusionary Housing Funds. This second project’s economics are described in detail in KMA’s analysis attached as Exhibit 5 to this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
There is no environmental impact associated with this action because the recommended actions consist of a pre-commitment of funds that is conditional upon compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

City Council 18 – 6 3/4/2025
Pre-Commitments of $10,727,571 of Affordable Housing Funds for Habitat for Humanity March 4, 2025

Page 7 ends

FISCAL IMPACT
For 621 W. Alton Avenue, the Grant Agreement is estimated to be finalized for City Council approval in FY 26-27. Upon future approval of the Grant Agreement, funds will be budgeted and available as shown below:

Fiscal
Year
Accounting Unit
– Account #
Fund
Description
Accounting Unit,
Account
Description
Amount
FY 26-27 13018780- 69152 HOME Program Loans and Grants $9,807,571 Total $9,807,571
The HOME Program currently requires a matching cash contribution from the City for $348,717.76 for FY 23 and FY 24. The City has over $26.4 million in carry over cash contributions eligible to meet this match requirement.

For 425 E. Wellington Avenue, the MOU is estimated to be finalized for City Council approval in FY 25-26. Upon future approval of the MOU, funds will be budgeted and available as shown below:

Fiscal
Year
Accounting Unit
– Account #
Fund
Description
Accounting Unit,
Account
Description
Amount
FY 25-26 41718820-69152 Inclusionary
Housing Fund Loans and Grants $920,000
Total $920,000

EXHIBIT(S)

1. Staff Report from October 17, 2023

2. Pre-Commitment Letter for 621 W. Alton Avenue

3. Preliminary Financial Gap Analysis for 621 W. Alton Avenue

4. Pre-Commitment Letter for 425 E. Wellington Avenue

5. Preliminary Financial Gap Analysis for 425 E. Wellington Avenue Submitted By: Michael L. Garcia, Executive Director of Community Development Approved By: Alvaro Nuñez, City Manager
City Council 18 – 7 3/4/2025

SANTA ANA CITY COUNCIL
Valerie Amezcua
Mayor
[email protected]
Benjamin Vazquez
Mayor Pro Tem - Ward 2
[email protected]
Thai Viet Phan
Ward 1
[email protected]
Jessie Lopez
Ward 3
[email protected]
Phil Bacerra
Ward 4
[email protected]
Johnathan Ryan Hernandez
Ward 5
[email protected]
David Penaloza
Ward 6
[email protected]
MAYOR
Valerie Amezcua

MAYOR PRO TEM
Benjamin Vazquez

COUNCILMEMBERS
Phil Bacerra
Johnathan Ryan Hernandez
Jessie Lopez
David Penaloza
Thai Viet Phan

CITY OF SANTA ANA

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
20 Civic Center Plaza – M25
Santa Ana, California 92702
www.santa-ana.org

CITY MANAGER
Alvaro Nuñez

CITY ATTORNEY
Sonia R. Carvalho

CITY CLERK
Jennifer L. Hall
March 4, 2025
Michael Valentine
President & CEO
Habitat for Humanity of Orange County, Inc.
2200 Ritchey Street
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Re: Pre-Commitment Letter
621 W. Alton Ave.

Santa Ana, CA 92707
Dear Mr. Valentine,
Habitat for Humanity of Orange County, Inc. (referred to as the “Developer”), requested financial assistance in connection with the proposed development of 40 affordable ownership units (“Project”). The Property is located at 621 West Alton Avenue, Santa Ana, CA, 92707 (APN 410-351-02) (“Property”).

The Developer proposes to demolish the existing structures on the Property to build 40 new homes for affordable ownership. The Project will require relocation of the existing religious organizations currently occupying and renting the existing structures on the Property in compliance with the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, and all state and local relocation requirements. The Project will include 30 three-bedroom, one and a half-bath homes for Low-Income households earning up to 80% of the Orange County Area Median Income (“AMI”) ("Low-Income Households") and 10 three-bedroom, one and a half-bath homes for Moderate-Income households earning up to 120% AMI ("Moderate-Income Households"). Each unit will have a two-story duplex configuration and will be approximately 1,070 square feet. At least two of the homes will be Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) accessible and compliant. There will be two parking spaces adjacent and dedicated to each home (one enclosed and one surface) and 16 additional surface parking stalls, including two ADAaccessible stalls. Households must also meet the eligibility requirements for the Developer’s Affordable Homeownership Program with a residency preference for local EXHIBIT 2
City Council 8 – 8 3//2025
- 2 -
workers and residents of Santa Ana in accordance with Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 8-3500. Construction will comply with all City of Santa Ana, County, and State building codes.

The City of Santa Ana (“City”) has reviewed the Developer's request for financial assistance, and at the City Council meeting on March 4, 2025, the City Council authorized and approved the issuance of this pre-commitment letter evidencing the preliminary award of $9,807,571.00 in HOME Investment Partnerships (“HOME”) Program Funds consisting of:
- A Conditional Grant in the maximum amount of $9,807,571.00 from the HOME Program Fund held by the City for the Project (“Conditional HOME Grant”).

This letter shall evidence the City’s pre-commitment of the Conditional HOME Grant to the Developer for the Project subject to the conditions described below.

Conditional HOME Grant:

The amount of the proposed Conditional HOME Grant has been determined based upon the City’s review of the Developer's request for the receipt of the Conditional HOME Grant and the development proforma for the Project submitted by the Developer to the City (“Proforma”). The City Manager or his/her designee has the authority to approve revised development proformas for the Project; provided, however, that the Conditional HOME Grant is not increased or extended.

The Conditional HOME Grant shall be conditioned on and include the following terms:
 The Conditional HOME Grant shall be for a maximum principal amount of $9,807,571.00, or as much thereof, as is disbursed for hard and soft costs in constructing the Project, provided from the HOME Program Fund. The terms and conditions of the Conditional HOME Grant shall be incorporated into a written agreement ("Grant Agreement"), which shall comply with all provisions and requirements of this Pre-Commitment Letter, and any additional terms or conditions that City determines are reasonably necessary to implement the Project and ensure compliance with federal, state and local law.  The disbursement of the Conditional HOME Grant shall be made according to a schedule of disbursements based on written milestones set forth in the Grant Agreement.
 The Grant Agreement shall require a performance deed of trust in favor of the City ("Performance Deed of Trust") securing the obligations of the Grant Agreement against the Property; the City may, in its sole and absolute discretion, approve alternative security, such as a leasehold deed of trust or a security interest in a construction funding account, subject to terms and conditions agreeable to the City and compliant with the HOME Program. The Performance Deed of Trust (or EXHIBIT 2
City Council 8 – 9 3//2025
- 3 -
alternative security) would terminate and, if applicable, be subject to reconveyance based upon terms in the Grant Agreement. .  The Grant Agreement shall require that the owner of the Property execute a regulatory agreement with a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions ("Regulatory Agreement") to develop the Property with 40 affordable units, as described herein, on terms agreeable to the City. The Regulatory Agreement shall run with the land for the duration of the affordability covenants.  Developer will comply with the attached Schedule of Performance. The Schedule of Performance is designed to ensure timely progress and adherence to HOME Program Fund expenditure deadlines, as mandated by federal funding regulations.  Provided the Developer constructs the Project according to the Scope of Work and Schedule of Performance, the Developer will be subject to no repayment obligation. Upon the initial sale of all units to eligible households pursuant to the Regulatory Agreement, the Grant Agreement shall automatically terminate. In the event the Project is not constructed in compliance with the Scope of Work and Schedule of Performance, the City may terminate the Grant Agreement and may seek repayment of Grant monies not expended on development and construction of the Project pursuant to the default remedy provisions of the Grant Agreement.  The 40 affordable ownership units at the Project shall and will be restricted to an affordable home purchase price, which will require that 30 homes be sold to qualified Low-Income Households who earn up to 80% of the Orange County AMI and 10 homes be sold to qualified Moderate-Income Households who earn up to 120% of the Orange County AMI, as set by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”). Future sales of such single-family homes will be restricted to income-qualified households for a period of at least forty-five (45) years, unless City and Developer agree upon an alternative resale model allowing homeowners to generate additional equity.
 City and Developer shall evaluate and negotiate the restrictions on resale of the individual single-family homes to determine the benefit of generating additional equity for each household. Any resale restrictions shall comply with requirements of federal, state or local law.
 Developer will have a local preference for families who live or work in the City of Santa Ana in the selection of Low- and Moderate-Income Households in compliance with Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 8-3500.  Developer will comply with the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (“URA”) and any other applicable federal, state, or local laws governing relocation or termination of tenancy (collectively, "Relocation Laws"). Developer shall provide the existing tenants on the Project EXHIBIT 2
City Council 8 – 0 3//2025
- 4 -
Site with relocation assistance and any other benefits required by Relocation Laws.

This will include the review and approval by the City of a URA Relocation Plan.  Developer shall assume any and all responsibility and be solely responsible for compliance with all tenant and eviction protections, including but not limited to protections under the California Tenant Protection Act (Civil Code § 1946.2), the Ellis Act (Government Code § 7060 et seq.), and Santa Ana's Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance (Article XIX of Chapter 8 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code) (collectively, "Eviction Protections"). To the extent applicable, Developer shall comply with and be responsible for all costs of compliance with all relevant Eviction Protections.
 Developer will ensure that each “Program Participant” (used interchangeably with “Homebuyer”) means the selected eligible person or family who will be purchasing a house. Each Program Participant will provide sweat equity or any other administrative work as may be designated by Developer. Each Program Participant is to be selected by the Developer as more fully set forth in its Affordable Home Ownership Program. The City shall have the right to review and approve the sweat equity requirements and all other criteria applied through the Affordable Home Ownership Program.
 Developer’s Project to develop affordable ownership opportunities with financial support from the City is subject to Chapter 11B of the California Building Code as public housing. Accordingly, Developer’s Project must comply with California Building Code section 11B-233.3. Specifically, Developer’s Project must comply with the requirements for mobility features: “In facilities with residential dwelling units, at least 5 percent, but no fewer than one unit, of the total number of residential dwelling units shall provide mobility features.” Developer’s Project must also comply with the requirements for communication features: “In public housing facilities with residential dwelling units, at least 2 percent, but no fewer than one unit, of the total number of residential dwelling units shall provide communication features complying with Section 11B-809.5.” Developer’s Project must also comply with the requirements for adaptable features: “In facilities with residential dwelling units, adaptable residential dwelling units complying with Sections 11B809.6 through 11B-809.12 shall be provided as required by Sections 11B233.3.1.2.1 through 11B-233.3.1.2.6. Adaptable residential dwelling units shall be on an accessible route as required by Section 11B-206.” Developer shall comply with these public housing requirements for their Project in the California Building Code by constructing two units in the Project that includes the required mobility, communication, and adaptable features.
 Developer will comply with the requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act, as applicable due to the use of HOME federal funds, and any other applicable labor requirements arising from the receipt of the Conditional HOME Grant. This includes ensuring that all laborers and mechanics employed on the Project are paid wages at rates EXHIBIT 2
City Council 8 – 3//2025
- 5 -
not less than those prevailing for similar projects in the area, as determined by the U.S. Department of Labor.
 Developer will comply with the Build America, Buy America Act, ensuring that all iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in the Project are produced in the United States, subject to HOME Program and federal requirements.
 Developer will comply with the environmental review requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, as mandated for projects utilizing HOME federal funds, ensuring that the Project is evaluated and mitigated for potential environmental impacts in accordance with federal regulations.
 At the close of escrow for the purchase of each affordable unit, the City will require each Low- and Moderate-Income Households purchasing such unit to execute the following documents:
o Affordable Housing Resale Restrictions – The Affordable Housing Resale Restrictions shall permit sales of a unit affordable to Low- and ModerateIncome Households to be sold only to a qualified Low- or Moderate-Income Household, according to the income restrictions for the particular unit, with a local preference for families who live or work in the City of Santa Ana, in each case, at an Affordable Housing Cost, subject to an alternative resales model agreed upon by City and Developer; provided, however, that the resale restrictions must comply with the HOME Program requirements; o Notice of Affordability Restrictions on Transfer of Property – The Notice of Affordability Restrictions on Transfer of Property shall be for a term of at least forty-five (45) years;
o Promissory Note – The Homebuyer shall sign a promissory note ("City Promissory Note") for a principal amount equal to the difference between the affordable sales price of the affordable unit and the fair market value of such unit as if no restriction were placed thereon, as determined by an appraisal, or other amount required by the HOME Program, which is reasonably acceptable to the City, and repayable upon the affordability term or earlier sale of the affordable unit for fair market value, subject to City's approval;
o Deed of Trust – The Homebuyer shall sign a deed of trust ("City Deed of Trust") that secures the City Promissory Note; and,
o Homebuyer Loan Agreement – The loan agreement shall reflect the obligations for the City Promissory Note and the City Deed of Trust. o Pending further negotiation and due diligence with the Developer, these documents may include an alternative resales model to accommodate generation of additional equity for each household or equity sharing agreements with Developer as required by state or local law.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 8 – 2 3//2025
- 6 -
General Provisions:

The City's obligation to provide the Conditional HOME Grant to the Project is subject to each of the following conditions:
 Developer must provide proof that it has secured all of its remaining financing for the development of the Project in the form of enforceable funding commitments before staff will return to the City Council for consideration of the Grant Agreement for the Conditional HOME Grant. The evidence of financing must be submitted to the City and is subject to the City completing a final HOME Subsidy Layering Review.
 All provided funding and Project requirements shall conform to the City’s most recently adopted Affordable Housing Funds Policies and Procedures unless alternative requirements are expressly provided in the executed Grant Agreement for the Conditional HOME Grant or any other documents related to the development of the Project.
 Approval of all required entitlements and discretionary actions to allow the construction of 40 affordable ownership units to be located at 621 West Alton Avenue, Santa Ana, CA, 92707 (APN 410-351-02).
 The City's obligation to provide the Conditional HOME Grant is and shall remain subject to all covenants, conditions, and restrictions set forth in this precommitment letter and the Grant Agreement, and in particular, the City's analysis of the available funding sources and development and operating costs of the Project and the overall economic feasibility of the Project.  Developer's compliance with the Relocation Laws and Eviction Protections, and providing documentation to the City evidencing compliance.  Review and approval of the Grant Agreement evidencing the Conditional HOME Grant by the City Council, including the Grant Agreement and Regulatory Agreement.
 The obligations of the Grant Agreement, including obligations of the HOME Program, shall be secured by a Performance Deed of Trust, or other form of security reasonably acceptable to the City and which comply with the HOME Program.
 The owner of the Property shall execute the Regulatory Agreement, which shall impose covenants that run with the land to provide the affordable units at an affordable sales price as required by the Grant Agreement upon completion of the Project.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 8 – 3 3//2025
- 7 -
 The Regulatory Agreement and, if applicable, the Performance Deed of Trust, shall be recorded against the Property prior to any disbursements of the Conditional HOME Grant.
 Developer shall establish site control of the Property to the reasonable satisfaction of the City, and City shall have the right to review and approve any conditions of title, as reflected on a preliminary title report, provided at Developer's sole cost and expense. City shall also have the right to require a policy of title insurance securing the Performance Deed of Trust or other security interest in favor of the City for the principal amount of the Conditional HOME Grant and a condition of title guarantee regarding the priority of the Regulatory Agreement.
 City shall have received and approved an agreement between Developer and the current owner of the Property regarding transfer and development of the Project.  Developer must comply with all conditions specified in the Grant Agreement for disbursements of the Conditional HOME Grant.
 Subject to compliance with all other requirements of the Conditional HOME Grant, 90% of the City assistance will be disbursed upon issuance of a grading permit, and 10% (i.e., $980,757.00) of the City’s financial assistance will be retained by the City until construction of the Project is complete.  Developer shall have provided adequate construction security (such as performance, labor, and material bonds), as determined by the City; lien releases ensuring that the Property is lien-free, as required by the City; and evidence of insurance that City requires as part of the Grant Agreement.  Compliance with applicable federal laws and regulations relating to the HOME Program, as set forth in Title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 12701-12839), implementing regulations at 24 C.F.R.

Part 92, and all other federal, state, and local laws and regulations relating to the Project.
 The City Council's review and approval of the Grant Agreement, the Performance Deed of Trust, and the Regulatory Agreement.
 Developer must indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City against loss or damage suffered by City as a result of any claim by any person or entity arising out of or relating to this pre-commitment or the transactions contemplated by this precommitment, excluding claims resulting from the City’s gross negligence and/or willful misconduct.
 Any other terms and conditions the City determines are reasonably necessary for the Grant Agreement to protect the City's interest and comply with applicable law.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 8 – 3//2025
- 8 -
Developer, at its sole cost and expense, will be responsible for securing any and all permits and discretionary approvals that may be required for the Project by the City or any other federal, state, or local governmental entity having or claiming jurisdiction over the Property or Project. Notably, this pre-commitment letter shall not obligate the City or any department thereof to approve any application or request for or take any other action in connection with any planning approval, permit, or other action necessary for the construction, rehabilitation, installation or operation of the Project.

This pre-commitment letter for the Project will expire on March 4, 2027. The Schedule of Performance will determine any future requested amendments to this expiration date, subject to approval by the City Manager. The City will not allow any HOME Program funds to expire due to federal expenditure deadlines during the pre-development of the Project. As such, the City will reduce the Conditional HOME Grant as needed in order to avoid the City forfeiting any HOME Program funds with no adjustment to the unit mix, economics or structure of the Project. Developer will be responsible for any difference in cost.

If you have any questions or require any additional information regarding this precommitment letter, please contact Judson Brown, Housing Division Manager, by telephone at (714) 667-2241 or by e-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,
On behalf of the City of Santa Ana:
_________________________________
Alvaro Nuñez
City Manager
Attest:
_________________________________
Jennifer L. Hall
City Clerk
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
_________________________________
Michael L. Garcia
Executive Director
Community Development Agency
Attachment: Schedule of Performance
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 18 – 15 3/4/2025
- 9 -
AGREED TO BY:

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC.
______________________
Michael Valentine, President & CEO
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 18 – 16 3/4/2025
Schedule of Performance Standard Development Entitlement Path 621 West Alton Avenue
Santa Ana, CA

DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY DURATION START FINISH CDR + Entitlements 18 months 01/01/25 07/01/26
Conceptual Design Review Prep & Submittal 3 months 01/01/25 03/31/25 Development Project Review (DPR) Package Submittal 12 months 04/01/25 04/01/26 Sunshine Meeting No. 1 1 month 04/15/25
DPR Comments 1 month 04/30/25
Sunshine Meeting No. 2 1 month 05/15/25
DPR Package Re-Submittal 1 month 05/31/25
Planning Department Approval 12 months 03/31/26
Community Development Commission Approval 3 months 05/31/26 Project Financing Secured (Finance & Fundraise) * 05/31/26 City Council Meeting & Approval 2 months 07/01/26
Demolition Permit & Demolition Complete 5 months 04/01/26 09/01/26 Grading Permit Process & Permitting (At Risk) 5 months 04/01/26 09/01/26 Home Grant Disbursement (90%) 1 month 09/01/26 10/01/26 Construction Drawing Development + Permitting 11 months 04/01/26 01/01/27 Prepare & Complete Construction Docs (At-Risk) 5 months 04/01/26 09/01/26 Submit for Permits (At-Risk) 6 months 09/01/26 03/01/27 Receive Building Permit 03/01/27
12 Months from Agreement being signed 07/01/26 07/01/27 Grant M-19-MC-06-0540 Expenditure Deadline 09/30/27
Grant M-20-MC-06-0539 Expenditure Deadline 09/30/28
Construction 23 months 03/01/27 02/01/29
Construction Complete 23 months 03/01/27 02/01/29
Final Inspection 0 month 02/01/29
Home Grant Disbursement (Final 10%) 1 month 02/01/29 03/01/29 Grant M-21-MC-06-0538 Expenditure Deadline 09/30/29
Grant M-22-MC-06-0537 Expenditure Deadline 09/30/30
Grant M-23-MC-06-0536 Expenditure Deadline 09/30/31
Grant M-24-MC-06-0535 Expenditure Deadline 09/30/32
Total estimate timeline from City processing entitlements and permits to house construction completion is estimated to be 49 months.

Habitat will begin the “at-risk” grading and building permit process upon receiving Planning Department approval. *This schedule aligns with Habitat OC’s resource development activities and schedule to finance the development of this project.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 18 – 17 3/4/2025
777 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE 2555  LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017  PHONE 213.622.8095 2412001v2.SA.TRB
WWW.KEYSERMARSTON.COM 19090.018.038
ADVISORS IN:

Real Estate
Affordable Housing
Economic Development

BERKELEY
Debbie M. Kern
David Doezema

LOS ANGELES
Kathleen H. Head
Kevin E. Engstrom
Julie L. Romey
Tim R. Bretz

SAN DIEGO
Paul C. Marra
Linnie A. Gavino

EMERITUS
A. Jerry Keyser
Timothy C. Kelly

MEMORANDUM
At your request, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) prepared a preliminary financial gap analysis for the project to be developed at 621 West Alton Avenue (Site) by Habitat for Humanity of Orange County (Habitat). Habitat is currently in discussions with the property owner to purchase the Site.

Habitat proposes to demolish the existing structures on the Site, and construct 40 forsale units to be sold to low and moderate income households (Project). Habitat is requesting $9.81 million in financial assistance from the City of Santa Ana (City). The purpose of the KMA analysis is to evaluate Habitat’s financial assistance request.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The results of the KMA financial gap analysis are compared to Habitat’s financial proposal in the following table:

To: Judson Brown, Housing Division Manager
City of Santa Ana
From: Tim Bretz
Date: December 10, 2024
Subject: Habitat Alton Avenue – Preliminary Financial Gap Analysis EXHIBIT 3
City Council 18 – 18 3/4/2025
Judson Brown, City of Santa Ana December 10, 2024
Habitat Alton – Preliminary Financial Gap Analysis Page 2 2412001v2.SA.TRB
19090.018.038
KMA Habitat Difference
Total Development Costs $27,281,000 $27,247,000 $34,000 (Less) Total Available Revenue (17,438,000) (17,439,000) (1,000) Estimated Financial Gap $9,843,000 $9,808,000 $35,000
As shown in the preceding table, KMA estimates the Project’s financial gap at $9.84 million.

Comparatively, Habitat is requesting $9.81 million in financial assistance from the City. This equates to a $35,000 or less than 1% differential. As such, it can be concluded that the proposed City’s financial assistance is warranted by the Project’s economics.

The City proposes to utilize HOME Program (HOME) funds that are allocated to the City by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Based on a preliminary HOME unit subsidy estimate, the Project will need to designate at least 30 units as HOME units.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed scope of development can be described as follows:

1. The Site area totals approximately 87,110 square feet, or approximately 2.0 acres of land area.

2. The Site consists of multiple buildings that are used for religious entities. The buildings will be demolished in order to undertake the Project.

3. The Project’s unit mix can be summarized as follows:
a. The Project will include 40 for-sale units, in 20 duplex buildings, which equates to a density of 20 units per acre.
b. Each of the units will include three bedrooms and one and a half bathrooms. c. The units will consist of approximately 1,070 square feet of gross building area (GBA).
d. The Project’s total GBA is estimated at 42,800 square feet.

EXHIBIT 3
City Council 18 – 19 3/4/2025
Judson Brown, City of Santa Ana December 10, 2024
Habitat Alton – Preliminary Financial Gap Analysis Page 3 2412001v2.SA.TRB
19090.018.038

4. The Project will include 96 parking spaces consisting of the following:
a. Each unit incorporates an attached garage consisting of one parking space plus an additional surface parking space adjacent to each unit. b. Sixteen (16) additional surface parking spaces will be provided, including two accessible stalls.

5. The Project’s affordability mix will consist of the following:
a. Thirty (30) units will be designated as HOME units and restricted to Low Income households; and
b. The remaining ten (10) units will be restricted to Moderate Income households.

FINANCIAL GAP ANALYSIS
KMA prepared a pro forma analysis to estimate the Project’s financial gap. The analysis is located at the end of this memorandum, and is organized as follows:

Table 1: Estimated Development Costs
Table 2: Estimated Available Revenue
Table 3: Estimated Financial Gap
Table 4: Silent Second Mortgage Revenue Calculations
Table 5: Preliminary HOME Cost Allocation
Table 6: Affordable Sales Price Calculation (HOME Units) ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS (TABLE 1)
KMA reviewed Habitat’s December 2024 pro forma, and then independently prepared a pro forma analysis for the Project. The resulting development costs are estimated as follows:

Property Assemblage Costs
The property assemblage costs are estimated at $4.93 million as follows:

EXHIBIT 3
City Council 18 – 20 3/4/2025
Judson Brown, City of Santa Ana December 10, 2024
Habitat Alton – Preliminary Financial Gap Analysis Page 4 2412001v2.SA.TRB
19090.018.038

PROPERTY ACQUISITION COSTS
Based on information provided by Habitat, Habitat is proposing to purchase the Site for $4.25 million, or $49 per square foot of land area. Habitat did not provide an appraisal and/or purchase and sale agreement to confirm the purchase price.

RELOCATION COSTS
The property consists of multiple buildings that are leased to three tenants. Per Habitat, Federal relocation requirements stipulate that the maximum relocation assistance for businesses is $53,200 plus three months of rent payments, if required. As such, Habitat estimates the total relocation assistance at $213,000. However, Habitat did not provide a relocation plan for review. The City should review the relocation plan prior to disbursement of any financial assistance.

LOST RENT TO SELLER
The Seller has agreed to hold the property during the development period and complete the purchase transaction upon completion of construction. As such, the Seller will be holding the property for the estimated development period of approximately 24 months prior to receiving the agreed-upon purchase price.

To account for this holding period, Habitat is proposing to compensate the Seller for the loss of rent payments during the 24-month development period. Habitat estimates the lost rent payments to be made to the Seller at $386,000.

CLOSING COSTS
Habitat estimates the closing costs at 2% of the purchase price, or $85,000.

Direct Costs
The direct costs assume that the Project will be subject to Federal Davis Bacon prevailing wage requirements. In addition, the Project is subject to the provisions of the Build America Buy America Act (BABA). The direct costs can be summarized as follows:

1. Habitat estimates the site improvement costs at $4.0 million, or $46 per square foot of land area. The site improvement budget includes costs for demolition, grading, sewer EXHIBIT 3
City Council 18 – 21 3/4/2025
Judson Brown, City of Santa Ana December 10, 2024
Habitat Alton – Preliminary Financial Gap Analysis Page 5 2412001v2.SA.TRB
19090.018.038
system, utility connections, paving, landscaping, open space areas and street improvements.

2. The building costs are estimated at $10.70 million, or approximately $267,500 per unit.

3. The general conditions are estimated at 2.5% of construction costs, or $367,000.

4. Habitat will charge for the costs to supervise the construction of the Project. Habitat set the supervision costs at $320,000, which is based on $12,800 per month for 25 months.

5. A direct cost contingency allowance equal to 10% of other direct costs is provided.

KMA estimates the total direct costs at $16.89 million, which equates to approximately $422,200 per unit.

Indirect Costs
KMA utilized the following assumptions in estimating the indirect costs:

1. The architecture, engineering and consulting costs are estimated at 6% of direct costs, or $1.01 million.

2. Habitat estimates the public permits and fees costs at $45,700 per unit, or $1.83 million.

City staff should verify the accuracy of this estimate.

3. The taxes, insurance, legal and accounting costs are estimated at 3% of direct costs, or $507,000.

4. The Developer Fee is set at $844,000 which is based on the following:
a. Management and Overhead costs are set at $444,000 based on:
i. Project Management: $3,500 per month for 24 months; and ii. Administration: $10,000 per month for 36 months.
b. Habitat will charge the Project to provide homeownership services to potential affordable homebuyers. Habitat set this fee at $10,000 per unit.

5. An indirect cost contingency allowance equal to 10% of other indirect costs is provided.

EXHIBIT 3
City Council 18 – 22 3/4/2025
Judson Brown, City of Santa Ana December 10, 2024
Habitat Alton – Preliminary Financial Gap Analysis Page 6 2412001v2.SA.TRB
19090.018.038
KMA estimates the total indirect costs at $4.61 million.

Financing Costs

1. The interest costs to be incurred during the construction period are estimated at $489,000. This cost estimate is based on the following:
a. KMA assumes that Habitat will obtain a construction loan from a third party lender for the Project. KMA estimates the construction loan amount at $7.52 million, which is calculated based on the total development costs less the purchase price, Habitat fundraising assistance, Developer Fee, homebuyer closing costs, HOA reserves and warranty costs.
b. Habitat assumes the construction loan will carry the following terms:
i. A 6.5% interest rate;
ii. A 24-month construction period; and
iii. A 50% average outstanding balance.

2. The financing fees for the construction loan are estimated at 1.0 point, or $75,000.

3. The closing costs related to the sale of each affordable unit are set at $3,000 per unit, or $120,000.

4. Habitat proposes to fund a $24,000 reserve for the Homeowners Association.

5. The warranty costs are estimated at $140,000, which equates to $3,500 per unit.

KMA estimates the total financing costs at $848,000.

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS
As shown in Table 1, KMA estimates the total development costs at $27.28 million. In comparison, Habitat estimates the total development costs at $27.25 million. This represents a $34,000 differential, which equates to less than 1% of the total development costs.

EXHIBIT 3
City Council 18 – 23 3/4/2025
Judson Brown, City of Santa Ana December 10, 2024
Habitat Alton – Preliminary Financial Gap Analysis Page 7 2412001v2.SA.TRB
19090.018.038
It is important to note that the site plan and development scope have not been finalized. Given the preliminary nature of Habitat’s proposal, this analysis will need to be revised if the scope of development changes materially.

Estimated Available Revenue
KMA estimates the revenue available to the Project as follows:

LOW INCOME SALES PRICES – HOME UNITS
The Project is required to designate at least 30 units as HOME units. The HOME Program does not define a methodology for setting the affordable sales prices. As such, KMA estimated the Low Income sales prices for the HOME units as follows:

1. The household income used in the calculations is based on the Low Income limits published by HUD. KMA assumes the household size is estimated at one plus the number of bedrooms (four persons for a three-bedroom unit).

2. Since the Project consists of more than four units, the Project is required to have an HOA. Habitat estimates the annual HOA dues at $400 per unit per month.

3. Habitat estimates the homeowner’s insurance cost at 0.75% of the affordable sales price, or approximately $2,250 per year.

4. The annual utilities are based on the utility allowances published by the Santa Ana Housing Authority (SAHA) as of October 1, 2024. KMA assumes the homeowners will pay for: electric cooking, electric heating, electric water heating, basic electricity, air conditioning, water, sewer and trash.

5. Habitat estimates the property tax cost based on 1.25% of the estimated affordable sales price.

6. The mortgage interest rate is set at 7.0%. The mortgage is assumed to be fully amortizing over 30 years and provided by a conventional lender.

7. The homebuyer downpayment is set at 5% of the affordable sales price.

Based on the assumptions outlined above, KMA estimates the Low Income Affordable Sales Prices for the HOME units at $300,200.

EXHIBIT 3
City Council 18 – 24 3/4/2025
Judson Brown, City of Santa Ana December 10, 2024
Habitat Alton – Preliminary Financial Gap Analysis Page 8 2412001v2.SA.TRB
19090.018.038

MODERATE INCOME SALES PRICES
The City is only providing HOME funds to the Project. The $9.81 million in proposed HOME assistance requires at least 30 Low Income units. Habitat proposes to restrict the remaining ten units to moderate income households. The City is amenable to Habitat establishing the affordable sales prices for the Moderate Income units. Habitat is currently estimating the moderate income sales prices at $389,500.

AFFORDABLE SALES PRICE REVENUE
KMA estimates that the 30 Low Income units will generate $9.01 million in affordable sales revenue. Based on Habitat’s proposed moderate income sales prices, the 10 Moderate Income units will generate $3.90 million in affordable sales revenue. As such, the total affordable sales revenue is estimated at $12.90 million.

However, it is important to note that the affordable sales prices will ultimately be determined immediately prior to the sale of each unit. This analysis may need to be revised if the affordable sales prices differ from the sales prices utilized in this analysis.

ADDITIONAL REVENUE
Habitat proposes to utilize fundraising contributions to off-set a portion of the construction costs. As such, Habitat estimates the financial assistance that they can provide to the Project at $4.54 million, or $113,400 per unit.

ESTIMATED AVAILABLE REVENUE
The Project’s estimated total available revenue is equal to the sum of the Affordable Sales Price revenue and the Project’s additional revenue. KMA estimates the total available revenue as follows:

Affordable Sales Price Revenue $12,901,000
Habitat Financial Assistance $4,537,000
Estimated Available Revenue $17,438,000
EXHIBIT 3
City Council 18 – 25 3/4/2025
Judson Brown, City of Santa Ana December 10, 2024
Habitat Alton – Preliminary Financial Gap Analysis Page 9 2412001v2.SA.TRB
19090.018.038
Financial Gap Calculation
The financial gap is estimated by deducting the Project’s available revenue from the Project’s total development costs. Based on the preceding analysis, KMA estimates the Project’s financial gap as follows:

KMA
Total Development Costs $27,281,000
(Less) Total Available Revenue (17,438,000)
Estimated Financial Gap $9,843,000
Per Unit $246,100
As shown in the preceding table, KMA estimates the Project’s financial gap at $9.84 million.

Comparatively, Habitat is requesting $9.81 million in financial assistance from the City. Since this amount is less that the financial gap identified by KMA, it can be concluded that the proposed City financial assistance is warranted by the project economics.

The City will need to confirm that Habitat has secured all necessary funding sources before formally committing HOME funds to the Project.

SILENT SECOND MORTGAGE REVENUE CALCULATION (TABLE 4)
As a basic premise it must be assumed that the total of the liens accepted by a homebuyer cannot exceed the unrestricted market value of the home. Furthermore, based on previous City homeownership projects, the City will record a second trust deed equal to the difference between the Affordable Sales Price and the estimated market value of the home.

KMA assumes that the City’s second trust deed will be structured as a deferred payment loan which are commonly known as silent second mortgages. These loans typically become due and payable when the home is resold to a non-affordable homebuyer. KMA assumes that the City’s silent second trust deed will fall second in the lien hierarchy behind the conventional first trust deed mortgage.

The calculations used to estimate the supportable silent mortgages are presented in the following sections of this analysis.

EXHIBIT 3
City Council 18 – 26 3/4/2025
Judson Brown, City of Santa Ana December 10, 2024
Habitat Alton – Preliminary Financial Gap Analysis Page 10 2412001v2.SA.TRB
19090.018.038
Market Rate Sales Prices
Habitat provided sales comparables for the Project’s nearby market area for the purpose of estimating the current silent second mortgage amount. Based on these comparables, KMA estimates the market rate sales price for an attached three-bedroom unit at $750,000.

In addition, the HOME Program establishes a maximum sales price for the HOME units.

Ultimately, the market rate sales price will be set at the lesser of the appraised fair market value of the unit or the maximum HOME sales price in effect at the time of sale.

Available Silent Second Mortgage Revenue
Based on the estimated market rate sales prices, the available silent second mortgage revenue is estimated at as follows:

Three-Bedroom Units
Low Income
Units
Moderate
Income Units
Market Rate Sales Price $750,000 $750,000
(Less) Affordable Sales Price (300,200) (389,500)
Silent Second Mortgage Amounts (Per Unit) $449,800 $360,500 It is important to note that this calculation will need to be revisited once sales of the units commence. At that point, the appraised market values of the homes, maximum HOME sales prices, and the defined Affordable Sales Prices will be utilized to determine the silent second mortgage amounts.

PRELIMINARY HOME COST ALLOCATION (TABLE 5)
KMA completed a preliminary HOME cost allocation for the Project. The HOME cost allocation analysis is based in part on the 2024 maximum HOME subsidy limits of $327,293 for threebedroom units. The provision of $9.81 million in HOME funds to the Project requires that at least 30 units be designated as HOME units. All of the HOME units will be restricted to Low Income households.

EXHIBIT 3
City Council 18 – 27 3/4/2025
Judson Brown, City of Santa Ana December 10, 2024
Habitat Alton – Preliminary Financial Gap Analysis Page 11 2412001v2.SA.TRB
19090.018.038

CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS
The following summarizes the conclusions of the KMA analysis:

1. Based on currently available information, KMA estimates the Project’s financial gap at $9.84 million. In comparison, the Developer is requesting $9.81 million in financial assistance from the City. As such, the Developer’s request is supported by the Project economics.

2. Based on the preliminary HOME Cost Allocation Analysis, the City must designate at least 30 units in the Project as HOME units.

3. It is important to note that the City cannot formally commit HOME funds to the Project until after all of the other financing sources have received formal commitments. At that time, the City must prepare a HOME Subsidy Layering Review in order to formally commit HOME funds to the Project.

4. Given the preliminary nature of the proposal, if the scope of development or financing assumptions change, the KMA analysis may need to be updated accordingly.

5. The affordable sales prices cannot be finalized until the Project commences sales activities. It is likely that the actual affordable sales prices will differ from the amounts estimated in this analysis.

6. KMA recommends that the City retain 10% of the City’s financial assistance amount (or $981,800) until after the completion of construction. If the assumptions utilized in this analysis change materially, the financial gap analysis should be re-evaluated prior to the release of that amount to ensure that the $981,800 is still warranted by the Project.

7. The City’s HOME funds have various expenditure deadlines. KMA recommends that the City include a schedule of performance in the preliminary commitment documentation to ensure that the Project moves forward in time to meet the HOME fund expenditure deadlines.

EXHIBIT 3
City Council 18 – 28 3/4/2025
TABLE 1

ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS
FOR-SALE: 30 LOW INCOME UNITS & 10 MODERATE INCOME UNITS

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY - ALTON

SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA
I. Property Assemblage Costs
Property Acquisition Costs 1 87,110 Sf Land $49 /Sf Land $4,250,000 Relocation Costs 213,000
Lost Rent Paid to Seller 386,000
Closing Costs 2.0% Property Acquisition Costs 85,000
Total Property Assemblage Costs $4,934,000
II. Direct Costs 2
On-Site Improvements 87,110 Sf Land $46 /Sf Land $3,995,000 Building Costs 40 Units $267,500 /Unit 10,700,000
General Conditions 3 2.5% Construction Costs 367,000
Habitat Supervision 3 320,000
Contingency Allowance 10% Other Direct Costs 1,506,000
Total Direct Costs 40 Units $422,200 /Unit $16,888,000
III. Indirect Costs
Architecture, Engineering & Consulting 6% Direct Costs $1,013,000 Public Permits & Fees 4 40 Units $45,700 /Unit 1,828,000 Taxes, Ins., Legal & Accounting 3% Direct Costs 507,000 Developer Fee 3 3% Net Development Cost (Excl. Dev Fee) 844,000 Contingency Allowance 10% Other Indirect Costs 419,000
Total Indirect Costs $4,611,000
IV. Financing Costs
Interest During Construction 5 $7,523,000 Loan 6.50% Interest $489,000 Loan Origination Fee $7,523,000 Loan 1.0 Point 75,000
Closing Costs 40 Units $3,000 /Unit 120,000
HOA Reserves 40 Units $600 /Unit 24,000
Warranties 40 Units $3,500 /Unit 140,000
Total Financing Costs $848,000
V. Total Development Costs 40 Units $682,000 /Unit $27,281,000 1 2
3 4
5 Based on Habitat estimate. An appraisal was not provided for review.

Based on Habitat estimates. Assumes that Federal Davis Badon wage requirements will be imposed on the Project. The Project will also be subject to the provisions of the Build America Buy America Act.

The loan interest is based on an 24-month loan term and a 50% average outstanding balance.

Based on Habitat estimates. City staff should verify the accuracy of this estimate.

Based on estimate provided by Habitat.

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

File name: Habitat Alton_12 6 24; Pf
EXHIBIT 3
City Council 18 – 29 3/4/2025
TABLE 2

ESTIMATED AVAILABLE REVENUE
FOR-SALE: 30 LOW INCOME UNITS & 10 MODERATE INCOME UNITS

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY - ALTON

SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA
I. Affordable Sales Revenue
HOME Low Income - Three-Bedroom Units 1 30 Units $300,200 /Unit $9,006,000 Moderate Income - Three-Bedroom Units 2 10 Units $389,500 /Unit 3,895,000 Total Affordable Sales Revenue $12,901,000
II. Habitat Financial Assistance 40 Units $113,400 /Unit $4,537,000 III. Estimated Available Revenue 40 Units $435,950 /Unit $17,438,000 1 See TABLE 6 for the KMA affordable sales price calculations. 2 Per Habitat.

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

File name: Habitat Alton_12 6 24; Pf
EXHIBIT 3
City Council 18 – 30 3/4/2025
TABLE 3

ESTIMATED FINANCIAL GAP
FOR-SALE: 30 LOW INCOME UNITS & 10 MODERATE INCOME UNITS

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY - ALTON

SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA
I. Total Development Costs See TABLE 1 $27,281,000
II. (Less) Estimated Available Revenue See TABLE 2 ($17,438,000) III. Estimated Financial Gap 40 Units $246,100 /Unit $9,843,000 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

File name: Habitat Alton_12 6 24; Pf
EXHIBIT 3
City Council 18 – 31 3/4/2025
TABLE 4

SILENT MORTGAGE REVENUE SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
FOR-SALE: 30 LOW INCOME UNITS & 10 MODERATE INCOME UNITS

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY - ALTON

SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA
Silent Mortgage Capacity After City Downpayment Assistance I. HOME Low Income: Three-Bedroom Units
Estimated Market Rate Sales Price 1 $750,000
(Less) HOME Low Income Affordable Sales Price 2 (300,200) Available Silent Mortgage Capacity Per Low Income Unit $449,800 II. Moderate Income: Three Bedroom Units
Estimated Market Rate Sales Price 1 $750,000
(Less) Moderate Income Affordable Sales Price 2 (389,500) Available Silent Mortgage Capacity Per Moderate Income Unit $360,500 1 2 The final Affordable Sales Prices will be set prior to the sale of each unit.

Based on sales comparables provided by Habitat. The 2024 HOME sales limit is $789,000. At the time of sale for each unit, the prevailing market rate sale price will be determined based on the lesser of: (1) the fair market appraised value that assumes no income restrictions or the maximum HOME sales price limits.

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

File name: Habitat Alton_12 6 24; Pf
EXHIBIT 3
City Council 18 – 32 3/4/2025
TABLE 5

PRELIMINARY HOME COST ALLOCATION WORKSHEET - STANDARD MODEL

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY - ALTON

SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA
Step 1: Determine Comparability, Select Method of Cost Allocation Net Residential SF 42,800 Step 2: Proposed HOME Investment 1 $9,807,571
Step 3: Calculate Actual Cost of HOME Units
Total Development Costs 1 $27,246,338
Ineligible Development Costs 2 (24,000)
Unit-Specific Upgrades 0
Relocation Costs 0
Assign Relocation Exclusively to HOME Units? NA
Base Project Cost $636 /Sf Gross Residential SF $27,222,338 Number of Units # of Bdrms Unit Size Cost/Unit Total Cost 30 3 1,070 $680,558 $20,416,754
Subtotal HOME Unit Costs $20,416,754
Add: Relocation Costs Allocated Exclusively to HOME Units (if applicable) $0 Actual Cost of HOME Units $20,416,754
Step 4: Calculate Maximum Project Subsidy
Unit Size # of Units 2024 Max Subsidy/Unit Maximum Subsidy 0 Bedroom 0 $181,488 $0
1 Bedroom 0 $208,049 0
2 Bedroom 0 $252,994 0
3 Bedroom 30 $327,293 9,818,790
4 Bedroom 0 $359,263 0
Maximum Project Subsidy 30 $9,818,790
Step 5: Maximum HOME Investment, Lesser of
Proposed Investment (Step 2) $9,807,571
Actual Cost of HOME Units (Step 3) $20,416,754
Maximum Project Subsidy (Step 4) $9,818,790
Maximum HOME Investment 30 HOME Units $9,807,571
1 2
Includes $0 in Santa Ana Project Delivery costs.

The ineligibe costs include: capitalized reserves.

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

File name: Habitat Alton_12 6 24; HOME
EXHIBIT 3
City Council 18 – 33 3/4/2025
TABLE 6

HOME LOW INCOME SALES PRICES

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY - ALTON

SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA
Low Income
I. HOME Program 80% HUD Median
1 Person $88,400
2 Person $101,000
3 Person $113,650
4 Person $126,250
5 Person $136,350
6 Person $146,450
7 Person $156,550
8 Person $166,650
II. Affordable Sales Price Calculation
One-Bedroom
Unit
Two-Bedroom
Unit
Three-Bedroom
Unit
Four-Bedroom
Unit
A. Income Available for Housing Expenses
Benchmark Household Size 2 3 4 5
Household Income Limit $101,000 $113,650 $126,250 $136,350 % Income Allotted to Housing Costs 30% 30% 30% 30%
Total Income Available for Housing Expenses $30,300 $34,095 $37,875 $40,905 B. Ongoing Expenses
HOA Fees ($400/Unit/Month) $4,800 $4,800 $4,800 $4,800
Insurance @ 0.75% of Affordable Sales Price 1,793 2,027 2,252 2,414 Annual Utilities Allowance 2 2,592 3,396 4,296 5,268
Property Taxes @ 1.25% of Affordable Sales Price 2,989 3,378 3,754 4,023 Total Ongoing Expenses $12,174 $13,601 $15,102 $16,505
C. Income Available for Mortgage Debt Service $18,126 $20,494 $22,773 $24,400 D. Affordable Sales Prices
Supportable Mortgage @ 7.00% Interest Rate 3 $227,000 $256,700 $285,200 $305,600 Home Buyer Down Payment @ 5% of Affordable Sales Price 12,000 13,500 15,000 16,100 III. Affordable Sales Prices $239,000 $270,200 $300,200 $321,700 1 2
3 Based on the utility allowances published by the Santa Ana Housing Authority on October 1, 2024.

Based on Habitat estimate which is approximately equal to the Freddie Mac monthly average between November 2023 and October 2024, for a fixedinterest rate loan with a 30-year amortization period.

Based on 80% HUD Median. The affordable sales prices will ultimately be determined immediately prior to the sale of the units.

Low Income Sales Price
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

File name: Habitat Alton_12 6 24; HUD Afford
EXHIBIT 3
City Council 18 – 34 3/4/2025

MAYOR PRO TEM
Benjamin Vazquez

COUNCILMEMBERS
Phil Bacerra
Johnathan Ryan Hernandez
Jessie Lopez
David Penaloza
Thai Viet Phan

CITY OF SANTA ANA

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
20 Civic Center Plaza – M25
Santa Ana, California 92702
www.santa-ana.org

CITY MANAGER
Alvaro Nuñez

CITY ATTORNEY
Sonia R. Carvalho

Santa Ana, CA 92701
Dear Mr. Valentine,
Habitat for Humanity of Orange County, Inc. (referred to as the “Developer”), requested financial assistance for eligible homebuyers to purchase nine (9) existing rental units that will be converted into affordable ownership condominium units (“Project”). The Project would be located at 425 East Wellington Avenue, Santa Ana, CA, 92701 (APN 398-028-12) (“Property”).

The Project involves the conversion of an existing nine-unit apartment building into condominiums, which will be made available for homeownership to Low and ModerateIncome households earning less than 120% of the Area Median Income (“AMI”) ("Low and Moderate-Income Households"). The existing building on the Property was rehabilitated in May 2024 and includes one two-bedroom unit and eight one-bedroom units, each with a single bathroom. All units are equipped with essential appliances:
stoves, refrigerators and stacked washer/dryer units in the laundry space. Unit sizes range from 420 to 846 square feet. The building recently underwent over $1 million in renovations, which included new flooring, electrical upgrades (new outlets and fixtures), updated kitchen cabinets, and complete bathroom remodels. Doors, windows, shutters, garage doors, stairways, and railings were restored or replaced as needed to meet code compliance.

EXHIBIT 4
City Council 1 – 202
The City of Santa Ana (“City”) has reviewed the Developer's request for financial assistance, and at the City Council meeting on March 4, 2025, the City Council authorized and approved the issuance of this pre-commitment letter evidencing a commitment to reserve $920,000.00 (the "City Assistance") in Inclusionary Housing Funds as follows: (1) an allocation of $720,000 to the City's Down Payment Assistance Program (the "Down Payment Assistance Program Allocation"), and (2) a conditional award up to $200,000 for eligible relocation costs (the "Conditional Relocation Allocation"). The City Assistance will be available to Low and Moderate-Income households. Current residents of the Property with household incomes of less than 120% AMI and that qualify to purchase a unit within the Property will be given the right of first refusal to purchase a unit. The Down Payment Assistance Allocation shall be available for down payment assistance to individual households, structured as a silent mortgage based on homebuyer eligibility (the "Homebuyer Down Payment Assistance").

Homebuyers must meet the eligibility requirements for the Developer’s Affordable Homeownership Program with a residency preference for local workers and residents of Santa Ana in accordance with Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 8-3500. Conversion and construction will comply with all City of Santa Ana, County, and State building codes. The Conditional Relocation Allocation will be available upon a determination by the City that the Project is subject to relocation benefits under California Government Code §§ 7260 or 66300.6.

This letter shall evidence the City’s pre-commitment of the City Assistance to the Developer for the Project subject to the conditions described below.

City Assistance:

The amount of the proposed City Assistance has been determined based upon the City’s review of the Developer's request for the receipt of the City Assistance targeting Low and Moderate Income Households.

The City Assistance shall be conditioned on and include the following terms:
 City and Developer shall enter into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") that sets forth terms under which the City shall provide the Homebuyer Down Payment Assistance and Conditional Relocation Allocation.  The Homebuyer Down Payment Assistance shall be available for Low and Moderate Income Households with income that does not exceed 120% of the Orange County AMI as set by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”).
 The MOU may, but is not required to, include provisions that govern if and how the City Assistance may be used in the event the total authorized Homebuyer Down Payment Assistance loans are less than the amount of the award in this pre-commitment ($720,000.00). The MOU may make these provisions subject to approval from the City Manager of an amended MOU.

EXHIBIT 4
City Council 1 – 202
 The MOU shall specify that the Project is not undertaken by the City and is not in furtherance of a City program. Rather, the MOU is a response to Developer's request for financial assistance to enhance affordability for qualified homebuyers by providing Homebuyer Down Payment Assistance through an existing City program.
 The MOU shall require that Developer execute an affordable housing covenant ("Affordable Housing Covenant") to offer the nine (9) affordable units to households with income that does not exceed the limits for Low and ModerateIncome Households for an affordable sales price that complies with the limits for an "affordable housing cost," as defined in California Health and Safety Code § 50052.5. In addition to the available Homebuyer Down Payment Assistance, the existing residents shall have a right of first refusal, which shall provide those households with the right to purchase an affordable unit. The Affordable Housing Covenant shall run with the land for a period of forty-five (45) years.  Developer shall assume any and all responsibility and be solely responsible for determining whether the project must comply with the relocation requirements under California Government Code § 7260 et seq. and implementing regulations and any other applicable federal, state, or local laws governing relocation of residential tenants, including but not limited to Division 2 of Article IX of Chapter 34 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (§ 34-331 et seq.) (collectively, "Relocation Laws"). To the extent applicable, Developer shall comply with and be responsible for all costs of compliance with relevant Relocation Laws.  Developer shall assume any and all responsibility and be solely responsible for compliance with all tenant and eviction protections, including but not limited to protections under the California Tenant Protection Act (Civil Code § 1946.2), the Ellis Act (Government Code § 7060 et seq.), Santa Ana's Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance (Article XIX of Chapter 8 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code) (collectively, "Eviction Protections"). To the extent applicable, Developer shall comply with and be responsible for all costs of compliance with all relevant Eviction Protections.
 Because the MOU will provide City Assistance as part of Homebuyer Down Payment Assistance for qualified homebuyers, the repayment obligation is based on the City's existing Down Payment Assistance Program. City shall not be obligated to make any payments to qualified homebuyers under the MOU unless and until Developer meets all conditions provided for in the MOU and qualified Low and Moderate-Income Households comply with all requirements to receive the Homebuyer Down Payment Assistance.
 The nine (9) affordable ownership units at the Project shall be restricted by an Affordable Housing Covenant to an affordable home purchase price, which will require that the nine (9) homes be sold to qualified Low and Moderate-Income Households. Future sales of such single-family homes will be restricted to qualified Low and Moderate-Income Households for a period of at least forty-five (45) years.

EXHIBIT 4
City Council 18 – 37 3/4/2025
 Developer will have a local preference for families who live or work in the City of Santa Ana in the selection of qualified Low and Moderate-Income Households in compliance with Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 8-3500. The local preference will be applied after all existing residents have the opportunity to exercise the right of first refusal.
 Developer will ensure that each “Program Participant” (used interchangeably with “Homebuyer”) means the selected eligible person or family who will be purchasing a house. Each Program Participant will provide voluntary work as sweat equity or any other administrative work as may be designated by the Developer. Each Program Participant is to be selected by the Developer as more fully set forth in its Affordable Homeownership Program. The City shall have the right to review and approve the sweat equity requirements and related criteria (including a residency preference for Santa Ana residents or workers) applied through the Affordable Homeownership Program.
 Developer will comply with the City’s Community Workforce Agreement and union labor will be used for all necessary upgrades when volunteer labor is not used.
 Developer will provide existing tenants with the right of first refusal to purchase a unit, provided they meet the eligibility requirements for Habitat for Humanity’s Affordable Homeownership Program and the City of Santa Ana’s Down Payment Assistance Program; provided, however, Developer shall at all times comply with the Relocation Laws. If an eligible and qualified household exercises the right of first refusal, Developer shall sell the Affordable Unit to that household.  Developer shall comply with all requirements of the California Building Code. If the Project requires a building permit that is subject to Chapter 11B of the California Building Code, including but not limited to any requirements for "public housing" under Section 11B-233.3, then Developer shall comply with applicable requirements of the California Building Code.
 At the close of escrow for the purchase of each affordable unit, the City will require each household purchasing such unit to execute all documents and instruments required by the City's Down Payment Assistance Program.  The MOU shall set forth the terms and conditions for disbursement of the Conditional Relocation Allocation. All disbursements of the Conditional Relocation Allocation shall be subject to compliance with the Relocation Laws, and disbursed only on a reimbursement basis after the City has been provided reasonable documentation of compliance with the Relocation Laws.

General Provisions:

The City's obligation to provide the City Assistance to the Project is subject to each of the following conditions:

EXHIBIT 4
City Council 1 – 202
 Developer must provide proof that it has secured all of its remaining financing for the conversion of the Project in the form of enforceable funding commitments and agrees that Developer shall be solely and exclusively responsible for any and all Project costs in the event all or some of the City Assistance is not approved or authorized.
 Developer and City shall enter into the MOU setting forth the terms and conditions for the Homebuyer Down Payment Assistance loans for individual homeowners and any other uses of the City Assistance, and the disbursements of the Conditional Relocation Allocation, if any.
 Execution of an Affordable Housing Covenant and recording the same against the Property.
 Developer shall assume any and all responsibility and be solely responsible for determining whether laborers employed relative to the construction or installation of the Project must be paid the prevailing per diem wage rate for their labor classification, as determined by the state, pursuant to labor code sections 1720, et seq. If applicable, Developer shall comply with the City’s Community Workforce Agreement.
 All provided funding and Project requirements shall conform to the City’s most recently adopted Affordable Housing Funds Policies and Procedures and the City’s Down Payment Assistance Program, unless alternative requirements (e.g., reduction of 3% down payment requirement to 1%) are expressly provided in the executed MOU or any other documents related to the conversion of the Project.  Approval of all required entitlements and discretionary actions to allow the construction, improvement, conversion, and/or development of nine (9) affordable ownership units to be located at 425 East Wellington Avenue, Santa Ana, CA, 92701 (APN 398-028-12).
 The City's obligation to provide the City Assistance is and shall remain subject to all covenants, conditions, and restrictions set forth in this pre-commitment letter and the MOU, and in particular, the City's analysis of the available funding sources and development and operating costs of the Project and the overall economic feasibility of the Project.
 Developer's compliance with any applicable Relocation Laws.  For any disbursement of the Homebuyer Down Payment Assistance, each Homebuyer shall comply with the City's Down Payment Assistance Program.  Developer must comply with all other conditions specified in the MOU for disbursement of funds, including execution and recordation of the Affordable Housing Covenant.

EXHIBIT 4
City Council 1 –
202
 City shall have the right to review and approve any conditions of title, as reflected on a preliminary title report, and a condition of title guarantee, at Developer's expense, regarding the priority of the Affordable Housing Covenant, subject to City's review and approval.
 Developer must indemnify, defend, and hold harmless, City against loss or damage suffered by City as a result of any claim by any person or entity arising out of or relating to this pre-commitment or the transactions contemplated by this pre-commitment, excluding claims resulting from the City’s gross negligence and/or willful misconduct.
 Any other terms and conditions the City determines are reasonably necessary for the MOU to protect the City's interest and comply with applicable law.

Developer, at its sole cost and expense, will be responsible for securing any and all permits and discretionary approvals that may be required for the Project by the City or any other federal, state, or local governmental entity having or claiming jurisdiction over the Property or Project. Notably, this pre-commitment letter shall not obligate the City or any department thereof to approve any application or request for or take any other action in connection with any planning approval, permit, or other action necessary for the construction, rehabilitation, installation or operation of the Project.

This pre-commitment letter for the Project will expire on March 4, 2027.

Sincerely,
On behalf of the City of Santa Ana:
_________________________________
Alvaro Nuñez
City Manager
Attest:
_________________________________
Jennifer L. Hall
City Clerk
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
___________________________
Michael L. Garcia
Executive Director
Community Development Agency
EXHIBIT 4
City Council 1 – 0 202
AGREED TO BY:

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC.
______________________
Michael Valentine, President & CEO
EXHIBIT 4
City Council 18 – 41 3/4/2025
777 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE 2555  LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017  PHONE 213.622.8095 2412002v3.SA.TRB
WWW.KEYSERMARSTON.COM 19090.018.035
ADVISORS IN:

Real Estate
Affordable Housing
Economic Development

BERKELEY
Debbie M. Kern
David Doezema

LOS ANGELES
Kathleen H. Head
Kevin E. Engstrom
Julie L. Romey
Tim R. Bretz

SAN DIEGO
Paul C. Marra
Linnie A. Gavino

EMERITUS
A. Jerry Keyser
Timothy C. Kelly

MEMORANDUM
At your request, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) prepared a preliminary financial gap analysis for the project proposed to be developed at 425 East Wellington Avenue (Site) by Habitat for Humanity of Orange County (Habitat). Habitat purchased the Site in November 2024.

The Site includes an existing 9-unit apartment building. Habitat proposes to convert the existing rental units into for-sale condominium units which will be sold to Low or Moderate Income households (Project). Habitat is requesting up to $920,000 in financial assistance from the City of Santa Ana (City). The City’s financial assistance package is proposed to be structured as follows:

1. The City proposes to utilize up to $720,000 in Inclusionary Housing (Inclusionary) Funds to provide down payment assistance to eligible homebuyers (Down Payment Assistance Program Allocation).

2. The City may provide up to $200,000 in Inclusionary Funds to provide relocation assistance to existing apartment tenants that do not purchase an affordable unit at the property (Conditional Relocation Allocation).

To: Judson Brown, Housing Division Manager
City of Santa Ana
From: Tim Bretz
Date: February 10, 2025
Subject: Habitat Wellington Avenue – Preliminary Financial Gap Analysis EXHIBIT 5
City Council 18 – 42 3/4/2025
Judson Brown, City of Santa Ana February 10, 2025
Habitat Wellington – Preliminary Financial Gap Analysis Page 2 2412002v3.SA.TRB
19090.018.035
The purpose of the KMA analysis is to evaluate Habitat’s financial assistance request.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As noted previously, the City’s financial assistance package is proposed to be structured in two components:

Down Payment Assistance Program Allocation
KMA completed a financial gap analysis to evaluate Habitat’s request for $720,000 in Down Payment Assistance Program funds. The results of the KMA financial gap analysis are compared to Habitat’s financial proposal in the following table:

KMA Habitat Difference
Total Development Costs $4,402,000 $4,374,200 $27,800
(Less) Total Available Revenue (3,654,200) (3,654,200) (-0-) Estimated Financial Gap $747,800 $720,000 $27,800
As shown in the preceding table, KMA estimates the Project’s financial gap at $747,800.

Comparatively, Habitat is requesting $720,000 in Down Payment Assistance Program funds from the City. This represents a $27,800, or approximately 4% differential. Habitat will be responsible for any unfunded financial gap above the $7200,000 in financial assistance proposed to be provided by the City. As such, it can be concluded that the City’s proposed Down Payment Assistance Program funding is warranted by the Project’s economics.

The City proposes to utilize $720,000 in Inclusionary Funds to provide Down Payment Assistance Program funds to eligible homebuyers. The City Down Payment Assistance Program Allocation is based on providing up to $80,000 per unit in down payment assistance to each eligible Moderate or Low Income homebuyer.

Conditional Relocation Allocation
The City may utilize up to $200,000 in Inclusionary Funds to provide relocation assistance to existing apartment tenants that do not purchase an affordable unit at the property (City Relocation Assistance). The specific amounts utilized for the Conditional Relocation Allocation EXHIBIT 5
City Council 18 – 43 3/4/2025
Judson Brown, City of Santa Ana February 10, 2025
Habitat Wellington – Preliminary Financial Gap Analysis Page 3 2412002v3.SA.TRB
19090.018.035
will based on actual amounts determined immediately prior to the relocation of existing tenants.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed scope of development can be described as follows:

1. The Site area totals approximately 9,150 square feet, or approximately 0.21 acres of land area.

2. The Site consists of one existing apartment building. The apartment units will be converted to condominium units.

3. The Project’s unit mix can be summarized as follows:
a. The Project will include 9 for-sale units, which equates to a density of 43 units per acre.
b. The unit mix consists of the following:
i. Eight (8) one-bedroom units consisting of approximately 550 square feet of living area; and
ii. One (1) two bedroom unit consisting of approximately 850 square feet of living area.
c. The Project’s total gross building area (GBA) is estimated at 5,266 square feet.

4. Each unit has an existing one-car garage for a total of 9 parking spaces for the Project.

5. The Project’s affordability mix will consist of the following:
a. All nine units will be sold to Low or Moderate Income households. For the purposes of this financial gap analysis, KMA assumed that all units will be sold to Moderate Income households.
b. To limit displacement, existing apartment tenants with household incomes of less than 120% of the Area Median Income (AMI) and that qualify to purchase a unit will be given the first right to purchase a unit at an affordable sales price.

EXHIBIT 5
City Council 18 – 44 3/4/2025
Judson Brown, City of Santa Ana February 10, 2025
Habitat Wellington – Preliminary Financial Gap Analysis Page 4 2412002v3.SA.TRB
19090.018.035

FINANCIAL GAP ANALYSIS
KMA prepared a pro forma analysis to estimate the Project’s financial gap. The analysis is located at the end of this memorandum, and is organized as follows:

Table 1: Estimated Development Costs
Table 2: Estimated Available Revenue
Table 3: Estimated Financial Gap
Table 4: Silent Second Mortgage Revenue Calculations
Table 5: Affordable Sales Price Calculation
ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS (TABLE 1)
KMA reviewed Habitat’s December 2024 pro forma, and then independently prepared a pro forma analysis for the Project. The resulting development costs are estimated as follows:

Property Assemblage Costs
The property assemblage costs are estimated at $3.23 million as follows:

PROPERTY ACQUISITION COSTS
Based on information provided by Habitat, Habitat purchased the Site for $3.11 million, or $345,000 per unit. Habitat provided an appraisal prepared by AEI Consultants on July 26, 2024 that estimated the as-is market value of the property at $2.78 million, or $309,000 per unit.

As such, Habitat purchased the property for $325,000, or approximately 12% more than the appraised value of the Property.

RELOCATION COSTS
The property is currently utilized as an apartment building that contains existing apartment tenants. The funding source proposed to be provided by the City does not trigger the Federal Uniform Relocation Act. To that end, Habitat estimates the relocation costs at $60,000, which is based on three months of current rent payments.

EXHIBIT 5
City Council 18 – 45 3/4/2025
Judson Brown, City of Santa Ana February 10, 2025
Habitat Wellington – Preliminary Financial Gap Analysis Page 5 2412002v3.SA.TRB
19090.018.035
However, Habitat will provide current tenants that earn 120% AMI or less and qualify to purchase an affordable unit with a Right of First Refusal to purchase a unit at an affordable sales price.

CLOSING COSTS
Habitat estimates the closing costs at $69,000 or approximately 2% of the purchase price.

Direct Costs
The direct costs assume that the Project will be subject to the City’s Community Workforce Agreement. The direct costs can be summarized as follows:

1. Habitat estimates the site improvement costs at $30,000, or $3 per square foot of land area. The site improvement costs include asphalt repaving and trash enclosure improvements.

2. The building renovation costs are estimated at $76,000, or approximately $8,500 per unit. The scope of rehabilitation includes new water meters, garage doors, windows, and additional repairs required by the insurance company.

3. The prevailing wage premium is estimated at 30% of construction costs, or $32,000.

4. The general conditions are estimated at 20% of construction costs, or $28,000.

5. Habitat will not charge for the costs to supervise the construction of the Project.

6. A direct cost contingency allowance equal to 15% of other direct costs is provided.

KMA estimates the total direct costs at $191,000, which equates to approximately $21,200 per unit.

Indirect Costs
KMA utilized the following assumptions in estimating the indirect costs:

1. The architecture, engineering and consulting costs are estimated at 3% of the property assemblage and direct costs, or $103,000.

EXHIBIT 5
City Council 18 – 46 3/4/2025
Judson Brown, City of Santa Ana February 10, 2025
Habitat Wellington – Preliminary Financial Gap Analysis Page 6 2412002v3.SA.TRB
19090.018.035

2. Habitat estimates the public permits and fees costs at $3,800 per unit, or $34,000. City staff should verify the accuracy of this estimate.

3. The taxes, legal and accounting costs are estimated at 3% of direct costs, or $103,000.

4. Habitat estimates the insurance costs at $27,000 or $3,000 per unit.

5. The Developer Fee is set at $207,000 which is based on the following:
a. Management and Overhead costs are set at $4,000 per month for an 18-month development period.
b. Habitat will charge the Project to provide homeownership services to potential affordable homebuyers. Habitat set this fee at $15,000 per unit.

6. An indirect cost contingency allowance equal to 7% of other indirect costs is provided.

KMA estimates the total indirect costs at $507,000.

Financing Costs

1. The interest costs to be incurred during the development period are estimated at $340,000. This cost estimate is based on the following:
a. Habitat states that a $3.0 million predevelopment/construction loan will be obtained from a third party lender for the Project.
b. KMA assumes the predevelopment/construction loan will carry the following terms:
i. A 7.56% interest rate;
ii. An 18-month development period; and
iii. A 100% average outstanding balance.

2. The financing fees for the predevelopment/construction loan are estimated at 1.0 point, or $30,000.

EXHIBIT 5
City Council 18 – 47 3/4/2025
Judson Brown, City of Santa Ana February 10, 2025
Habitat Wellington – Preliminary Financial Gap Analysis Page 7 2412002v3.SA.TRB
19090.018.035

3. The closing costs related to the sale of each affordable unit are estimated at $3,000 per unit, or $27,000.

4. Habitat proposes to fund an $8,000 reserve for the Homeowners Association.

5. The warranty costs are estimated at $65,000, which equates to approximately $7,200 per unit.

KMA estimates the total financing costs at $470,000.

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS
As shown in Table 1, KMA estimates the total development costs at $4.40 million. In comparison, Habitat estimates the total development costs at $4.37 million. This represents an approximately $28,000 differential, which equates to less than 1% of the total development costs.

Estimated Available Revenue
KMA estimates the revenue available to the Project as follows:

MODERATE INCOME SALES PRICES – INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FUNDS The City will provide Inclusionary Funds to the Project. As such, KMA estimated the affordable sales as follows:

1. The household income used in the calculations is based on the area median income published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and adjusted for the number of persons per household (Area Median Income (AMI)).

KMA assumes the household size is estimated at one plus the number of bedrooms (four persons for a three-bedroom unit).

2. KMA assumes that the qualifying Moderate Income limits are set at 120% of AMI.

3. Since the Project consists of more than four units, the Project is required to have an HOA. Habitat estimates the annual HOA dues at $400 per unit per month.

4. Habitat estimates the homeowner’s insurance cost at 0.75% of the affordable sales price.

EXHIBIT 5
City Council 18 – 48 3/4/2025
Judson Brown, City of Santa Ana February 10, 2025
Habitat Wellington – Preliminary Financial Gap Analysis Page 8 2412002v3.SA.TRB
19090.018.035

5. The annual utilities are based on the utility allowances published by the Santa Ana Housing Authority (SAHA) as of October 1, 2024. KMA assumes the homeowners will pay for: electric cooking, electric heating, electric water heating, basic electricity, air conditioning, water, sewer and trash.

6. Habitat estimates the property tax cost based on 1.25% of the estimated affordable sales price.

7. The mortgage interest rate is set at 7.0%. The mortgage is assumed to be fully amortizing over 30 years and provided by a conventional lender.

8. The homebuyer down payment is set at 5% of the affordable sales price.

Based on the assumptions outlined above, KMA estimates the Moderate Income affordable sales prices at $310,400 for the eight (8) one-bedroom units and $350,500 for the one (1) twobedroom unit.

AFFORDABLE SALES PRICE REVENUE
KMA estimates that nine Moderate Income units will generate $2.83 million in affordable sales revenue.

ADDITIONAL REVENUE
Rental Income
The property is currently operating as an apartment building and is collecting rents from existing tenants. Habitat estimates that the Project will generate $229,700 in rental income during the condominium conversion process. Habitat will utilize this rental income as a funding source for the Project.

EXHIBIT 5
City Council 18 – 49 3/4/2025
Judson Brown, City of Santa Ana February 10, 2025
Habitat Wellington – Preliminary Financial Gap Analysis Page 9 2412002v3.SA.TRB
19090.018.035
Habitat Financial Assistance
Habitat proposes to utilize fundraising contributions to off-set a portion of the development costs. As such, Habitat estimates the financial assistance that they will provide to the Project at $590,800, or $65,600 per unit.

Affordable Sales Price Revenue $2,833,700
Rental Income 229,700
Habitat Financial Assistance 590,800
Estimated Available Revenue $3,654,200
Financial Gap Calculation
The financial gap is estimated by deducting the Project’s available revenue from the Project’s total development costs. Based on the preceding analysis, KMA estimates the Project’s financial gap as follows:

KMA
Total Development Costs $4,402,000
(Less) Total Available Revenue (3,654,200)
Estimated Financial Gap $747,800
Per Unit $83,100
As shown in the preceding table, KMA estimates the Project’s financial gap at $747,800.

Comparatively, Habitat is requesting $720,000 in Down Payment Assistance Program funding from the City. Since this amount is less than the financial gap identified by KMA, it can be EXHIBIT 5
City Council 18 – 50 3/4/2025
Judson Brown, City of Santa Ana February 10, 2025
Habitat Wellington – Preliminary Financial Gap Analysis Page 10 2412002v3.SA.TRB
19090.018.035
concluded that the proposed Down Payment Assistance Program Allocation is warranted by the project economics.

However, KMA estimates that the Project exhibits an unfunded financial gap of $27,800.

Habitat will need to secure funding sources for any unfunded financial gap in order for the Project to be financially feasible. The City should confirm that Habitat has secured all necessary funding sources before formally disbursing any City funds.

SILENT SECOND MORTGAGE REVENUE CALCULATION (TABLE 4)
As a basic premise, it must be assumed that the total of the liens accepted by a homebuyer cannot exceed the unrestricted market value of the home. Furthermore, based on previous City homeownership projects, the City will record a second trust deed equal to the difference between the Affordable Sales Price and the estimated market value of the home.

KMA assumes that the City’s second trust deed will be structured as deferred payment loans which are commonly known as silent second mortgages. These loans typically become due and payable when the home is resold to a non-affordable home buyer. KMA assumes that the City’s silent second trust deed will fall second in the lien hierarchy behind the conventional first trust deed mortgage.

The calculations used to estimate the supportable silent mortgages are presented in the following sections of this analysis.

Market Rate Sales Prices
KMA researched sales comparables for similar units in the market area for the purpose of estimating the current silent second mortgage amount. The appraisal provided by Habitat included additional sales comparable data. Based on this information, KMA estimates the market rate sales price for the units as follows:

1. One-Bedroom Units: $345,600

2. Two-Bedroom Unit: $389,700
EXHIBIT 5
City Council 18 – 51 3/4/2025
Judson Brown, City of Santa Ana February 10, 2025
Habitat Wellington – Preliminary Financial Gap Analysis Page 11 2412002v3.SA.TRB
19090.018.035
Available Silent Second Mortgage Revenue
Based on the estimated market rate sales prices, the available silent second mortgage revenue is estimated at as follows:

Moderate Income Units
One-Bedroom
Units
Two-Bedroom
Unit
Market Rate Sales Price $345,600 $389,700
(Less) Affordable Sales Price (310,400) (350,500)
Silent Second Mortgage Amounts (Per Unit) $35,200 $39,200 Number of Units 8 1
Available Silent Second Mortgage Capacity $281,600 $39,200 Total Amount of City Down Payment
Assistance Secured as Silent Mortgages $320,800
Thus, it is important to note that based on the estimated market rate prices, the City will not be able to secure the full $80,000 in City Down Payment Assistance Program funding per unit. The City will only be able to secure the amount of mortgage capacity between the appraised market value and the first mortgage amount.

Based on current estimates, the City will be able to secure $320,800 of the $720,000 in City Down Payment Assistance Program funding as silent mortgages.

Proposed City Down Payment Assistance $720,000
(Less) Amount Secured by Silent Mortgages (320,800)
Estimated Amount Unable to be Secured Against
Affordable Units
$399,200
EXHIBIT 5
City Council 18 – 52 3/4/2025
Judson Brown, City of Santa Ana February 10, 2025
Habitat Wellington – Preliminary Financial Gap Analysis Page 12 2412002v3.SA.TRB
19090.018.035
However, this calculation is provided for illustrative purposes only at this time. The calculation will need to be conducted at the time of sale of each unit and must be based on the actual appraised value and affordable sales prices at the time of sale.

Affordable Sales Price Differential
Furthermore, it is important to note that there typically needs to be a sales price differential between the market rate sales price and the affordable sales price in order to entice homebuyers to accept an affordability covenant.

The following illustrates the price differential based on the currently estimated market rate sales affordable sales prices:

Moderate Income Units
One-Bedroom
Units
Two-Bedroom
Unit
Market Rate Sales Price $345,600 $389,700
(Less) Affordable Sales Price (310,400) (350,500)
Price Differential $35,200 $39,200
% of Market Rate Sales Price 10% 10%
Ultimately, the silent second mortgage and sales price differential calculations will occur once sales of the units commence. At that point, the appraised market values of the homes and the defined Affordable Sales Prices will be utilized to determine the silent second mortgage amounts and any possible affordable sales price reductions that are necessary to entice affordable homebuyers.

CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS
The following summarizes the conclusions of the KMA analysis:

1. City Financial Assistance:
a. Down Payment Assistance Program Allocation:

EXHIBIT 5
City Council 18 – 53 3/4/2025
Judson Brown, City of Santa Ana February 10, 2025
Habitat Wellington – Preliminary Financial Gap Analysis Page 13 2412002v3.SA.TRB
19090.018.035
i. Based on currently available information, KMA estimates the Project’s financial gap at $747,800. In comparison, Habitat is requesting $720,000 in Down Payment Assistance Program funding from the City. As such, Habitat’s request is supported by the Project economics. ii. KMA estimates that the Project exhibits a $27,800 unfunded financial gap. Habitat will need to secure funding sources for any unfunded financial gap in order for the Project to be financially feasible. The City should confirm that Habitat has secured all necessary funding sources before disbursing any funds.
b. Conditional Relocation Allocation: The City may utilize up to $200,000 in Inclusionary Funds to provide relocation assistance to existing apartment tenants that do not purchase an affordable unit at the property. The specific amounts utilized for the Conditional Relocation Allocation will based on actual amounts determined immediately prior to the relocation of existing tenants.

2. Habitat purchased the property for $325,000, or approximately 12%, more than the appraised value. However, the City established the maximum amount of City Down Payment Assistance Program Allocation based on the funding limits established by the City’s Down Payment Assistance Program (DPAP). Habitat is required to fund any remaining financial gap amount after the affordable sales price revenue and City’s financial assistance amount is taken into consideration. Therefore, Habitat is responsible for the purchase price that exceeds the appraised value of the property.

3. Given the preliminary nature of the proposal, if the scope of development or financing assumptions change, the KMA analysis may need to be updated accordingly.

4. The affordable sales prices cannot be finalized until the Project commences sales activities. It is likely that the actual affordable sales prices will differ from the amounts estimated in this analysis.

5. The silent second mortgage and sales price differential calculations will occur once sales of the units commence. At that point, the appraised market values of the homes and the defined affordable sales prices will be utilized to determine the silent second mortgage amounts and any possible affordable sales price reductions that are necessary to entice affordable homebuyers.

EXHIBIT 5
City Council 18 – 54 3/4/2025
Judson Brown, City of Santa Ana February 10, 2025
Habitat Wellington – Preliminary Financial Gap Analysis Page 14 2412002v3.SA.TRB
19090.018.035
a. Based on current estimates of market rate sales prices, the City will not be able to secure the full $80,000 per unit in City Down Payment Assistance with silent second mortgages. KMA estimates that approximately $399,200 of the City’s $720,000 in City Down Payment Assistance Program funds will not be able to be secured by the affordable units.
b. The affordable sales prices may need to be reduced further in order to entice homebuyers to accept an affordable covenant.

6. KMA typically recommends that the City retain 10% of the City’s financial assistance amount (or $92,000) until after the completion of the construction. However, in this instance, the City will provide the Down Payment Assistance Program funds directly to eligible homebuyers and any relocation assistance will be based on actual relocation costs at the time of the relocation of tenants. As such, there is no need to impose a 10% retention requirement on the Project.

EXHIBIT 5
City Council 18 – 55 3/4/2025
TABLE 1

ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS
9 FOR-SALE MODERATE INCOME UNITS

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY - WELLINGTON

SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA
I. Property Assemblage Costs
Property Acquisition Costs 1 9 Units $345,000 /Unit $3,105,000 Relocation Costs 2 60,000
Closing Costs 2% Property Acquisition Costs 69,000
Total Property Assemblage Costs $3,234,000
II. Direct Costs 3
On-Site Improvements 9,148 Sf Land $3 /Sf Land $30,000
Rehabilitation Costs 9 Units $8,461 /Unit 76,000
Prevailing Wage Premium 30% Construction Costs 32,000
General Conditions 4 20% Construction Costs 28,000
Habitat Supervision 0% Construction Costs 0
Contingency Allowance 15% Other Direct Costs 25,000
Total Direct Costs 9 Units $21,200 /Unit $191,000
III. Indirect Costs
Architecture, Engineering & Consulting 3% Assemblage + Direct Costs $103,000 Public Permits & Fees 5 9 Units $3,773 /Unit 34,000
Taxes, Legal & Accounting 3% Assemblage + Direct Costs 103,000 Insurance 9 Units $3,000 /Unit 27,000
Developer Fee 4 5% Net Development Cost (Excl. Dev Fee) 207,000 Contingency Allowance 7% Other Indirect Costs 33,000
Total Indirect Costs $507,000
IV. Financing Costs
Interest During Construction 6 $3,000,000 Loan 7.6% Interest $340,000 Loan Origination Fee $3,000,000 Loan 1.0 Point 30,000
Closing Costs 9 Units $3,000 /Unit 27,000
HOA Reserves 9 Units $889 /Unit 8,000
Warranties 9 Units $7,183 /Unit 65,000
Total Financing Costs $470,000
V. Total Development Costs 9 Units $489,100 /Unit $4,402,000 1 2
3 4
5 6
Based on Habitat estimate. An appraisal prepared by AEI Consultants estimated the market value of the property at $2.78 million on 7/26/2024.

Habitat's purchase price is $325,000 or approximately 12% higher than the appraised value of the property.

Based on Habitat estimates. Assumes that the City's Community Workforce Agreement wage requirements will be imposed on the Project.

Per Habitat, the Project will obtain a $3.0 million predevelopment/construction loan. The loan interest is based on an 18-month loan term and a 100% average outstanding balance.

Based on Habitat estimates. City staff should verify the accuracy of this estimate.

Based on estimate provided by Habitat.

Assumes existing tenants that do not purchase a unit are provided relocation assistance equal to up to 3 months of rent payments.

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

File name: Habitat Wellington_2 10 25; Pf
EXHIBIT 5
City Council 18 – 56 3/4/2025
TABLE 2

ESTIMATED AVAILABLE REVENUE
9 FOR-SALE MODERATE INCOME UNITS

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY - WELLINGTON

SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA
I. Affordable Sales Revenue 1
Moderate Income: One-Bedroom Units 8 Units $310,400 /Unit $2,483,200 Moderate Income: Two-Bedroom Unit 1 Unit $350,500 /Unit 350,500 Total Affordable Sales Revenue $2,833,700
II. Rental Income 2 $229,700
III. Habitat Financial Assistance 9 Units $65,600 $590,800 IV. Estimated Available Revenue 9 Units $406,020 /Unit $3,654,200 1 See TABLE 5 for the KMA affordable sales price calculations. 2 Per Habitat.

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

File name: Habitat Wellington_2 10 25; Pf
EXHIBIT 5
City Council 18 – 57 3/4/2025
TABLE 3

ESTIMATED HABITAT FINANCIAL GAP
9 FOR-SALE MODERATE INCOME UNITS

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY - WELLINGTON

SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA
I. Total Development Costs See TABLE 1 $4,402,000
II. (Less) Estimated Available Revenue See TABLE 2 ($3,654,200) III. Estimated Financial Gap 9 Units $83,100 /Unit $747,800 IV. Distribution of Proposed City Financial Assistance
Proposed City Development Assistance 9 Low Inc. Units $80,000 /Mod Inc. Unit (720,000) Proposed City Relocation Assistance (200,000)
Total Proposed City Financial Assistance 9 Units ($102,200) /Unit ($920,000) V. Estimated Additional Habitat Financial Gap
Estimated Financial Gap $747,800
Proposed City Development Assistance 9 Low Inc. Units $80,000 /Mod Inc. Unit (720,000) Estimated Additional Habitat Financial Gap $27,800
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

File name: Habitat Wellington_2 10 25; Pf
EXHIBIT 5
City Council 18 – 58 3/4/2025
TABLE 4

SILENT MORTGAGE REVENUE SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
9 FOR-SALE MODERATE INCOME UNITS

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY - WELLINGTON

SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA
I. Silent Mortgage Capacity for City Financial Assistance A. Moderate Income: One-Bedroom Units
Estimated Market Rate Sales Price 1 $345,600
(Less) Moderate Income Affordable Sales Price 2 (310,400) Available Silent Mortgage Capacity Per One-Bedroom Unit $35,200 Number of Units 8
Maximum Amount Secured as Silent Mortgage $281,600
B. Moderate Income: Two Bedroom Unit
Estimated Market Rate Sales Price 1 $389,700
(Less) Moderate Income Affordable Sales Price 2 (350,500) Available Silent Mortgage Capacity Per Two-Bedroom Unit $39,200 Number of Units 1
Maximum Amount Secured as Silent Mortgage $39,200
II. Total Amount of City Development Assistance Secured as Silent Mortgages $320,800 III. Estimated City Development Assistance Provided as Grant to Habitat 3 Proposed City Development Assistance $720,000
(Less) Total Amount of City Development Assistance Secured as Silent Mortgages ($320,800) Estimated City Development Assistance Provided as Grant to Habitat $399,200 1 2 The final Affordable Sales Prices will be set prior to the sale of each unit. 3 For illustration purposes only. This calculation will need to be conducted at the time of sale of the units to reflect the current appraised values and current affordable sales prices for each unit.

Based on KMA survey of sales comparables. The market rate sales price will be determined by a fair market value appraisal that assumes no income restrictions prior to the sale of each unit.

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

File name: Habitat Wellington_2 10 25; Pf
EXHIBIT 5
City Council 18 – 59 3/4/2025
TABLE 5
AHOCO CALCULATIONS: 2024 INCOME STANDARDS

SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA
Median 80% Median 120% Median
1 Person $90,300 $72,240 $108,360
2 Person $103,200 $82,560 $123,840
3 Person $116,100 $92,880 $139,320
4 Person $129,000 $103,200 $154,800
5 Person $139,300 $111,440 $167,160
6 Person $149,650 $119,720 $179,580
7 Person $159,950 $127,960 $191,940
8 Person $170,300 $136,240 $204,360
I. Low Income: 80% Median Income - 30% of Income Allotted to Housing Expenses 1-Bdrm 2-Bdrm 3-Bdrm 4-Bdrm
A. Income
Benchmark Household Size 2 3 4 5
Household Income $82,560 $92,880 $103,200 $111,440
% of Income Allocated to Housing 30% 30% 30% 30%
Income Allotted to Housing $24,770 $27,860 $30,960 $33,430 B. Ongoing Expenses
HOA/Maintenance $4,800 $4,800 $4,800 $4,800
Insurance @ 0.75% Affordable Sales Price 1,360 1,539 1,711 1,828 Utility Allowances 1 2,592 3,396 4,296 5,268
Property Taxes @ 1.25% of Affordable Price 2,266 2,565 2,851 3,046 Total Expenses $11,018 $12,300 $13,658 $14,942
C. Income Available for Mortgage $13,752 $15,560 $17,302 $18,488 D. Affordable Housing Price
Supportable Mtg @ 7.00% Interest 2 $172,200 $194,900 $216,700 $231,500 Home Buyer Down Pymt @ 5% Affordable Price 9,100 10,300 11,400 12,200 Maximum Purchase Price $181,300 $205,200 $228,100 $243,700 II. Moderate Income: 120% Median Income - 30% of Income Allotted to Housing Expenses 1-Bdrm 2-Bdrm 3-Bdrm 4-Bdrm
A. Income
Benchmark Household Size 2 3 4 5
Household Income $123,840 $139,320 $154,800 $167,160
% of Income Allocated to Housing 30% 30% 30% 30%
Income Allotted to Housing $37,150 $41,800 $46,440 $50,150 B. Ongoing Expenses
Utility Allowances 1 $2,592 $3,396 $4,296 $5,268
HOA/Maintenance 4,800 4,800 4,800 4,800
Insurance @ 0.75% Affordable Sales Price 2,328 2,629 2,922 3,137 Property Taxes @ 1.25% of Affordable Price 3,880 4,381 4,870 5,228 Total Expenses $13,600 $15,206 $16,888 $18,433
C. Income Available for Mortgage $23,550 $26,594 $29,552 $31,718 D. Affordable Housing Price
Supportable Mtg @ 7.00% Interest 2 $294,900 $333,000 $370,100 $397,200 Home Buyer Down Pymt @ 5% Affordable Price 15,500 17,500 19,500 20,900 Maximum Purchase Price $310,400 $350,500 $389,600 $418,100 1 2
Based on the Santa Ana Housing Authority utilities allowances effective as of 10/1/24. Assumes: Electric Cooking; Electric Heating; Electric Water Heater; Basic Electric; Air Conditioning; Water; Sewer; and Trash.

Based on Habitat estimate.

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

File name: Habitat Wellington_2 10 25; DPA Wellington
EXHIBIT 5
City Council 18 – 60 3/4/2025
City Manager’s Office
www.santa-ana.org/cm
Item # 19
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Staff Report
March 4, 2025
TOPIC: Ordinance Prohibiting Agreements, Contracts, or Grants to Immediate Family Members of City Officials - Second Reading

AGENDA TITLE
Second Reading of the Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santa Ana Amending Chapter 2 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code by Adding Section 2-112 Prohibiting the Award of Agreements, Contracts, or Grants to Immediate Family Members of the Mayor, City Council Members, or City Officials First Reading at the February 18, 2025, City Council meeting and approved by a vote of 7-0. Published in the OC Reporter on February 28, 2025.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Conduct a second reading and adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code by adding Section 2-112, which prohibits awarding agreements, contracts, or grants to immediate family members of the Mayor, City Council Members, or City Officials.

ORDINANCE NO. NS-3077 entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AMENDING CHAPTER 2 OF THE SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 2-112 CONCERNING THE PROHIBITION

AGAINST AWARDING OF AGREEMENTS, CONTRACTS OR GRANTS TO ANY

IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER OF THE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, OR

CITY OFFICIALS
GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES: No

DISCUSSION
At the February 4, 2025 meeting, the City Council conducted the first reading of the ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code adding Section 2-112, prohibiting the award of agreements, contracts, or grants to immediate family members of the Mayor, City Council Members, or City Officials including appointed board and commission members, as defined under Article IV – Officers, Departments, Boards, and City Council 19 – 1 3/4/2025
Ordinance Prohibiting Agreements, Contracts, or Grants to Immediate Family Members of City Officials - Second Reading
March 4, 2025

Page 2 ends

Santa Ana City CouncilMarch 4, 2025

Santa Ana City Council
March 4, 2025