Agenda packet — Santa Ana City Council, February 17, 2026 (part 3 of 3)

5 5
7 0
City and OCFA staff identified that the Fire Station 71 underground fuel storage tank at 1029 West 17th Street in Santa Ana was in need of removal and replacement with a new above-ground fuel storage tank (Exhibit 1). Replacement of old subsurface tanks with new above-ground tanks allows for improved maintenance and reduces the potential for leaks that can contaminate the soil. The upgraded fuel system and tanks will meet South Coast Air Quality Management District requirements, with adherence to the most recent fire code related to setbacks and existing structures. The scope of work includes removing the existing 4,000-gallon diesel/gasoline fuel underground storage tank and corresponding dispenser and installing one 2,000-gallon diesel fuel storage tank on engineering reinforced slab, one new dispenser, installing a new diesel exhaust fluid tank, and dispensing system.

The upgraded fueling system will comply with applicable fire and environmental regulations and support reliable fueling operations at Fire Station No. 71. Upon completion, the project will reduce environmental risk and improve operational reliability for OCFA emergency response services at this facility.

Project Advertisement and Contractor Procurement
To provide an opportunity for local vendors to submit bids, the City notified a total of 2,363 regional vendors via PlanetBids, many of which are Santa Ana based.

Furthermore, staff specifically reached out to Santa Ana vendors to encourage their participation in bids. A total of four bids were received. Zero bids were received from Santa Ana contractors.

The project was advertised in PlanetBids from January 13, 2026 to January 27, 2026.

Bids were received electronically via PlanetBids on January 27, 2026. No bid protest was submitted by any of the bidders during the bid protest period.

A copy of construction plans, contracts, specifications, and all related reference materials (such as The Greenbook) are available for public review at the City’s Public Works Agency, Central Files office located in City Hall.

Bid Results Summary
RANK BIDDER’S NAME LOCATION BID
1 GEMS Environmental
Management Services, Inc. Concord, CA $748,120
2 RE Chaffee Construction, Inc. Wrightwood, CA $931,000 3 Elegant Construction, Inc. Irvine, CA $959,000
4 AVA Engineering Huntington Beach, CA $979,395
A total of four responsive bids were received. GEMS Environmental Management Services submitted the lowest responsive bid in the amount of $748,120 (Exhibit 2).

Based on the bid analysis and a contractor’s reference check, staff recommends

City Council
15 –
2 2/17/2026

Construction Contract to Construct the Fire Station 71 Fuel Station Replacement Project February 17, 2026

Page 3 ends

5 5
7 0
awarding the construction contract to GEMS Environmental Management Services, Inc. (Exhibit 3).

GEMS Environmental Management Services, Inc. has previously performed work as a prime contractor in the City of Santa Ana and successfully completed a project with a similar scope of work at Fire Station No. 74. In addition, GEMS Environmental Management Services, Inc. has completed similar projects for other public agencies, including a diesel tank installation for the East Bay Municipal Utility District and an above-ground storage tank replacement for the City of Pittsburg. Although the firm is based in Northern California, the contractor has confirmed its ability to mobilize resources locally and deploy personnel to Santa Ana for the duration of the project.

Project Delivery
To deliver a complete project, in addition to the construction contract, the estimated total project delivery cost includes a budget allocation for construction administration, inspection, and testing. Construction administration and inspection may be performed by either Staff or consultants and includes construction management, inspection of the Contractor’s work to ensure contract compliance, workmanship, and quality, materials testing, and implementation of the labor requirements.

Any of the allocated construction administration funds not spent are considered project savings and are returned to the respective fund balance upon close out of the project.

As indicated in the Cost Analysis and as summarized in the table below, the estimated total construction delivery cost of the project is $935,150.

Project Item Total
Construction Contract Bid Amount $748,120
Construction Administration $59,850
Inspection $37,406
Testing $14,962
Unanticipated or Unforeseen Work $74,812
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DELIVERY COST $935,150
Project Schedule and Contract Time
The project is estimated to be completed in August 2026, barring unforeseeable conditions such as rain, natural disasters, or other delays beyond the control of the City and of the Contractor. The contract time for this project is 80 working days, as specified in the bid documents. Working days are counted in accordance with the City’s Standard Specifications, which exclude weekends, City-observed holidays, and inclement weather days that prevent work.

The contractor was required to submit a construction schedule as part of their bid to expedite delivery of the project. The projected completion dates based on the submitted

City Council
15 –
3 2/17/2026

Construction Contract to Construct the Fire Station 71 Fuel Station Replacement Project February 17, 2026

Page 4 ends

5 5
7 0
schedule is August 2026, which is within the allotted 80 working days. If the contractor fails to deliver on time, they will be assessed a penalty of $1,725 per calendar day as specified in the bid documents.

Project Milestones
Milestone Estimated
Completion Date
Notes
Administrative Startup February 2026 Contract execution, bonds, insurance
Material Procurement February – May 2026 Procurement for long lead items (fuel storage,
tank/dispenser system,
transition sumps & vapor pot,
Veeder-Root TLS 45,
dispensing pump, etc.)
Contractor Mobilization May 2026 Start of construction activities Project Completion August 2026 Based on 80 working days Project Phasing
The contractor will be required to procure the materials and equipment prior to starting any work due to the long lead times involved. Once the materials are received and inspected, Staff will coordinate with OCFA and issue the contractor a notice to proceed with construction activities. The contractor will be constructing this project in a singular phase, fulfilling the scope of work as outlined in the contract documents. The contractor is responsible for determining the scheduling and sequencing of activities based on their proposed means and methods.

Public Outreach
Construction will be confined to Fire Station 71, ensuring that the community and neighborhoods remain unaffected. Staff routinely met with OCFA to discuss the impact on the fire station. The contractor and staff will continue to coordinate with OCFA throughout the project construction and will install signage at the project site indicating project details and contact information.

The Contractor is required to issue construction notices to adjacent residents and businesses at least two weeks before construction begins. Additionally, the contractor is required to install signage at the project site indicating project details and contact information.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the recommended actions are exempt from further review pursuant to Section 15301 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines for projects consisting of repairs and minor alterations of existing public facilities. The

City Council
15 –
4 2/17/2026

Construction Contract to Construct the Fire Station 71 Fuel Station Replacement Project February 17, 2026

Page 5 ends

5 5
7 0
proposed project continues to meet these parameters of the CEQA Guidelines, and Categorical Exemption Environmental Review No. ER-2026-15 will be filed for Project 24-6054 (Exhibit 4).

FISCAL IMPACT
As indicated in the Cost Analysis, the estimated total construction delivery cost of the project is $935,150. All funds are available for expenditure in Fiscal Year 2025-26. Any remaining balances not expended at the end of the fiscal year will be presented to City Council for approval of carryovers into Fiscal Year 2026-2027 (Exhibit 5).

The proposed contract authorizes staff a maximum of 10% for construction contract change orders for unanticipated or unforeseen work. Staff will return to City Council for authorization and appropriation of additional funding if necessary.

Fiscal
Year
Accounting
Unit – Account
No.
(Project No.)
Fund
Description
Accounting Unit,
Account Description Amount

CURRENT BUDGET
2025-26 01115330-66200
(24-6054) General Fund
Fire Suppression/EMS,
Buildings & Building
Improvements
$935,150
TOTAL $935,150

EXHIBIT(S)

1. Location Map

2. Bid Proposal

3. Construction Contract

4. Environmental Determination

5. Capital Improvement Project Worksheet
Submitted By: Rodolfo Rosas, P.E., Acting Executive Director – Public Works Agency Approved By: Alvaro Nuñez, City Manager

City Council
15 –
5 2/17/2026

PWA

SANTA ANA

PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
Project No. 24-6054: FIRE STATION 71

ABOVE GROUND FUEL STORAGE TANK

REPLACEMENT

Exhibit 1

City Council
15 –
6 2/17/2026

Exhibit 2

City Council
15 –
7 2/17/2026

GEMS Environmental Management Services, Inc.

President - Richard Camacho
Secretary - Jennifer Camacho

City Council
15 –
8 2/17/2026

GEMS Environmental Management Services, Inc.

President - Richard Camacho
Secretary - Jennifer Camacho

City Council
15 –
9 2/17/2026

City Council
15 –
10 2/17/2026

City Council
15 –
11 2/17/2026

City Council
15 –
12 2/17/2026

City Council
15 –
13 2/17/2026

City Council
15 –
14 2/17/2026

City Council
15 –
15 2/17/2026

City Council
15 –
16 2/17/2026

City Council
15 –
17 2/17/2026

City Council
15 –
18 2/17/2026

City Council
15 –
19 2/17/2026

City Council
15 –
20 2/17/2026

City Council
15 –
21 2/17/2026

City Council
15 –
22 2/17/2026

City Council
15 –
23 2/17/2026

City Council
15 –
24 2/17/2026

City Council
15 –
25 2/17/2026

City Council
15 –
26 2/17/2026

City Council
15 –
27 2/17/2026

City Council
15 –
28 2/17/2026

City Council
15 –
29 2/17/2026

City Council
15 –
30 2/17/2026

City Council
15 –
31 2/17/2026

City Council
15 –
32 2/17/2026

City Council
15 –
33 2/17/2026

City Council
15 –
34 2/17/2026

City Council
15 –
35 2/17/2026

Rodolfo Rosas
Digitally signed by Rodolfo Rosas
DN: cn=Rodolfo Rosas,
[email protected], c=US
Date: 2026.02.02 15:40:18 -08'00'

City Council
15 –
36 2/17/2026

City Council
15 –
37 2/17/2026

City Council
15 –
38 2/17/2026

City Council
15 –
39 2/17/2026

City Council
15 –
40 2/17/2026

CITY MANAGER
Alvaro Nuñez

CITY ATTORNEY
Sonia R. Carvalho

CLERK OF THE COUNCIL
Jennifer L. Hall
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY20 Civic Center Plaza (M-36)
P.O. BOX 1988 · Santa Ana, California 92702
(714) 647-5690 • Fax (714) 647-5823
www.santa-ana.org
MAYOR
Valerie Amezcua

MAYOR PRO TEM
David Penaloza

COUNCILMEMBERS
Phil Bacerra
Johnathan Ryan Hernandez
Jessie Lopez
Thai Viet Phan
Benjamin Vazquez

NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
From the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) City of Santa Ana
Public Works Agency
20 Civic Center Plaza (M-36)
Santa Ana, CA 92702

COUNTY CLERK
County of Orange
P.O. Box 238
Santa Ana, CA 92702
From:

Fee Exemption per California Government Code Section 6103 To:

Date of Approval:

Project Number(s):

Project Location:

City:

Applicant Address:

Name of Public Agency Approving Project:

Ministerial (Sec. 15268)
¨
¨
Declared Emergency (Sec. 15269 (a))
Emergency Project (Sec. 15269 (b through e))
General Rule (Sec. 15061(b)(3)/(5))
Statutory Exemption:

Categorical Exemption:
¨
¨
¨
þ
Santa Ana ER Number:County: Orange
Project Description:

Name of Agency Carrying Out Project:

Exempt Status:

Reason(s) Why Project is Exempt From CEQA:

City Contact: Telephone:

Signature: Date:

Title:

Fire Station 71 Above Ground Storage Tan
24-6054
1029 W 17th St, Santa Ana, CA 92706
02/17/2026ER-2026-15
The construction will include removal and installation of new above ground tank, canopy and dispensing system.

City Council
15301(b) consists of repair/maintenance of existing public facilities.

Robert Aguirre (714) 647-5652
Project Title:

Applicant Name:
15301(b)
City of Santa Ana, Public Works Agency
20 Civic Center Plaza M-36
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Public Works Agency
Senior Civil Engineer

City Council
15 –
41 2/17/2026

CITY OF SANTA ANA FY
25/26
CIP

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WORKSHEET
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

Underground storage tank removal and the installation of an above ground tank fuel station at Fire Station
71 .

PROJECT NEED:

The underground storage tank is in need of removal due to environmental condition of the subsurface soils in the vicinity of the existing underground tanks. The upgraded fuel systems and tanks will meet South Coast AQMD, with adherence to most recent fire code related to setbacks and existing structures.

PROJECT TITLE:

Fire Station
71 Above Ground
Storage Tank
PROJECT CATEGORY:

City & Park Facility Improvements
Municipal Facilities

LOCATION MAP
AGENCY:

DIVISION:

CONTACT:

DATE:

Public Works
Parks, Fleet & Facilities
Mike Ortiz, Deputy PW Director / Parks, Fleet, and
Facilities
29-Jan-2026

PROJECT COSTS
FY 25/26
FY 26/27
FY 27/28
FY 28/29
FY 29/30
FY 30/31
FY 31/32
Construction
748,120
-
-
-
-
-
-
Contingency
74,812
-
-
-
-
-
-
Engineering
112,218
-
-
-
-
-
-
TOTAL
935,150
-
-
-
-
-
-

SOURCE OF FUNDS
FY 25/26
FY 26/27
FY 27/28
FY 28/29
FY 29/30
FY 30/31
FY 31/32

GENERAL FUND
935,150
-
-
-
-
-
-
TOTAL
935,150
-
-
-
-
-
-

City Council
15 –
42 2/17/2026

Community Development Agency
www.santa-ana.org/community-development
Item # 16
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Staff Report
February 17, 2026
TOPIC: Ordinance Prohibiting Anti-Competitive Automated Rent Price-Fixing

AGENDA TITLE
Ordinance Prohibiting Anti-Competitive Automated Rent Price-Fixing

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt an ordinance of the City Council prohibiting anti-competitive automated rent price fixing software.

ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXXX entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF SANTA ANA PROHIBITING ANTI-COMPETITIVE AUTOMATED RENT

PRICE FIXING
GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES: No

DISCUSSION
The use of algorithmic devices to set rental rates in the private rental market has contributed to the nationwide housing affordability crisis. These tools utilize nonpublic competitor data, including real time rents, lease renewals, and occupancy levels to generate coordinated pricing recommendations that inflate rental rates beyond competitive market levels. National analyses and federal lawsuits suggest that such tools may contribute to double-digit rent increases, increased rates of eviction, and artificial housing scarcity. The purpose of this ordinance is therefore to protect renters in the City of Santa Ana (City) from artificially inflated rents and unfair rent-setting practices.

The City’s renters are subjected to the affordability pressures created by these algorithmic devices. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2023 5-Year American Community Survey (ACS), the City has 79,691 occupied housing units, of which 44,151 are renter- occupied households accounting for over 55% of the total occupied housing units.

Approximately 53% of these households are considered cost-burdened with housing expenses exceeding 30% of overall household income. The City’s median household income has not kept pace with the growth in rental housing costs, placing disproportionate pressure on low-income and working-class families. The City’s review of current rental market conditions, together with findings from federal investigations and national research, indicates that algorithmic rent setting tools pose a risk to housing affordability in Santa Ana. In a 2024 study by the White House, it was reported that renters nationally

City Council
16 –
1 2/17/2026

Ordinance Prohibiting Anti-Competitive Automated Rent Price-Fixing February 17, 2026

Page 2 ends

5 5
8 3
spent an extra $3.8 billion in rent in 2023; Los Angeles renters in units managed with algorithms paid an average of $408 more annually, compared to renters in units not managed with algorithms.

Overview of Legislation Addressing Algorithmic Pricing and Antitrust AB 325 Cartwright Act: Violations
Assembly Bill 325, enacted on October 6, 2025 and effective January 1, 2026, amends the Cartwright Act to further expand the scope of conduct prohibited under California antitrust law. The bill clarifies that the use of a “common pricing algorithm” may constitute unlawful price fixing when used as part of a contract, combination in the form of a trust, or conspiracy to restrain trade or commerce. AB 325 addresses concerns that pricing software and algorithmic tools can function as mechanisms for coordinating prices, rental rates, or supply levels. By amending the Cartwright Act, AB 325 clarifies that the use of shared or common pricing algorithms may be treated as evidence of a concerted practice when the effect of such use is to artificially influence prices in the real estate market. AB 325 does not impose an outright ban on pricing software, instead the bill operates primarily as a clarification of liability standards within the existing antitrust law framework.

Enforcement of the Act continues to rely on state or local prosecutors or private parties bringing antitrust actions.

Proposed bill - SB 384 Preventing Algorithmic Price Fixing Act Senate Bill 384, the Preventing Algorithmic Price Fixing Act, would make it unlawful for a person to sell, license, provide, or use a “price-setting algorithm” with the intent or reasonable expectation that it will be used by two or more competitors in the same market, when the person knows or should know that the algorithm relies on nonpublic data to determine either: 1) the price or supply of a good or service, or 2) the rent or occupancy level of rental property.

Unlike AB 325, SB 384 creates a standalone prohibition on a “price-setting algorithm” when it is intended or can be reasonably expected to be used by two or more competitors in the same market and processes nonpublic data. SB 384 would allow a user of such an algorithm to claim an affirmative defense if they exercised specified reasonable due diligence. It would also authorize the State Attorney General, as well as certain local prosecutors, to bring civil actions for violations, including seeking civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation. As of February 2026, SB 384 has advanced through the Senate floor and various committees; and is currently undergoing Second Committee Review.

Federal and State Antitrust Litigation
Antitrust lawsuits have been filed against third-party revenue management companies, including RealPage, Inc. and Yardi Systems, Inc., as well as landlords who are using alleged rent-fixing conspiracies. The lawsuits allege that these companies are enabling unlawful rent-fixing. In August 2024, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed an antitrust lawsuit against RealPage accusing the company of unlawfully reducing market competition and artificially raising rents. Eight state Attorneys General, including

City Council
16 –
2 2/17/2026

Ordinance Prohibiting Anti-Competitive Automated Rent Price-Fixing February 17, 2026

Page 3 ends

5 5
8 3
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, joined the action. In January 2025, the DOJ updated the lawsuit to include two additional Attorneys General and to identify landlords as defendants. The case is still underway, though several defendants have already settled with the Department of Justice and participating state attorneys general. Greystar, one of the major defendants, agreed to pay $7 million to the DOJ and another $7 million to the state attorneys general, and to discontinue its use of RealPage’s algorithmic pricing tool. However, RealPage and several other landlords continue to litigate the matter, with RealPage seeking dismissal of the claims and the remaining defendants also contesting the lawsuit.

Proposed Santa Ana Ordinance Prohibiting Anti-Competitive Automated Rent Price-Fixing
The proposed ordinance would prohibit the sale, licensing, provision, and use of certain algorithmic rent-setting tools within the City. A citywide ban on providing or using an “Algorithmic Device” that uses nonpublic competitor data to recommend rents and occupancy levels for residential rental property in the City. The ordinance is limited in scope to residential rental property and does not apply to pricing software that relies solely on publicly available data, aggregate historical data, or tools used to comply with affordable housing program requirements.

The proposed ordinance establishes a local prohibition on algorithmic devices that facilitate coordinated rent-setting practices; the ordinance also establishes a tenant- focused enforcement mechanism. A tenant affected by a violation of this ordinance may seek injunctive relief, damages, or civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation, plus attorney’s fees. Each residential unit and each month of continued use of algorithmic devices constitutes a separate violation. These enforcement provisions are intended to provide tenants with a direct and accessible remedy, independent of state or federal enforcement actions.

The proposed ordinance is designed to operate alongside existing and proposed state antitrust laws while providing greater protections to tenants by:
- defining a more limited scope (residential rental property within Santa Ana city limits),
- providing direct enforcement abilities (tenants may seek relief via civil action), and
- easing the burden of proof (tenants need to show that the landlord used an algorithmic device and the device relied on nonpublic competitor data).

Existing state law does not expressly preempt local regulation of algorithmic rent- setting practices. AB 325 clarifies the application of antitrust principles of algorithmic pricing under the Cartwright Act, but does not establish an exclusive regulatory framework. If SB 384 is enacted, the bill would supplement rather than displace existing antitrust law.

City Council
16 –
3 2/17/2026

Ordinance Prohibiting Anti-Competitive Automated Rent Price-Fixing February 17, 2026

Page 4 ends

5 5
8 3

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.

EXHIBIT(S)

1. Ordinance
Submitted By: Michael L. Garcia, Executive Director of Community Development Approved By: Alvaro Nuñez, City Manager

City Council
16 –
4 2/17/2026

EXHIBIT 1
Ordinance No. NS-XXXX

Page 1 of 7 ends

ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXXX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA ANA PROHIBITING ANTI -COMPETITIVE

AUTOMATED RENT PRICE-FIXING

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

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

A. The housing rent burden and poverty faced by many residents in the City of Santa Ana (City) threatens the health, safety, and welfare to the City.

B. The City Council has provided relief to residents by enacting a Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance, directing City staff to apply for housing grants to lower the cost of living for residents and placing a priority on assisting residents by providing information about issues that can negatively affect their lives.

C. The high cost of living and housing shortage in the City have contributed to the City’s unaffordability. According to an October 2025 Zillow report, a family must earn $220,000 a year to afford a home mortgage in Santa Ana. According to an October 22, 2025 Orange County Register article, the average rental rate for a residential dwelling unit in the City is $2,293, approximately 40.6% higher than the national median of $1,631.

D. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2023 American Community Survey (ACS), Santa Ana has approximately 79,691 occupied housing units, of which 44,151 are renter-occupied households, accounting for over 55 % of the total occupied housing units in Santa Ana. Approximately 53% of renter households are considered cost -burdened, with housing expenses exceeding 30% of household income. The City’s median household income has not kept pace with the growth in rental housing costs, placing disproportionate pressure on low-income and working-class families.

E. Landlords’ use of algorithmic devices, which perform calculations of nonpublic competitor data concerning rental rates, occupancy levels, and other information, to set rental rates and occupancy levels has resulted in inflated rental rates an unfair rent increases and contributed to the City’s unaffordability for families.

F. A 2024 study by the White House reported that renters nationally spent an extra $3.8 billion in rent in 2023 because of pricing algorithms, and that Los Angeles renters in units managed with algorithms paid an average of $408 more than

City Council
16 –
5 2/17/2026

EXHIBIT 1
Ordinance No. NS-XXXX

Page 2 of 7 ends

renters in units that were not managed with algorithms. The averag e monthly cost for Santa Ana is unavailable.

G. In response to the use of algorithmic devices to set rental rates and occupancy levels, in August 2024, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against RealPage, Inc. Eight Attorneys General, including California Attorney General Rob Bonta, joined the DOJ’s lawsuit. The DOJ amended its lawsuit in January 2025 to add two Attorneys General and name landlords and defendants.This lawsuit was settled in November 2025 and per the DOJ, “ the proposed settlement would help restore free market competition in rental markets for millions of American renters.” Per the settlement, RealPage did not admit any wrongdoing or liability, RealPage must not use their competitors’ non-public information, and an independent monitor will ensure compliance for seven (7) years. City renters cannot hope that RealPage does not violate the settlement nor that RealPage will be caught by the independent monitor.

H. RealPage filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Berk eley in April 2025 challenging their ordinance that bans landlords from using algorithmic revenue management software for setting rental rates. While the litigation is pending, and as RealPage will be monitored City renters cannot wait for this lawsuit to run its course. The Council wishes to provide immediate relief to City renters by prohibiting the sale, licensing, and use of algorithmic devices that use or incorporate nonpublic competitor data to advise a landlord on, or recommend to a landlord, rental rates or occupancy levels that may be achieved for residential real property in the City.

Section 2. The recitals and statements of fact set forth in the preamble to this ordinance are true and correct, constitute a substantive part of the ordinance, and are incorporated herein by reference.

Section 3. Article XXI V (Prohibition of Anti -Competitive Automated Rent Price- Fixing) is added to Chapter 8 (Buildings and Structures) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code to read as follows:

Section 8-3700 – Purpose and Intent

The purpose and intent of this Article is to protect the residents of Santa Ana from artificially inflated rental rates and unfair rent increases by prohibiting the sale, licensing, and use of A lgorithmic Devices. This Article also provides Tenants with remedies for violations of this Article.

Section 8-3701 – Definitions

(a) For purposes of this Article, the words and phrases shall be defined as set forth herein, unless the context clearly indicates a different meaning is intended.

City Council
16 –
6 2/17/2026

EXHIBIT 1
Ordinance No. NS-XXXX

Page 3 of 7 ends

(b) Words and phrases used in this Article, which are not specifically defined, shall be construed according to their context and the customary usage of the language.

“Algorithmic Device” means a software or product that uses or incorporates one or more algorithms to perform calculations of Nonpublic Competitor Data concerning rental rates, occupancy levels, or other information regarding the leasing of Residential Rental Property to advise a Landlord on, or recommend to a Landlord, rental rates or occupancy levels that may be achieved for a R esidential Rental Property in the City of Santa Ana. Algorithmic Device does not include either of the following:

1) A software or product used by a Person to publish reports regarding rental rates or occupancy levels from aggregated historical Nonpublic Competitor Data that is more than 90 days old, or from information available to the general public, and does not recommend rental rates or occupancy levels for future Residential Rental Property Leases or renewals.

2) A software or product used by a P erson to establish rental rates or income limits in accordance with local, state, or federal affordable housing program guidelines.

“Landlord” means an owner and any P erson, acting as principal or through an agent, who has the right to offer Residential Real Property for rent, and includes a predecessor in interest to the Landlord.

“Lease” means any lease, sublease, or agreement, written or oral, for the use and occupancy of Residential Rental Property.

“Nonpublic Competitor Data” means information that is not available to the general public, whether the information is attributable to a specific competitor or anonymized or whether the informat ion is derived from or otherwise provided by another Person. Nonpublic Competitor Data includes information about actual rental rates, rental rate changes, Residential Rental Property supply levels, occupancy levels, or Lease start and end dates.

“Person” means any natural person, firm, joint venture, joint stock company, partnership, association, club, company, corporation, business trust, organization, or the manager, lessee, agent, servant, officer or employee of any of them or any other entity which is recognized by law as the subject of rights or duties.

“Residential Rental Property” means any dwelling or unit that is intended for human habitation, including any dwelling or unit in a mobilehome park.

City Council
16 –
7 2/17/2026

EXHIBIT 1
Ordinance No. NS-XXXX

Page 4 of 7 ends

“Tenant” means a tenant, subtenant, lessee, sublessee, or any other natural person entitled to Lease any Residential Real Property.

Section 8-3702 – Use and Sale of Algorithmic Devices Prohibited

(a) It is unlawful for a person to sell, license, or otherwise provide an Algorithmic Device to a Landlord.

(b) It is unlawful for a Landlord to use an Algorithmic Device to set rental rates or occupancy levels for Residential Real Property. For each month a violation of Section 8- 3702(b) exists or continues, and for each Residential Rental Property a Landlord uses an Algorithmic Device, it shall constitute a separate and distinct violation.

Section 8-3703 – Remedies

(a) A Tenant may seek injunctive relief, damages, or civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation of this Article, in a civil action against a Landlord. In an action brought under this Article, a prevailing Tenant shall recover costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. A prevailing Tenant includes a Tenant granted an order for injunctive relief. A Lease provision that limits a Tenant from recovering attorney’s fees shall not be enforceable against a Tenant’s claim for attorney’s fees that arise under this Article.

(b) The remedies under Section 8-3703 are cumulative and are in addition to any other remedies in this Article or at law, statute, or ordinance.

Section 4. The City Council finds and determines that this Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment, as there is no possibility it will have a significant effect on the environment and it is not a “project” as defined in section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Fur thermore, the proposed Ordinance falls within the “common sense” CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15 061(b)(3), excluding projects where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.”

Section 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sectio ns, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

City Council
16 –
8 2/17/2026

EXHIBIT 1
Ordinance No. NS-XXXX

Page 5 of 7 ends

Section 6. This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its adoption.

Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law.

City Council
16 –
9 2/17/2026

Ordinance No. NS-XXXX

Page 6 of 7 ends

ADOPTED this day of February, 2026.

Valerie Amezcua
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
By:

Andrea Garcia-Miller
Senior Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers ________________________________
NOES: Councilmembers ________________________
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers __________
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers ______
EXHIBIT 1

City Council
16 –
10 2/17/2026

Ordinance No. NS-XXXX

Page 7 of 7 ends

CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY

I, JENNIFER L. HALL, City Clerk, do hereby attest to and certify that the attached Ordinance No. NS-XXXX to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on February 17, 2026 and that said ordinance was published in accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana.

Date: ______________________ ________________________________ Jennifer L. Hall
City Clerk
City of Santa Ana

EXHIBIT 1

City Council
16 –
11 2/17/2026

Community Development Agency
www.santa-ana.org/community-development
Item # 17
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Staff Report
February 17, 2026
TOPIC: Public Hearing - Purchase and Sale Agreement for 1901 W. Walnut St.

AGENDA TITLE
Public Hearing - Purchase and Sale Agreement for 1901 W. Walnut Street Legal notice published in the OC Reporter on February 2, 2026.

RECOMMENDED ACTION

1. Conduct a Public Hearing required pursuant to California Government Code 53083.

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a Purchase and Sale Agreement with THRIVE Santa Ana, Inc. for the sale of City-owned Real property at 1901 W. Walnut Street (APN 007-332-08), in the amount of $852,000 (Agreement No. A-2026-XXX).

GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES: Yes

DISCUSSION
The City-owned property located at 1901 W. Walnut Street (APN 007-332-08) is a

0.38-acre parcel that was acquired in 2007. Previously occupied by the Orange County Rescue Mission, the existing structure was demolished in 2011, and the site remained vacant for more than a decade.

On March 3, 2020, the City Council approved a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) and a ninety-nine (99) year ground lease with THRIVE Santa Ana, Inc. for the development and operation of a community microfarm located at 1901 W.

Walnut Street. Established in 2017, THRIVE Santa Ana is a Community Land Trust (CLT) founded by nonprofit leaders and local residents with the purpose of acquiring and stewarding vacant city-owned properties to provide long-term community benefits.

The CLT model supports the development of affordable housing, parks, urban micro farms, and marketplaces for small businesses. Properties acquired by the CLT are managed in partnership with local residents to identify and address community needs while ensuring sustained public benefit.

A Community Benefits Report developed by THRIVE outlined the anticipated positive impacts of the project, which included:

City Council
17 –
1 2/17/2026

Purchase and Sale Agreement for 1901 W. Walnut St.

February 17, 2026

Page 2 ends

5 5
6 7
Establishment of a micro-farm as an economic development initiative. Creation of employment opportunities and organic produce production. Promotion of a worker cooperative model encouraging resident participation in the local neighborhood economy.
Enhancement of civic engagement and healthy living.

Since execution of the DDA, THRIVE Santa Ana, Inc. has completed the development of a community microform called La Colmena. La Colmena features a regenerative farm, a café, artisan retail space, and gathering areas for markets and events. Operated under the principles of a Community Land Trust, La Colmena promotes local food access, small business development, and community engagement, serving as a model for sustainable, resident-driven land stewardship in Santa Ana.

The operation of a community micro-farm is consistent with the definition of a “Plant Nursery,” which is an allowed use in the Community Commercial (C-1) zoning district.

The subject property is located within the Community Commercial (C-2) zoning district, which allows additional uses permitted in the C-1 district pursuant to Section 41-377(a) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. Accordingly, the micro-farm use is consistent with the applicable zoning regulations (Exhibit 5).

The ground lease with THRIVE Santa Ana, Inc. granted the organization the exclusive option to purchase the property at a gross sales price equivalent to the negotiated fair market value, as determined through an appraisal. To initiate the option, THRIVE was required to submit a Letter of Intent (Exhibit 1) and a deposit of $5,000, which would be applied toward the cost of the appraisal. After being informed of this valuation, THRIVE noted that its State grant allows for a maximum acquisition amount of $852,000 and requested that the City consider providing a donation or subsidy for the difference (Exhibit 3). Staff informed THRIVE that any sale below fair market value would require preparation of an economic subsidy report for City Council approval.

On July 16, 2019, the City Council approved a zoning map amendment for the subject site and properties, rezoning the subject site as General Commercial (C2). Concurrent with this rezoning and in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (Environmental Review No. 2017-140) with technical studies was prepared for the rezoning. No areas of unavoidable impacts were identified as resulting from the construction or operation of the proposed project.

Purchase and Sale Agreement
On October 17, 2025, THRIVE submitted a Letter of Intent to the City requesting consideration for the purchase of the property. The Community Development Agency (CDA) received an independent appraisal report (Exhibit 2) dated November 11, 2025 that established the fair market value of the property at $1,030,000. On December 3, THRIVE submitted a revised letter (Exhibit 3) requesting an economic subsidy of $178,000, representing the difference between the property’s appraised fair market value and the state grant funds available for its purchase.

City Council
17 –
2 2/17/2026

Purchase and Sale Agreement for 1901 W. Walnut St.

February 17, 2026

Page 3 ends

5 5
6 7
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65402, the Planning and Building Agency reviewed the proposed Purchase and Sale Agreement for the City-owned property located at 1901 W. Walnut Street (APN 007-332-08). As documented in the General Plan Conformance Memorandum dated January 21, 2026, the Planning Agency determined that the sale of the property is in conformance with the City of Santa Ana’s 2022 General Plan (Exhibit 5).

Approval of the Purchase and Sale Agreement (Exhibit 6) will finalize the City’s partnership with THRIVE Santa Ana, Inc. and enable the successful implementation of a community-led micro-farm project that advances local economic opportunities, public health, and neighborhood engagement.

Surplus Land Act Compliance
Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(B) provides that the term “surplus land” does not include: “Surplus land that is less than one-half acre in area and is not contiguous to land owned by a state or local agency that is used for open-space or low- and moderate-income housing purposes.”
Based on this definition, if the subject property is less than one-half acre in size and is not contiguous to any state or local agency-owned land used for such purposes, it qualifies for the Small Lot Exemption.

In December 2025, the City received written confirmation (Exhibit 7) from the State’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) that the property located at 1901 W. Walnut Street meets these criteria, being less than one-half acre in area and not adjoining any qualifying state or local agency parcels, and therefore qualifies for the Small Lot Exemption under the Surplus Land Act. As a result, the City’s surplus land exemption requirements have been satisfied through this action, and no City Council resolution is required.

Economic Development Subsidy
Government Code Section 53083 requires that the City Council must hold a noticed public hearing and, prior to the public hearing, provide information to the public through the City’s website regarding the proposed economic development subsidy. As part of the approval process, an Economic Development Subsidy Report (Exhibit 4) must be completed and submitted detailing the structure of the public subsidy, projected tax benefits, and estimated number of jobs that would be created by the subsidy. This report shall remain available to the public and posted on the City’s website until the end date of the economic development subsidy.

FISCAL IMPACT
Funds in the amount of $852,000 will be deposited into the Miscellaneous Revenue Sale of Land account (no. 01102002-57071).

City Council
17 –
3 2/17/2026

Purchase and Sale Agreement for 1901 W. Walnut St.

February 17, 2026

Page 4 ends

5 5
6 7
Fiscal
Year
Accounting Unit
– Account #
Fund
Description
Accounting Unit,
Account Description
Amount
FY 25-26 01102002-57071 General Fund Miscellaneous
Revenue, Sale of Land
$852,000
Total $852,000

EXHIBIT(S)

1. Letter of Intent

2. Appraisal Report

3. Request Letter from Thrive for Purchase Price Subsidy

4. Economic Development Subsidy Report

5. General Plan Conformance

6. Purchase and Sale Agreement

7. HCD Exemption Letter

8. Proof of Publication
Submitted By: Michael L. Garcia, Executive Director of Community Development Approved By: Alvaro Nuñez, City Manager

City Council
17 –
4 2/17/2026

EXHIBIT 1

City Council
17 –
5 2/17/2026

City Council
17 –
6 2/17/2026

CBRE Valuation & Advisory Services
cbre.com/valuation

CITY OF SANTA ANA- WALNUT STREET PROPERTY
1901 West Walnut Street
Santa Ana, California 92703
Prepared for: City of Santa Ana, Community Development Agency Date of Report: November 11, 2025
CBRE File No.: CB25US102817-1
EXHIBIT 2

City Council
17 –
7 2/17/2026

CBRE Valuation & Advisory Services

5921 Owensmouth Avenue
Woodland Hills, CA 91367

www.cbre.com/valuation

Date of Report: November 11, 2025

Marc Marley
Economic Development Manager

CITY OF SANTA ANA, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
20 Civic Center Plaza, M-25
Santa Ana, California 92702

RE: Appraisal of: City of Santa Ana- Walnut Street Property 1901 West Walnut Street
Santa Ana, Orange County, California
CBRE File No.: CB25US102817-1

Dear Mr. Marley:

At your request and authorization, CBRE, Inc. has prepared an appraisal of the market value of the referenced property. Our analysis is presented in the following Appraisal Report.

The subject property is a parcel of land located at the northwest corner of West Walnut Street and South Daisy Avenue in the City of Sana Ana. The subject property is improved with a community garden and coffee shop; however, this valuation is limited to the underlying land only. The subject contains a site area of 16,632 square feet, or 0.38 acres and is zoned C2, General Commercial, which allows a variety of retail and service uses.

Based on the analysis contained in the following report, the market value of the subject is concluded as follows:

MARKET VALUE CONCLUSION
Appraisal Premise Interest Appraised Date of Value Value Conclusion Land Only Fee Simple Estate October 24, 2025 $1,030,000 Compiled by CBRE

The report , in its entirety, including all assumptions and limiting conditions, is an integral part of, and inseparable from, this letter.

The following appraisal sets forth the most pertinent data gathered, the techniques employed, and the reasoning leading to the opinion of value. The analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed based on, and this report has been prepared in conformance with, the guidelines and recommendations set forth in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), and the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute.

City Council
17 –
8 2/17/2026

CBRE Valuation & Advisory Services
CBRE VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES 2 © 2025 CBRE, INC
The intended use and user of our report are specifically identified in our report as agreed upon in our contract for services and/or reliance language found in the report. As a condition to being granted the status of an intended user, any intended user who has not entered into a written agreement with CBRE in connection with its use of our report agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement between CBRE and the client who ordered the report. No other use or user of the report is permitte d by any other party for any other purpose. Dissemination of this report by any party to any non-intended users does not extend reliance to any such party, and CBRE will not be responsible for any unauthorized use of or reliance upon the report, its conclusions or contents (or any portion thereof).

It has been a pleasure to assist you in this assignment. If you have any questions concerning the analysis, or if CBRE can be of further service, please contact us.

Respectfully submitted,

CBRE - VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES
Nicole Galvez Beth Finestone, MAI, AI-GRS, FRICS, CRE
Title: VAS - Vice President Title: VAS - Executive Vice President Phone: (818) 251-3646 Phone: (818) 251-3669
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] License No. 3005597 License No. AG004030

City Council
17 –
9 2/17/2026

Certification
CBRE VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES i © 2025 CBRE, INC
We certify to the best of our knowledge and belief:

1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.

2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are our personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions.

3. We have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved.

4. Nicole Galvez and Beth Finestone have not provided any services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three -year period immediately preceding the agreement to perform this assignment.

5. We have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment.

6. Our engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results.

7. Our compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal.

8. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.

9. Nicole Galvez has made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. Beth Finestone has not made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report.

10. No one provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the persons signing this certification.

11. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute.

12. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives.

13. As of the date of this report, Beth Finestone, MAI, AI-GRS, FRICS, CRE has completed the continuing education program for Designated Members of the Appraisal Institute.

Nicole Galvez Beth Finestone
License No. 3005597 License No. AG004030

City Council
17 –
10 2/17/2026

Subject Photographs
CBRE VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES ii © 2025 CBRE, INC
Aerial View

City Council
17 –
11 2/17/2026

Subject Photographs

View of the subject property looking north View of the subject property looking southeast

View of the subject property looking west View of the subject property looking west

View of South Daisy Avenue looking north View of West Walnut Street looking west

City Council
17 –
12 2/17/2026

Executive Summary

Property Name
Location
Parcel Number(s)
Client
Highest and Best Use
As If Vacant
As Improved
Property Rights Appraised
Date of Inspection
Estimated Exposure Time
Estimated Marketing Time
Land Area 0.38 AC 16,632 SF
Zoning
City of Santa Ana- Walnut Street Property
October 24, 2025
N/A
Develop with a retail use
1901 West Walnut Street
Santa Ana, Orange County, CA 92703
City of Santa Ana, Community Development Agency
007-332-08
Fee Simple Estate
3 - 6 Months
3 - 6 Months
C2, General Commercial

CONCLUDED MARKET VALUE
Appraisal Premise Interest Appraised Value
Land Only Fee Simple Estate $1,030,000
Compiled by CBRE
October 24, 2025
Date of Value

At the September 2025 FOMC meeting, the Federal Reserve lowered the federal funds rate by 25 basis points, to a range of 4.00% to 4.25% This latest interest rate cut will support capital markets activity by bolstering investor sentiment and reducing borrow ing costs. Improved liquidity will benefit most sectors, and we expect to see continued refinancing opportunities. However, challenges persist, particularly for distressed office assets. CBRE forecasts limited cap rate compression this cycle, as long-term interest rates are expected to remain elevated. This points toward a more income -focused investment cycle that underscores the importance of strategic investment decisions and careful asset selection.

Experience has shown that consumer and investor behavior can quickly change during periods of heightened volatility. Lending or investment decisions should consider the potential for a continuation of recent volatility, which may affect market conditions disproportionately, depending on asset class.

It is important to note that the conclusions set out in this report are valid as at the valuation date only. Where appropriate, we recommend that the valuation is closely monitored, as we continue to track how markets respond to evolving events.

City Council
17 –
13 2/17/2026

Executive Summary

An extraordinary assumption is defined as “ an assignment-specific assumption as of the effective date regarding uncertain information used in an analysis which, if found to be false, could alter the appraiser’s opinions or conclusions.” 1
• The subject property is improved with a community garden and a coffee shop. At the request of the client, this valuation is limited to the underlying land only. No consideration has been given to the improvements.
• This valuation is limited to the underlaying land only. We have assumed that the subject is vacant unentitled land.
• The use of these extraordinary assumptions may have impacted the assignment result.

A hypothetical condition is defined as “a condition, directly related to a specific assignment, which is contrary to what is known by the appraiser to exist on the effective date of the assignment results but is used for the purposes of analysis.” 2
• None noted

The subject property is owned by the City of Santa Ana and. In 2020 the City of Santa Ana entered into a ground lease with Thrive Santa Ana Community Land Trust who subsequently developed a micro-farm on the site. It is our understanding that the Thrive Santa Ana Community Land Trust is interested in purchasing the underlying land from the City of Santa Ana.

CBRE is unaware of any arm’s length ownership transfers of the property within three years of the date of appraisal. Further, the property is not reportedly being offered for sale as of the current date.

Current appraisal guidelines require an estimate of a reasonable time period in which the subject could be brought to market and sold. This reasonable time frame can either be examined historically or prospectively.

In a historical analysis, this is referr ed to as exposure time. Exposure time always precedes the date of value, with the underlying premise being the time a property would have been on the market prior to the date of value, such that it would sell at its appraised value as of the date of value. On a prospective basis, the term marketing time is most often used. The exposure/marketing time is a function of price, time, and use. It is not an isolated estimate of time alone.

1 The Appraisal Foundation, USPAP, 2024 Edition (Effective January 1, 2024) 2 The Appraisal Foundation, USPAP, 2024 Edition (Effective January 1, 2024)

City Council
17 –
14 2/17/2026

Executive Summary

CBRE VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES vi © 2025 CBRE, INC
The following table presents the information derived from these sources.

EXPOSURE/MARKETING TIME DATA
CBRE Exposure Time Estimate
CBRE Marketing Period Estimate
Various Sources Compiled by CBRE
3 - 6 Months
3 - 6 Months

City Council
17 –
15 2/17/2026

Table of Contents

Certification ........................................................................................................................................................................ i Subject Photographs ...................................................................................................................................................... ii Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................................... vii Scope of Work .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Area Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Neighborhood Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Site Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Tax and Assessment Data .......................................................................................................................................... 14 Market Analysis .............................................................................................................................................................. 15 Highest and Best Use .................................................................................................................................................. 20 Land Value ........................................................................................................................................................................21 Reconciliation of Value ................................................................................................................................................ 26 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions ................................................................................................................... 27

ADDENDA
Land Sale Data Sheets
Qualifications

City Council
17 –
16 2/17/2026

Scope of Work

This Appraisal Report is intended to comply with the real property appraisal development and reporting requirements set forth under Standards Rule 1 and 2 of USPAP. The scope of the assignment relates to the extent and manner in which research is conducted, data is gathered, and analysis is applied.

This appraisal is to be used for potential disposition and no other use is permitted.

The client is City of Santa Ana, Community Development Agency.

This appraisal is to be used by City of Santa Ana, Community Development Agency. No other user(s) may rely on our report unless as specifically indicated in this report.

Intended users are those who an appraiser intends will use the appraisal or review report. In other words, appraisers acknowledge at the outset of the assignment that they are developing their expert opinions for the use of the intended users they identify. Although the client provides information about the parties who may be intended users, ultimately it is the appraiser who decides who they are. This is an important point to be clear about: The client does not tell the appraiser who the intended users wil l be. Rather, the client tells the appraiser who the client needs the report to be speaking to, and given that information, the appraiser identifies the intended user or users. It is important to identify intended users because an appraiser’s primary responsibility regarding the use of the report’s opinions and conclusions is to those users.

Intended users are those parties to whom an appraiser is responsible for communicating the findings in a clear and understandable manner. They are the audience. 3

Reliance on any reports produced by CBRE under this Agreement is extended solely to parties and entities expressly acknowledged in a signed writing by CBRE as Intended Users of the respective reports, provided that any conditions to such acknowledgement required by CBRE or hereunder have been satisfied. Parties or entities other than Intended Users who obtain a copy of the report or any portion thereof (including Client if it is not named as an Intended User), whether as a result of its direct dissemination or by any other means, may not rely upon any opinions or conclusions contained in the report or such portions thereof, and CBRE will not be responsible for any unpermitted use of the report, its conclusions or contents or have any liability in connection therewith.

3 Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate, 15th ed. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2020), 40.

City Council
17 –
17 2/17/2026

Scope of Work

The purpose of this appraisal is to develop an opinion of the market value of the subject property . This valuation is limited to the underlying land only and no consideration has been given to the improvements.

The current economic definition of market value agreed upon by agencies that regulate federal financial institutions in the U.S. (and used herein) is as follows:

The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:

1. buyer and seller are typically motivated;

2. both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their own best interests;

3. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;

4. payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and

5. the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. 4

The value estimated represents Fee Simple Estate as defined below:

Fee Simple Estate - Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power and escheat. 5

The property is identified through the following sources:
• assessor’s records
• legal description

Nicole Galvez inspected the subject, as well as its surrounding environs on the effective date of appraisal.

This inspection was considered adequate and is the basis for our findings.

CBRE reviewed the following:

4 12 CFR, Part 34, Subpart C-Appraisals, 34.42(h).
5 Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 7th ed. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2022), 73.

City Council
17 –
18 2/17/2026

Scope of Work

CBRE VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES 3 © 2025 CBRE, INC
• applicable tax data
• zoning requirements
• flood zone status
• demographics
• comparable data

CBRE, Inc. analyzed the data gathered through the use of appropriate and accepted appraisal methodology to arrive at a probable value indication via each applicable approach to value. For vacant land, the sales comparison approach has been employed for this assignment.

The appraisers have the appropriate knowledge, education, and experience to complete this assignment competently.

In appraisal practice, an approach to value is included or omitted based on its applicability to the property type being valued and the quality and quantity of information available. Depending on a specific appraisal assignment, any of the following four methods may be used to determine the market value of the fee simple interest of land:
• Sales Comparison Approach;
• Income Capitalization Procedures;
• Allocation; and
• Extraction.

The following summaries of each method are paraphrased from the text.

The first is the sales comparison approach. This is a process of analyzing sales of similar, recently sold parcels in order to derive an indication of the most probable sales price (or value) of the property being appraised. The reliability of this approach is dependent upon (a) the availability of comparable sales data, (b) the verification of the sales data regarding size, price, terms of sale, among others, (c) the degree of comparability or extent of adjustment necessary for differences between the subject and the comparables, and (d) the absence of nontypical conditions affecting the sales price. This is the primary and most reliable method used to value land (if adequate data exists).

The income capitalization procedures include three methods: land residual technique, ground rent capitalization, and Subdivision Development Analysis. A discussion of each of these three techniques is presented in the following paragraphs.

The land residual method may be used to estimate land value when sales data on similar parcels of vacant land are lacking. This technique is based on the principle of balance and the related concept of contribution, which are concerned with equilibrium among the agents of production--i.e. labor, capital, coordination, and land. The land residual technique can be used to estimate land value when: 1) building value is known or can be accurately estimated, 2) stabilized, annual net operating income to the property is known or estimable, and 3) both building and land capitalization rates can be extracted from the market. Building value can be estimated for new or proposed buildings that represent the highest and best use of the property and have not yet incurred physical deterioration or functional obsolescence.

City Council
17 –
19 2/17/2026

Scope of Work

CBRE VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES 4 © 2025 CBRE, INC
The subdivision development method is used to value land when subdivision and development represent the highest and best use of the appraised parcel. In this method, an appraiser determines the number and size of lots that can be created from the appraised land physically, legally, and economically. The value of the underlying land is then estimated through a discounted cash flow analysis with revenues based on the achievable sale price of the finished product and expenses based on all costs required to complete and sell the finished product.

The ground rent capitalization procedure is predicated upon the assumption that ground rents can be capitalized at an appropriate rate to indicate the market value of a site. Ground rent is paid for the right to use and occupy the land according to the terms of the ground lease; it corresponds to the value of the landowner's interest in the land. Market-derived capitalization rates are used to convert ground rent into market value. This procedure is useful when an analysis of comparable sales of leased land indicates a range of rents and reasonable support for capitalization rates can be obtained.

The allocation method is typically used when sales are so rare that the value cannot be estimated by direct comparison. This method is based on the principle of balance and the related concept of contribution, which affirm that there is a normal or typical ratio of land value to property value for specific categories of real estate in specific locations. This ratio is generally more reliable when the subject property includes relatively new improvements. The allocation method does not produce conclusive val ue indications, but it can be used to establish land value when the number of vacant land sales is inadequate.

The extraction method is a variant of the allocation method in which land value is extracted from the sale price of an improved property by deducting the contribution of the improvements, which is estimated from their depreciated costs. The remaining value represents the value of the land. Value indications derived in this way are generally unpersuasive because the assessment ratios may be unreliable and the extraction method does not reflect market considerations.

For the purposes of this analysis, we have utilized the sales comparison approach . Since our valuation is limited to the underlying land, the cost and income capitalization approaches are not applicable.

City Council
17 –
20 2/17/2026

Area Analysis

Population
Source: ESRI, downloaded on Oct, 30 2025
The subject is located in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area. Key information about the area is provided in the following tables.

The area has a population of 12,879,186.

Population has increased by 50,379 since 2010,
reflecting an annual increase of 0.0%. Population
is projected to decrease by 111,434 between 2024
and 2029, reflecting a 0.2% annual population
decline.
12,828,807 12,879,186 12,767,752
0 2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
2010 2024 2029

POPULATION BY YEAR
Source: ESRI

City Council
17 –
21 2/17/2026

Area Analysis

CBRE VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES 6 © 2025 CBRE, INC
Income
Education
Employment
Source: ESRI, downloaded on Oct 30, 2025; BLS.gov dated Aug 1, 2025 (preliminary) The area includes a total of 6,530,147 employees and has a 5.9% unemployment rate. The top three industries within the area are Health Care/Social Assistance, Prof/Scientific/Tech Services and Retail Trade, which is a combined total of 33% of the workforce.

The area features an average household income of
$139,051 and a median household income of
$97,753. Over the next five years, median
household income is expected to increase by

13.1%, or $2,565 per annum.

A total of 40.4% of individuals over the age of 24
have a college degree, with 26.0% holding a
bachelor's degree and 14.4% holding a graduate
degree.
$97,753
$110,577
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
2024 2029

MEDIAN INCOME BY YEAR

POPULATION BY DEGREE
Bachelor's Degree
Graduate Degree
Other
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%
Other Services (excl Publ Adm)
Admin/Support/Waste Mgmt Srvcs
Transportation/Warehousing
Construction
Accommodation/Food Services
Educational Services
Manufacturing
Retail Trade
Prof/Scientific/Tech Services
Health Care/Social Assistance
Source: ESRI
Source: ESRI
Source: ESRI

In summary, the area is forecasted to experience a decrease in population and an increase in household income.

City Council
17 –
22 2/17/2026

Neighborhood Analysis

The subject is in the city of Santa Ana and is considered a suburban location. The city of Santa Ana is situated in northern Orange County.

City Council
17 –
23 2/17/2026

Neighborhood Analysis

The neighborhood boundaries are detailed as follows:

North: Cities of Garden Grove and Orange
South: 405 Freeway
East: SR 55 Freeway
West: City of Westminster

The subject property is located less than one block south of West 1st Street, which is a major arterial. The immediate area is a combination primarily of retail uses and single -family residential uses. The County of Orange Social Services Agency is located on the south side of Walnut Avenue, south of the subject property. East of the subject is primarily single-family residential uses. There is an automotive repair shop to the adjacent west of the subject and a gas station and convenience store to the ad jacent north of the subject.

Primary access to the subject neighborhood is provided by the I-5 and 405 Freeways. State Routes 22 and 55 also traverse the City. Major east/west arterials include Westminster Avenue, West 1 st Street, and Mc Fadden Avenue. Major north/south arterials include South Flower Street, South Bristol Street, and North Harbor Boulevard. The 5 Freeway is accessible from West 1st Street about three miles east of the subject property.

Selected neighborhood demographics in 1-, 3- and 5-mile radius from the subject are shown in the following table:

City Council
17 –
24 2/17/2026

Neighborhood Analysis

CBRE VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES 9 © 2025 CBRE, INC
1901 West Walnut Street
Santa Ana, CA 92703
Population
2029 Total Population 54,112 337,383 706,880 12,767,752 2024 Total Population 54,075 337,944 701,959 12,879,186 2010 Total Population 58,939 359,945 703,097 12,828,807 2000 Total Population 63,979 373,486 702,911 12,365,375 Annual Growth 2024 - 2029 0.01% -0.03% 0.14% -0.17%
Annual Growth 2010 - 2024 -0.61% -0.45% -0.01% 0.03%
Annual Growth 2000 - 2010 -0.82% -0.37% 0.00% 0.37%
Households
2029 Total Households 11,267 87,343 212,972 4,618,648 2024 Total Households 11,035 85,547 206,713 4,551,896 2010 Total Households 10,422 79,109 186,357 4,233,969 2000 Total Households 10,730 79,015 182,541 4,068,976 Annual Growth 2024 - 2029 0.42% 0.42% 0.60% 0.29%
Annual Growth 2010 - 2024 0.41% 0.56% 0.74% 0.52%
Annual Growth 2000 - 2010 -0.29% 0.01% 0.21% 0.40%
Income
2024 Median Household Income $91,214 $90,454 $95,149 $97,753 2024 Average Household Income $114,063 $113,842 $121,947 $139,051 2024 Per Capita Income $23,687 $29,034 $36,051 $49,239
2024 Pop 25+ College Graduates 4,298 45,652 142,059 3,709,056 Age 25+ Percent College Graduates - 2024 12.3% 20.1% 29.2% 40.4% Source: ESRI

SELECTED NEIGHBORHOOD DEMOGRAPHICS
Los Angeles-
Long Beach-
Anaheim, CA
Metropolitan
Statistical Area
1 Mile Radius 3 Mile Radius 5 Mile Radius

The area is in the stable stage of its life cycle. In keeping with the principle of conformity, we expect neighborhood land uses to continue to be similar to the present use.

City Council
17 –
25 2/17/2026

Site Analysis

The following chart summarizes the salient characteristics of the subject site.

SITE SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS
Physical Description
Gross Site Area 0.38 Acres 16,632 Sq. Ft.

Net Site Area 0.38 Acres 16,632 Sq. Ft.

Primary Road Frontage West Walnut Street 174 Feet
Secondary Road Frontage South Daisy Avenue 75 Feet
Shape
Topography
Parcel Number(s)
Zoning District
Flood Map Panel No. & Date 06059C0257J 3-Dec-09
Flood Zone Zone X (Shaded)
Utilities Availability
Water Yes
Sewer Yes
Natural Gas Yes
Electricity Yes
Telephone/Cable/Internet Yes
Various sources compiled by CBRE
Providers
Santa Ana Water Services
Santa Ana Water Services
Southern California Gas Company
Southern California Edison
Various Providers
Irregular
Level, At Street Grade
C2, General Commercial
007-332-08

The subject is located at the northwest corner of West Walnut Street and South Daisy Avenue i n the City of Santa Ana.

The land area was obtained from the Assessor’s Records. The site is considered adequate in terms of size and utility.

The site is slightly irregular in shape with adequate frontage along two secondary streets. Although slightly irregular in shape, the site approximates a rectangle and the shape is not considered to impact the overall development potential of the site.

The subject property is accessible from both South Daisy Avenue and West Walnut Street.

City Council
17 –
26 2/17/2026

Site Analysis

The site is level and at street grade . The topography of the site is not seen as an impediment to the development of the property. During our inspection of the site, we observed no drainage problems and assume that none exist.

A soils analysis for the site has not been provided for the preparation of this appraisal. In the absence of a soils report, it is a specific assumption that the site has adequate soils to support the highest and best use.

There are no known easements or encroachments impacting the site that are considered to affect the marketability or highest and best use. It is recommended that the client/reader obtain a current title policy outlining all easements and encroachments on the property, if any, prior to making a business decision.

There are no known covenants, conditions or restrictions impacting the site that are considered to affect the marketability or highest and best use. It is recommended that the client/reader obtain a copy of the current covenants, conditions and restrictions, if any, prior to making a business decision.

The site includes all municipal services, including police, fire and refuse garbage collection. All utilities are available to the site in adequate quality and quantity to service the highest and best use.

Although CBRE was not provided an Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), a tour of the site did not reveal any obvious issues regarding environmental contamination or adverse conditions.

The adjacent land uses are summarized as follows:

North Gas station and convenience story
South: County of Orange Social Services Agency
West: Automotive repair shop
East: Single family residential

City Council
17 –
27 2/17/2026

Site Analysis

The following chart summarizes the subject’s zoning requirements.

ZONING SUMMARY
Current Zoning C2, General Commercial
Legally Conforming Yes
Uses Permitted Various retail and service uses, professional and administrative offices.

Zoning Change Not likely
Category Zoning Requirement
Minimum Lot Size 15,000 SF
Minimum Lot Width None stated; but 120 feet of street frontage is required Maximum Height 35 FT
Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard 15 FT
Street Side Yard Corner lots adjacent to a street require 15 feet Interior Side Yard None stated
Rear Yard None stated
Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.5:1.00
Parking Requirements Varies by use; retail services require five spaces per 1,000 SF of GFA
Source: City of Santa Ana Planning Dept.

The subject property has a General Plan Land Use designation of General Commercial. The zoning is in conformance with the General Plan. Additional information may be obtained from the appropriate governmental authority. For purposes of this appraisal, CBRE has assumed the information obtained is correct.

Zoning allows a variety of uses, including various retail uses. Development is permitted at a FAR of

0.50:1.00, which equates to a development potential of 8,316 square feet of building area.

The subject property is a parcel of land located at the northwest corner of West Walnut Street and South Daisy Street, which are both secondary streets. The site is level at grade and all utilities are on site. The subject is zoned C2, which allows a variety of retail and service uses. The site appears adequate to support development consistent with zoning.

City Council
17 –
28 2/17/2026

Site Analysis

City Council
17 –
29 2/17/2026

Tax and Assessment Data

In California, privately held real property is typically assessed at 100% of full cash value (which is interpreted to mean market value of the fee simple estate) as determined by the County Assessor. Generally, a reassessment occurs only when a property is sold (or transferred) or when new construction occurs (as differentiated from replacing existing construction). In the case of long-term ground leases, the general rule is that a reassessment is made at the time of assigning or terminating a lease where the remaining term is more than 35 years. For reassessment purposes, the lease term includes all options to extend.

Assessments for properties that were acquired before the tax year 1975-1976 were stabilized as of the tax year 1975-1976. Property taxes are limited by state law to 1% of the assessed value plus voter -approved obligations and special assessments. If no sale (or transfer) occurs or no new building takes place, assessments may not increase by more than 2% annually.

The subject property is owned by the City of Santa Ana and is exempt from assessment. The 2025/2026 tax rate for the area is 1.01477%.

City Council
17 –
30 2/17/2026

Market Analysis

The subject property can support development of various retail uses and service uses. We have provided a brief overview of the improved retail market in the subject area. We recognize that this analysis is for the improved markets; however, land tends to follow the trends of the improved markets.

The subject property is located within the Santa Ana submarket, which is part of the greater Orange County Metro market as defined by CoStar. The following data is for the Santa Ana submarket as of 2nd Quarter 2025.

Important characteristics of the Santa Ana retail market are summarized below:

SANTA ANA RETAIL SUBMARKET
Year Ending Inventory
(SF)
Completions
(SF)
Occupied Stock
(SF) Occupancy Asking Rent
($/SF NNN)
Asking Rent
Change
Net Absorption
(SF)
2020 7,051,940 -1,759 6,810,592 96.6% $28.63 2.36% -30,160 2021 7,051,940 0 6,911,261 98.0% $29.70 3.76% 100,669
2022 7,044,989 -6,951 6,883,509 97.7% $31.07 4.59% -27,752 2023 7,055,421 10,432 6,789,068 96.2% $32.16 3.53% -94,441 Q1 2024 7,055,421 0 6,766,996 95.9% $32.54 1.18% -22,072 Q2 2024 7,057,921 2,500 6,734,708 95.4% $32.80 0.79% -32,288 Q3 2024 7,057,921 0 6,716,671 95.2% $33.15 1.06% -18,037 Q4 2024 7,057,921 0 6,707,206 95.0% $33.36 0.65% -9,465 2024 7,057,921 2,500 6,707,206 95.0% $33.36 3.73% -81,862 Q1 2025 7,060,921 3,000 6,749,179 95.6% $33.71 1.04% 41,973 Q2 2025 7,060,921 0 6,676,035 94.5% $33.69 -0.05% -73,144 Q3 2025* 7,059,458 -1,463 6,708,831 95.0% $33.88 0.56% 32,847 Q4 2025* 7,057,073 -2,385 6,704,049 95.0% $34.11 0.67% -4,323 *Future Projected Data according to Costar
Source: Costar, 2nd Quarter 2025

The Santa Ana retail submarket consists of approximately 7,060,921 square feet of retail space. The current submarket inventory represents approximately 4.9% of the overall market inventory. The following observations were noted from the table above:
• As of 2nd Quarter 2025, there was approximately 6,676,035 square feet of occupied retail space (including sublet space), resulting in an occupancy rate of 94.5% for the submarket. This reflects a decrease from the previous quarter’s occupancy of 95.6%, and a small decrease from an occupancy rate of 95.0% from last year. The submarket occupancy is below the 96.0% market occupancy.
• The submarket experienced negative 73,144 square feet of net absorption for the current quarter.

This indicates a decline from the previous quarter’s positive 41,973 square feet of net absorption, and an improvement from the negative 81,862 square feet of net absorption from a year ago.

Overall, the submarket has experienced negative 31,171 square feet of net absorption for the current year-to-date period. The submarket’s current net absorption of negative 73,144 square feet compares favorably with the overall market net absorption of negative 163,090 square feet. • The submarket had zero completions for the current quarter, which indicates a decrease from the previous quarter’s completions of positive 3,000 square feet, and a decrease from the completions of positive 2,500 square feet from last year.

City Council
17 –
31 2/17/2026

Market Analysis

CBRE VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES 16 © 2025 CBRE, INC
• The submarket achieved average asking rent of $33.69 per square foot, which indicates a small decrease from the previous quarter’s asking rent of $33.71 per square foot, and an increase from the asking rent of $33.36 per square foot from last year. The submarket’s current asking rent of $33.69 per square foot is below the overall market asking rent of $39.17 per square foot.

Submarket Inventory is projected to be 7,057,073 square feet at the end of the current year, which represents a small decrease from the previous year’s submarket inventory of 7,057,921 square feet .

Inventory for next year is projected to be 7,047,728 square feet, reflecting a small decrease from the current year.

City Council
17 –
32 2/17/2026

Market Analysis

Submarket occupancy is projected to be 95.0% at the end of the current year, which represents no change from the previous year’s submarket occupancy of 95.0%. Submarket occupancy for next year is projected to be 95.4%, reflecting an increase from the current year.

Net absorption in the submarket is projected to be negative 2,647 square feet at the end of the current year, reflecting an improvement from the previous year’s net absorption of negative 81,862 square feet . Net

City Council
17 –
33 2/17/2026

Market Analysis

CBRE VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES 18 © 2025 CBRE, INC
absorption for next year is projected to be positive 21,630 square feet, indicating an improvement from the current year.

The submarket is projected to achieve completions of negative 848 square feet at the end of the current year, which indicates a decline from the previous year’s completions of positive 2,500 square feet . The submarket is projecting completions of negative 9,345 square feet for next year, which indicates a decline from the current year.

City Council
17 –
34 2/17/2026

Market Analysis

The submarket is projected to achieve average asking of $34.11 per square foot at the end of the current year, which represents an increase from the previous year’s asking rent of $33.36 per square foot . The submarket is projected to achieve average asking rent of $35.27 per square foot , reflecting an increase from the current year.

As of Q2 2025, the average asking rent was reported at $ 33.69 per square foot per year which is a slight increase from $32.80 the year prior. For 2023, an increase of 3.53% was reported for asking rents and an increase of 3.73% was reported for 2024. An increase of 0. 67% is projected for 2025. While average asking rents have shown increases since 2023, this is tempered slightly by limited new completions reported in 2024. There w as 3,000 square feet of new retail space completed in Q1 2025, and no new completions in Q2 2025. Absorption was positive in Q1 2025, but negative in Q2 2025. Absorption was negative overall for 2024. While rental rates are seeing growth, this is tempered by the negative absorption rates. Occupancy rates have been relatively stable since the beginning of 2024. Overall, this indicates a relatively stable retail market.

City Council
17 –
35 2/17/2026

Highest and Best Use

In appraisal practice, the concept of highest and best use represents the premise upon which value is based. The four criteria the highest and best use must meet are:
• legally permissible;
• physically possible;
• financially feasible; and
• maximally productive.

The highest and best use analysis of the subject is discussed below.

The subject property is zoned C2, General Commercial, which allows a variety of retail and service uses and professional and administrative offices.

The subject is adequately served by utilities, and has an adequate shape and size, sufficient access, and other necessary attributes for development consistent with zoning . Existing structures on similar sites provides additional evidence for the physical possibility of development.

Potential uses of the site include retail or office uses. The determination of financial feasibility is dependent primarily on the relationship of supply and demand for the legally probable land uses versus the cost to create the uses. While there is a government office use on the south side of Walnut Street, there are no other office uses in the area. Additionally, there is no evidence of new office development in the subject area. There was evidence of new retail development along Bri stol Street northeas t of the subject.

Development of a retail use on the site is considered financially feasible.

The final test of highest and best use of the site as if vacant is that the use be maximally productive, yielding the highest return to the land. The highest and best use of the site, as vacant, would be to develop with a retail use.

City Council
17 –
36 2/17/2026

Land Value

Our sales research focused on transactions within the following parameters:
• Location: Within a 5-mile radius.
• Size: 5,000 square feet to 55,000 square feet. We initially searched for sites that are one -acre (43,560 square feet) and smaller, but limited data was found so we expanded our parameters. • Use: We focused our search on site with a similar commercial zoning designation. • Transaction Date: December 2023 to the present.

The following map and table summarize the comparable data used in the valuation of the subject site. A detailed description of each transaction is included in the addenda.

City Council
17 –
37 2/17/2026

Land Value

SUMMARY OF COMPARABLE LAND SALES
Interest Actual Sale Size Size Price
No. Property Location Type Date Transferred Zoning Price (Acres) (SF) Per SF 1 Redevelopment Site
421 South Bristol Street
Santa Ana, CA 92703
Sale Feb-25 Fee Simple Commercial (SP-1) $1,050,000 0.37 16,100 $65.22 2 Bristol Specific Plan Site
1421 N Bristol Street
Santa Ana, CA 92706
Sale Dec-24 Fee Simple SP-1 $878,000 0.30 13,016 $67.46 3 Vacant Site Zoned CL
2821 Bristol St
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Sale Aug-24 Fee Simple CL $1,100,000 0.43 18,881 $58.26 4 Commercial Land
2202 East 1st Street
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Sale Jan-24 Fee Simple Commercial (C-2) $3,345,500 1.30 56,628 $59.08 5 Near Future Harbor Mixed-Use
Transit Corridor
112 E. Camile Street
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Sale Dec-23 Fee Simple CSM - Commercial
South Main
$435,000 0.15 6,621 $65.70
Subject 1901 West Walnut Street
Santa Ana, CA 92703
--- --- C2, General
Commercial
--- 0.38 16,632 ---
1 Adjusted sale price for cash equivalency and/or development costs (where applicable) Compiled by CBRE
Transaction

Conditions of Sale/Financing
All sales were indicated to be cash-to-seller transactions or financed by a third party at market terms, and none appeared to occur under duress. As such, no adjustments for cash equivalency were necessary. In addition, the sales reflected arm’s length transactions; therefore, no adjustments for conditions of sale were warranted. Details of each of the comparable are located on the data sheets in the addenda of this report.

Market Conditions
Changes in the economic environment over time that affect the appreciation and depreciation of real estate.

Based on our analysis, which includes discussions with market participants, retail rental rates (for the improved market) saw increases in 2023 and 2024. Based on our discussions with market participants, land has not seen the same increases and values have been relatively stable since early 2025. We have utilized an upward adjustment of 2.5% annually from January 2023 through December 2024 and have held values stable from January 2025 to the present to account for market conditions.

Size
Considers the inverse relationship that often exists between parcel size and unit value. Comparable 4 is larger than the subject and warrants and upward adjustment. Comparable 5 is smaller than the subject and warrants a downward adjustment.

Shape
The subject property has a slightly irregular shape. Comparables 3 and 4 have long and narrow shapes that are considered inferior when compared to the subject property. Comparables 3 and 4 warrant upward adjustments.

City Council
17 –
38 2/17/2026

Land Value

CBRE VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES 23 © 2025 CBRE, INC
Corner/Access
The subject property has a corner orientation. Comparables 2, 3, 4, and 5 have interior orientation and are considered inferior when compared to the subject. Comparables 2, 3, 4, and 5 warrant upward adjustments.

Visibility/Frontage
The subject property is situated along a two secondary streets. Comparables 1, 2, and 4 have frontage along arterial streets and have superior visibility when compared to the subject. Comparables 1, 2, and 4 warrant downward adjustments.

Location
Market or submarket area influences on sale price; and surrounding land use influences. We have also considered asking rental rates in determining a location adjustment. Comparable 3 is located in Costa Mesa, which is considered superior when compared to the subject and warrants a downward adjustment.

Zoning/Density
Density of development and productivity of the land can be impacted by differences in land use regulations, although land may be similarly zoned. Comparable 3 has a commercial zoning designation that is more restrictive than the subject’s zoning designation. Comparable 3 warrants an upward adjustment.

Entitlements
Planning approvals in place at the time of sale. Comparable 4 sold with a completed EIR, which is superior to the subject and warrants a downward adjustment.

City Council
17 –
39 2/17/2026

Land Value

Based on our comparative analysis, the following chart summarizes the adjustments warranted to each comparable.

LAND SALES ADJUSTMENT GRID
Comparable Number 1 2 3 4 5 Subject
Transaction Type Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale ---
Transaction Date Feb-25 Dec-24 Aug-24 Jan-24 Dec-23 --- Interest Transferred Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Zoning Commercial (SP-1) SP-1 CL Commercial (C-2) CSM - Commercial South Main
C2, General
Commercial
Actual Sale Price $1,050,000 $878,000 $1,100,000 $3,345,500 $435,000 --- Adjusted Sale Price 1 $1,050,000 $878,000 $1,100,000 $3,345,500 $435,000 --- Size (Acres) 0.37 0.30 0.43 1.30 0.15 0.38
Size (SF) 16,100 13,016 18,881 56,628 6,621 16,632
Price Per SF $65.22 $67.46 $58.26 $59.08 $65.70 ---
Price ($ PSF) $65.22 $67.46 $58.26 $59.08 $65.70
Property Rights Conveyed 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Financing Terms 1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Conditions of Sale 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Market Conditions (Time) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Subtotal $65.22 $67.46 $58.26 $59.08 $65.70
Size -- -- -- Inferior Superior
Shape -- -- Inferior Inferior --
Corner/Access -- Inferior Inferior Inferior Inferior
Visibitlity/Frontage Superior Sig. Superior -- Superior -- Topography -- -- -- -- --
Location -- -- Superior -- --
Zoning/Density -- -- Inferior -- --
Entitlements -- -- -- Superior --
Overall Comparison Superior Superior Inferior Inferior Superior 1 Adjusted sale price for cash equivalency and/or development costs (where applicable) Compiled by CBRE

City Council
17 –
40 2/17/2026

Land Value

Based on the foregoing discussion of comparability, the market data and the subject property may be arrayed as follows:

Data No. Overall Comparison Time Adjusted Price/SF
2 Superior $67.46
5 Superior $65.70
1 Superior $65.22
-- SUBJECT --
4 Inferior $59.08
3 Inferior $58.26
Compiled by CBRE

LAND VALUE ARRAY

The preceding analysis indicates an overall value range for the subject of $58.26 to $67.46 per square foot.

Comparables 1 and 2 are superior primarily due to their superior visibility/frontage. Comparable 5 is superior as a result of its smaller size. Comparable 3 is considered inferior due to its long and narrow shape, interior orientation, and inferior zonin g. These factors are partially offset by tis superior location.

Comparable 4 is considered inferior as a result of its larger size, and inferior shape. These factors are partially offset by its superior visibility/frontage. We have bracketed the range of value for the subject between Comparable 4, which is inferior at $59.08 per square foot and Comparable 1, which is superior at $65.22 per square foot. Based on our analysis, we have concluded as follows:

CONCLUDED LAND VALUE
$ PSF Subject SF Total
$62.00 x 16,632 = $1,031,184
Rounded $1,030,000
Compiled by CBRE

City Council
17 –
41 2/17/2026

Reconciliation of Value

In the sales comparison approach, the subject is compared to similar properties that have been sold recently or for which listing prices or offers are known. The sales used in this analysis are considered highly comparable to the subject, and the required adjustments were based on reasonable and well -supported rationale. In addition, market participants are analyzing purchase prices on similar properties as they relate to available substitutes in the market. Therefore, the sales comparison approach is considered to provide a reliable value indication.

Based on the foregoing, the market value of the subject has been concluded as follows:

MARKET VALUE CONCLUSION
Appraisal Premise Interest Appraised Date of Value Value Conclusion Land Only Fee Simple Estate October 24, 2025 $1,030,000 Compiled by CBRE

City Council
17 –
42 2/17/2026

Assumptions and Limiting Conditions

1. CBRE, Inc. through its appraiser (collectively, “CBRE”) has inspected through reasonable observation the subject property. However, it is not possible or reasonably practicable to personally inspect conditions beneath the soil and the entire interior and e xterior of the improvements on the subject property. Therefore, no representation is made as to such matters.

2. The report, including its conclusions and any portion of such report (the “Report”), is as of the date set forth in the letter of transmittal and based upon the information, market, economic, and property conditions and projected levels of operation existing as of such date. The dollar amount of any conclusion as to value in the Report is based upon the purchasing power of the U.S. Dollar on such date. The Report is subject to change as a result of fluctuations in any of the foregoing. CBRE has no obligation to revise the Report to reflect any such fluctuations or other events or conditions which occur subsequent to such date.

3. Unless otherwise expressly noted in the Report, CBRE has assumed that:
(i) Title to the subject property is clear and marketable and that there are no recorded or unrecorded matters or exceptions to title that would adversely affect marketability or value. CBRE has not examined title records (including without limitation liens, encumbrances, easements, deed restrictions, and other conditions that may affect the title or use of the subject property) and makes no representations regarding title or its limitations on the use of the subject property. Insurance against financial loss t hat may arise out of defects in title should be sought from a qualified title insurance company.
(ii) Existing improvements on the subject property conform to applicable local, state, and federal building codes and ordinances, are structurally sound and seismically safe, and have been built and repaired in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices; all building systems (mechanical/electrical, HVAC, elevator, plumbing, etc.) are in good working order with no major deferred maintenance or repair required; and the roof and exterior are in good condition and free from intrusion by the elements. CBRE has not retained independent structural, mechanical, electrical, or civil engineers in connection with this appraisal and, therefore, makes no representations relative to the condition of improvements. CBRE appraisers are not engineers and are not qualified to judge matters of an engineering nature, and furthermore structural problems or building system problems may not be visible. It is expressly assumed that any purchaser would, as a precondition to closing a sale, obtain a satisfactory engineering report relative to the structural integrity of the property and the integrity of building systems.
(iii) Any proposed improvements, on or off -site, as well as any alterations or repairs considered will be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices. (iv) Hazardous materials are not present on the subject property. CBRE is not qualified to detect such substances.

The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea formaldehyde foam insulation, contaminated groundwater, mold, or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. (v) No mineral deposit or subsurface rights of value exist with respect to the subject property, whether gas, liquid, or solid, and no air or development rights of value may be transferred. CBRE has not considered any rights associated with extraction or exploration of any resources, unless otherwise expressly noted in the Report. (vi) There are no contemplated public initiatives, governmental development controls, rent controls, or changes in the present zoning ordinances or regulations governing use, density, or shape that would significantly affect the value of the subject property.
(vii) All required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents, or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or national government or private entity or organization have been or can be readily obtained or renewed for any use on which the Report is based.
(viii) The subject property is managed and operated in a prudent and competent manner, neither inefficiently, nor super-efficiently.
(ix) The subject property and its use, management, and operation are in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, laws, and restrictions, including without limitation environmental laws, seismic hazards, flight patterns, decibel levels/noise envelopes, fire hazards, hillside ordinances, density, allowable uses, building codes, permits, and licenses.
(x) The subject property is in full compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). CBRE is not qualified to assess the subject property’s compliance with the ADA, notwithstanding any discussion of possible readily achievable barrier removal construction items in the Report. (xi) All information regarding the areas and dimensions of the subject property furnished to CBRE are correct, and no encroachments exist. CBRE has neither undertaken any survey of the boundaries of the subject property, nor reviewed or confirmed the accuracy of any legal description of the subject property.

City Council
17 –
43 2/17/2026

Assumptions and Limiting Conditions

CBRE VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES 28 © 2025 CBRE, INC
Unless otherwise expressly noted in the Report, no issues regarding the foregoing were brought to CBRE’s attention, and CBRE has no knowledge of any such facts affecting the subject property. If any information inconsistent with any of the foregoing assump tions is discovered, such information could have a substantial negative impact on the Report and any conclusions stated therein. Accordingly, if any such information is subsequently made known to CBRE, CBRE reserves the right to amend the Report, which may include the conclusions of the Report. CBRE assumes no responsibility for any conditions regarding the foregoing, or for any expertise or knowledge required to discover them. Any user of the Report is urged to retain an expert in the applicable field(s) for information regarding such conditions.

4. CBRE has assumed that all documents, data and information furnished by or on behalf of the client, property owner or owner’s representative are accurate and correct, unless otherwise expressly noted in the Report. Such data and information include, without limitation, numerical street addresses, lot and block numbers, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers, land dimensions, square footage area of the land, dimensions of the improvements, gross building areas, net rentable areas, usable areas, unit count, room count, ren t schedules, income data, historical operating expenses, budgets, and related data. Any error in any of the above could have a substantial impact on the Report and any conclusions stated therein. Accordingly, if any such errors are subsequently made known to CBRE, CBRE reserves the right to amend the Report, which may include the conclusions of the Report. The client and intended user should carefully review all assumptions, data, relevant calculations, and conclusions of the Report and should immediately notify CBRE of any questions or errors within 30 days after the date of delivery of the Report.

5. CBRE assumes no responsibility (including any obligation to procure the same) for any documents, data or information not provided to CBRE, including, without limitation, any termite inspection, survey or occupancy permit.

6. All furnishings, equipment and business operations have been disregarded with only real property being considered in the Report, except as otherwise expressly stated and typically considered part of real property.

7. Any cash flows included in the analysis are forecasts of estimated future operating characteristics based upon the information and assumptions contained within the Report. Any projections of income, expenses and economic conditions utilized in the Report, including such cash flows, should be considered as only estimates of the expectations of future income and expenses as of the date of the Report and not predictions of the future. This Report has been prepared in good faith, based on CBRE's current anecdot al and evidence -based views of the commercial real estate market. Although CBRE believes its views reflect market conditions on the date of this Report, they are subject to significant uncertainties and contingencies, many of which are beyond CBRE's control.

In addition, many of CBRE's views are opinion and/or projections based on CBRE's subjective analyses of current market circumstances. Actual results are affected by a number of factors outside the control of CBRE, including without limitation fluctuating economic, market, and property conditions. Actual results may ultimately differ from these projections, and CBRE does not warrant any such projections. Further, other firms may have different opinions, projections and analyses, and actual market conditions in the future may cause CBRE's current views to later change or be incorrect. CBRE has no obligation to update its views herein if its opinions, projections, analyses or market circumstances later change.

8. The Report contains professional opinions and is expressly not intended to serve as any warranty, assurance or guarantee of any particular value of the subject property. Other appraisers may reach different conclusions as to the value of the subject proper ty. Furthermore, market value is highly related to exposure time, promotion effort, terms, motivation, and conclusions surrounding the offering of the subject property. The Report is for the sole purpose of providing the intended user with CBRE’s independe nt professional opinion of the value of the subject property as of the date of the Report. Accordingly, CBRE shall not be liable for any losses that arise from any investment or lending decision based upon the Report that the client, intended user, or any buyer, seller, investor, or landing institution may undertake related to the subject proper ty, and CBRE has not been compensated to assume any of these risks. Nothing contained in the Report shall be construed as any direct or indirect recommendation of CBRE to buy, sell, hold, or finance the subject property.

9. No opinion is expressed on matters which may require legal expertise or specialized investigation or knowledge including, but not limited to, environmental, social, and governance principles (“ESG”), beyond that customarily employed by real estate appraise rs. Any user of the Report is advised to retain experts in areas that fall outside the scope of the real estate appraisal profession for such matters.

10. CBRE assumes no responsibility for any costs or consequences arising due to the need, or the lack of need, for flood hazard insurance. An agent for the Federal Flood Insurance Program should be contacted to determine the actual need for Flood Hazard Insurance.

11. Acceptance or use of the Report constitutes full acceptance of these Assumptions and Limiting Conditions and any special assumptions set forth in the Report. It is the responsibility of the user of the Report to read in full, comprehend and thus become awa re of all such assumptions and limiting conditions. CBRE assumes no responsibility for any situation arising out of the user’s failure to become familiar with and understand the same.

12. The Report applies to the property as a whole only, and any pro ration or division of the title into fractional interests will invalidate such conclusions, unless the Report expressly assumes such pro ration or division of interests.

City Council
17 –
44 2/17/2026

Assumptions and Limiting Conditions

13. The allocations of the total value estimate in the Report between land and improvements apply only to the existing use of the subject property. The allocations of values for each of the land and improvements are not intended to be used with any other property or appraisal and are not valid for any such use.

14. The maps, plats, sketches, graphs, photographs, and exhibits included in this Report are for illustration purposes only and shall be utilized only to assist in visualizing matters discussed in the Report. No such items shall be removed, reproduced, or used apart from the Report.

15. The Report shall not be duplicated or provided to any unintended users in whole or in part without the written consent of CBRE, which consent CBRE may withhold in its sole discretion. Exempt from this restriction is duplication for the internal use of the intended user and its attorneys, accountants, or advisors for the sole benefit of the intended user. Also exempt from this restriction is transmission of the Report pursuant to any requirement of any court, governmental authority, or regulatory agency having jurisdiction over the intended user, provided that the Report and its contents shall not be published, in whole or in part, in any public document without the written consent of CBRE, which consent CBRE may withhold in its sole discretion. Finally, the Report shall not be made available to the public or otherwise used in any offering of the property or any security, as defined by applicable law. Any unintended user who may possess the Report is advised that it shall not rely upon the Report or its conclusions and that it should rely on its own appraisers, advisors and other consultants for any decision in connection with the subject property. CBRE shall have no liability or responsibility to any such unintended user.

City Council
17 –
45 2/17/2026

Addenda

City Council
17 –
46 2/17/2026

Addenda

CBRE VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES 31 © 2025 CBRE, INC
A

City Council
17 –
47 2/17/2026

Sale Land - Retail / Commercial No. 1
Property Name Redevelopment Site
Address 421 South Bristol Street
Santa Ana, CA 92703
County Orange
Govt./Tax ID 008-232-36 & -32
Area Measurement(NRA) 1,367.00
Land Area Net 0.370 ac/ 16,100 sf
Land Area Gross 0.440 ac/ 19,167 sf
Site Development Status Finished
Utilities All to Site
Maximum FAR N/A
Max Allow Bldg Units/Density N/A
Min Land Bldg Ratio N/A
Shape Rectangular
Primary Frontage 176 ft on South Bristol
Secondary Frontage 107 ft on West Myrtle
Topography Level, At Street Grade
Flood Zone Class Zone X (Shaded)
Flood Panel No./ Date 06059C0257J/ Dec 2009
Zoning Commercial (SP-1)
Entitlement Status None
Proposed Use or Development N/A
Transaction Details
Type Sale Primary Verification CoStar, Grand Deed, CoreLogic Interest Transferred Fee Simple Transaction Date 02/18/2025 Condition of Sale None Recording Date N/A
Recorded Buyer Han Properties, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company
Sale Price $1,050,000
Buyer Type N/A Financing Cash to Seller
Recorded Seller Bristol HC Dev Partners LLC, a California Limited Liability Company
Cash Equivalent $1,050,000
Marketing Time N/A Capital Adjustment $0
Listing Broker N/A % Interest Purchased 100%
Doc # 55843 Adjusted Price $1,050,000
Adjusted Price / ac and
/ sf
$2,840,909 / $65.22
Adjusted Price/ FAR N/A
Adjusted Price/ Unit N/A
Comments
This is the sale of a redevelopment site along South Bristol Street in Santa Ana. The site measures 16,100 net square feet and was improved with a small building measuring 1, 367 square feet at the time of sale. The site is zoned for commercial uses by the city of Santa Ana. The sale price was $1,050,000, or approximately $65 per net square foot. No brokers were involved in the sale. The buyer is a dentist who planned to develop their own dental office use to owner-occupy.

City Council
17 –
48 2/17/2026

Sale Land - Mixed-Use No. 2
Property Name Bristol Specific Plan Site
Address 1421 N Bristol Street
Santa Ana, CA 92706
County Orange
Govt./Tax ID 405-252-32
Area Measurement(NRA)
Land Area Net 0.299 ac/ 13,016 sf
Land Area Gross 0.299 ac/ 13,016 sf
Site Development Status Semi-Finished
Utilities To the site
Maximum FAR N/A
Max Allow Bldg Units/Density N/A
Min Land Bldg Ratio N/A
Shape Rectangular
Primary Frontage N/A
Secondary Frontage N/A
Topography Level, At Street Grade
Flood Zone Class Zone X (Shaded)
Flood Panel No./ Date 06059C0144J/ Dec 2009
Zoning SP-1
Entitlement Status None
Proposed Use or Development Retail
Transaction Details
Type Sale Primary Verification Listing Broker, Public Records, CoStar Interest Transferred Fee Simple Transaction Date 12/04/2024 Condition of Sale None Recording Date 12/11/2024
Recorded Buyer Bayrich Development Usa Llc Sale Price $878,000 Buyer Type N/A Financing Cash to Seller
Recorded Seller GONZALES ROBERT P & MELVA M Cash Equivalent $878,000 Marketing Time 8 Month(s) Capital Adjustment $0
Listing Broker Tom Papoulias/Coldwell Banker % Interest Purchased 100% Doc # 322337 Adjusted Price $878,000
Adjusted Price / ac and
/ sf
$2,938,420 / $67.46
Adjusted Price/ FAR N/A
Adjusted Price/ Unit N/A
Comments
This is a 0.3-acre retail site that is located along Bristol Street in Santa Ana. The site is semi-finished with curbs, gutters, partially graded and utilities at the street. The site is located in SP-1 specific plan which allows for primarily retail uses. The site was listed for $1,095,000 and sold for $878,000.

City Council
17 –
49 2/17/2026

Sale Land - Office No. 3
Property Name Vacant Site Zoned CL
Address 2821 Bristol St
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
County Orange
Govt./Tax ID 418-181-11
Area Measurement(NRA)
Land Area Net 0.433 ac/ 18,881 sf
Land Area Gross 0.433 ac/ 18,881 sf
Site Development Status Finished
Utilities At Street
Maximum FAR N/A
Max Allow Bldg Units/Density N/A
Min Land Bldg Ratio N/A
Shape Rectangular
Primary Frontage N/A
Secondary Frontage N/A
Topography Generally Level
Flood Zone Class Zone X (Unshaded)
Flood Panel No./ Date 06059C0267J/ Dec 2009
Zoning CL
Entitlement Status N/A
Proposed Use or Development Parking lot
Transaction Details
Type Sale Primary Verification Listing Broker, Public records, Grant Deed
Interest Transferred Fee Simple Transaction Date 08/14/2024 Condition of Sale Normal Recording Date 08/27/2024
Recorded Buyer 2821 Bristol Site LLC Sale Price $1,100,000 Buyer Type Private Investor Financing N/A
Recorded Seller GS BUILDING LP Cash Equivalent $1,100,000 Marketing Time 2 Month(s) Capital Adjustment $0
Listing Broker Matthew Wenzel, Marcus Millichap % Interest Purchased 100% Doc # 221121 Adjusted Price $1,100,000
Adjusted Price / ac and
/ sf
$2,538,071 / $58.26
Adjusted Price/ FAR N/A
Adjusted Price/ Unit N/A
Comments
A private individual sold this 0.43 acre lot to another private individual for $1,100,000 or $2,538,071.07 per acre. The property is zoned Commercial Limited which allows for light industrial and commercial uses. The site a narrow rectangular shape with a width of 50 feet and a depth of approximately 375 feet and is currently asphalt paved and utilized as a parking lot and the buyer does not currently have set plans for development. The property was on the market for 76 days with an original asking price of $1,200,000. The buyer did not utilize financing for the purchase.

City Council
17 –
50 2/17/2026

Sale Land - Retail / Commercial No. 4
Property Name Commercial Land
Address 2202 East 1st Street
Santa Ana, CA 92705
County Orange
Govt./Tax ID 402-181-04
Area Measurement(NRA)
Land Area Net 1.300 ac/ 56,628 sf
Land Area Gross 1.300 ac/ 56,628 sf
Site Development Status Finished
Utilities At site
Maximum FAR N/A
Max Allow Bldg Units/Density 188 / 144.62
Min Land Bldg Ratio N/A
Shape Irregular
Primary Frontage 140 ft on First
Secondary Frontage N/A
Topography Level, At Street Grade
Flood Zone Class Zone X (Unshaded)
Flood Panel No./ Date 06059C0277J/ Dec 2009
Zoning Commercial (C-2)
Entitlement Status EIR Complete
Proposed Use or Development Senior Housing & Care
Transaction Details
Type Sale Primary Verification Deed/CoStar
Interest Transferred Fee Simple Transaction Date 01/30/2024 Condition of Sale None Recording Date 01/24/2024
Recorded Buyer AMG & Associates, LLC Sale Price $3,345,500 Buyer Type Developer Financing Cash to Seller
Recorded Seller Executive Car Leasing Company Cash Equivalent $3,345,500 Marketing Time N/A Capital Adjustment $0
Listing Broker N.A. % Interest Purchased 100%
Doc # 24-21264 Adjusted Price $3,345,500
Adjusted Price / ac and
/ sf
$2,573,462 / $59.08
Adjusted Price/ FAR N/A
Adjusted Price/ Unit $17,795
Comments
This is a 1.3-acre commercial site located along 1st Street in Santa Ana. The site is a deep and narrow lot, formerly used as a a car leasing lot, adjacent to a recently constructed senior housing development. The site is zoned C2 - Commercial and has direct access from East 1st Street. On January 22, 2024, the property sold for $3,345,500 or $59/site sf to a developer. Per public records, the planned development of the site is a senior living facility. No special conditions were noted.

City Council
17 –
51 2/17/2026

Sale Land - Retail / Commercial No. 5
Property Name Near Future Harbor Mixed-Use Transit
Corridor
Address 112 E. Camile Street
Santa Ana, CA 92701
County Orange County
Govt./Tax ID 404-101-13
Area Measurement(NRA) 6,621.00
Land Area Net 0.152 ac/ 6,621 sf
Land Area Gross 0.152 ac/ 6,621 sf
Site Development Status Semi-Finished
Utilities To the Site
Maximum FAR N/A
Max Allow Bldg Units/Density N/A
Min Land Bldg Ratio N/A
Shape Rectangular
Primary Frontage N/A
Secondary Frontage N/A
Topography Level, At Street Grade
Flood Zone Class Zone X (Unshaded)
Flood Panel No./ Date 06059C0276J/ Dec 2009
Zoning CSM - Commercial South Main
Entitlement Status None
Proposed Use or Development N/A
Transaction Details
Type Sale Primary Verification Listing Broker
Interest Transferred Fee Simple Transaction Date 12/15/2023 Condition of Sale None Recording Date 12/15/2023
Recorded Buyer N/Av. Sale Price $435,000
Buyer Type End User Financing Market Rate Financing
Recorded Seller Raman Rampal Cash Equivalent $435,000
Marketing Time 1 Month(s) Capital Adjustment $0
Listing Broker Thomas Kadar - Keller Williams Costa Mesa, (949) 933-0488, [email protected]
% Interest Purchased 100%
Doc # N/Av. Adjusted Price $435,000
Adjusted Price / ac and
/ sf
$2,861,842 / $65.70
Adjusted Price/ FAR N/A
Adjusted Price/ Unit N/A
Comments
The sale is of a commercial lot consisting of 6,534 SF (0.15 acres), located mid-block along E. Camile Street within Santa Ana, near future harbor mixed-use transit corridor. The property is concrete paved and improved with a small building (875 SF) in the rear. The lot is gated with surrounding uses consisting of single- and multi-family developments and is zoned CSM - Commercial South Main. On December 15, 2023, the property sold for $435,000 or $66.57/SF of land to an owner/user. No special conditions were noted.

City Council
17 –
52 2/17/2026

Addenda

CBRE VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES 32 © 2025 CBRE, INC
B

City Council
17 –
53 2/17/2026

PROFILES

VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES
Executive Vice President
Woodland Hills, CA
T +1 818 251 3669
E [email protected]
Professional Experience

Beth B. Finestone, MAI, AI-GRS, FRICS, CRE, is an Executive Vice President for CBRE's Valuation & Advisory Services (VAS). She has been appraising in Southern California since 1981, specializing in valuation and consulting services related to public agency and right-of-way clients and for major investment-grade commercial properties and special purpose properties. She also has extensive expertise in valuing large tracts of land for conservation, mitigation and other purposes.

Ms. Finestone’s clients include public agencies, right-of-way firms, lenders, institutional investors, major corporations, law firms, and individual property owners. Her services include a wide range of specialized studies including ground lease rent studies, partial interest acquisitions, value diminution (from both internal and external influences), market demand, feasibility, severance damages and project benefits, investment analysis, assessment allocation, reuse analysis, and the valuation of partial interests including leasehold, leased fee, possessory interests, and minority interests.

She is experienced in valuing full and partial acquisitions related to eminent domain actions. These services include the valuation of fee acquisitions, permanent and temporary easements, including the appraisal of railroad and other types of corridors, pipeline easements and transmission line easements.

She has been a featured speaker at Appraisal Institute, International Right of Way, and legal functions. She was the 2019 President of the Southern California Chapter of the Appraisal Institute, the largest chapter in the country.

Beth was previously a Managing Director for and a principal of Integra Realty Resources – Los Angeles. In addition, she was the Executive Director of Integra Realty Resources – Orange County. During her career, she has held senior positions with Finestone & Associates and Cushman & Wakefield.

‒ Member: Appraisal Institute
‒ Designation: Appraisal Institute –
General Review Specialist (AI-GRS)
‒ Fellow: Royal Institution of
Chartered Surveyors
‒ Member: The Counselors of Real
Estate
‒ Member: International Right of Way
Association
‒ License: California State Certified
General Real Estate Appraiser
‒ Certified: Uniform Appraisal
Standards for Federal Land
Acquisitions (Yellow Book)
‒ M.B.A., Pepperdine University
‒ B.S., Kinesiology, University of
California, Los Angeles
‒ Certified by the Appraisal
Institute’s program of continuing
education for its designated
members.

City Council
17 –
54 2/17/2026

PROFILES
Recognition
 Los Angeles Business Journal 2009 Nominee for Executive of the Year – Women Making a Difference, May 2009  Designated one of Real Estate Southern California’s 2006 Women of Influence, October 2006
Seminar Presentations
 Corridors, Crops & Condemnation (IRWA National Conference in San Diego, June 2015)  Eminent Domain Appraisals: Pitfalls & Value-Added Services (RICS – Southern California Chapter, CPD Presentation, April 16, 2015)
 Government Buildings (Appraisal Institute, Special Purposes Seminar, July 15, 2014)  The Trouble with Ignoring Building Code Violators (SCCAI 43 rd Annual Litigation Seminar, Moderator, November 15, 2013)
 Conflicting Mandates & Instructions Between USPAP, Yellow Book, & Caltrans Appraisal Guidelines (IRWA Annual Valuation Seminar, April 24, 2012)
 Current Issues in Real Estate Appraisal (Lorman Education Services, live audio conference, March 8, 2012)  The Role of the Appraiser in Construction Defect Litigation: Measuring Damages from Construction Defects (MCLE- approved presentation, January 11, 2012, March 4, 2010, and February 10, 2010) Expert Testimony
Ms. Finestone has qualified as an expert witness in real estate matters and has testified before:
 Superior Courts: Los Angeles and Orange Counties
 Arbitration Hearings: Los Angeles County
 Tax Appeal Boards: Los Angeles and San Diego Counties Representative Appraisal Assignments
 Appraisal of 50+ single-family residences (SFRs) impacted by the I-405 Widening Project in Costa Mesa. The acquisitions all involve temporary construction easements (TCEs). This assignment required an analysis of temporary severance damages due to impacts to rear yards as well as a valuation of all site improvements in the TCE areas.

Appraisal of 50+ commercial properties impacted by various types of partial acquisitions related to the I-405. Some of the appraisals were extremely complex with significant severance damage studies required.  Multiple appraisal assignments for LACMTA included:
 Appraisal of a 1.25-acre parcel improved with a Class A, 12-story, medical office building constructed circa 1962, an adjacent one-story bank building and an attached four-story parking structure known as the Westwood Medical Plaza. It is located along the proposed Purple Line Subway Extension Project Corridor, specifically on the northeast corner of Wilshire Boulevard and Westwood Boulevard in the Westwood neighborhood within the City of Los Angeles. As part of this project, LACMTA is seeking acquire various permanent and temporary property interests, and to relocate existing tenants within the subject property. The purpose of this appraisal was to estimate the fair market value of the property interests (Parts Taken) to be acquired from the Larger Parcel and to make a determination as to the impact of the proposed acquisitions on the Remainder Parcel.
 Appraisal of Wilshire Federal Building: Appraisal of a deep tunnel easement on the Wilshire frontage of the Federal Building as part of LACMTA’s Purple Line extension. Consideration was given to the redevelopment potential of the site and the benefits to the remainder, as well as to the value of the parts taken.  Appraisal involving the valuation of partial acquisitions impacting the Westfield Mall in Century City as part of LACMTA’s Purple Line extension. This assignment was challenging with respect to valuing the underlying land associated with the larger parcel. The property is unique due to its location and its size. Complexities involved determining the number of trips allocated to the site as this in part drives land value. Again, consideration was given to damages and benefits, as well as to the value of the parts taken.

City Council
17 –
55 2/17/2026

PROFILES
 Appraisal of numerous surface and subsurface acquisitions were required on the Veteran’s Administration property for the construction of a subway station and tunnel easements for LACMTA’s Purple Line. Significant research was required relative to the VA specific plan and the highest and best use of the property. Consideration was given to damages and project benefits as well as the value of the parts acquired.  Appraisal of 50± miles of pipeline easement running through UPRR and BNSF rail corridors in Urban Los Angeles.  Multiple appraisal assignments for RCTC included:
 Appraisal of parcels under more than 50 separate ownerships affected by acquisitions and easements for the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project through the City of Corona. The complete summary appraisal reports and appraisal summary statements included a valuation of the properties in the before and after condition. Some of the properties had significant severance damage analyses due to loss of building improvements, parking, loading, etc.  City of Riverside 69 kV Electrical Transmission Line Project: Initially valued 22 residential and commercial properties in the City of Riverside. These properties all had a three-foot-wide partial taking along their frontage to accommodate the construction of a 69 kV transmission line. This represented Phase One of this assignment. Phase Two involved the partial taking of land over seven properties owned by UCR for the construction of a transmission line. The final phase involved approximately 100 properties of various types which were impacted by partial acquisitions for the construction of a transmission line. The final phase involved approximately 90 properties of various types which will be impacted by partial takes for the construction of a transmission line.
 Appraisal of in excess of 75 private properties on behalf of CHSRA. The property types included agricultural, commercial and residential. Most of the appraisals involved partial acquisitions. In addition, Ms. Finestone completed the appraisal of over 50 railroad corridor properties in conjunction with the high-speed rail project.  Appraisal of the Del Mar Fairgrounds, Racetrack, and Horsepark (450 acres of land and over 1,000,000 square feet in improvements) for the California Department of General Services.  Completed an appraisal of a property that represents one of the largest parcels of undeveloped and unprotected coastal property in Southern California (Banning Ranch). Much of the site had been occupied by oil operations since the 1940’s.

The appraisal of this property was very complex in that the highest and best use of the property was not clear at the onset of the assignment. This property consists of degraded wetlands, open space, and a small area with the potential for residential development. The goal of this project was to prepare an appraisal for acquisition purposes such that the buyer and seller could agree on a purchase price and put the property under contract.  West Coyote Hills: Appraised Neighborhoods 1 and 3 of Vested Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 17609. This is commonly referred to as Neighborhoods 1 and 3 of the West Coyotes Hills Property. Neighborhood 1 consists of 10.4± acres and was proposed for development with 16 residential units. Neighborhood 3 is 13.7± acres and was proposed for development with 59 residential units. Neighborhoods 1 and 3 were valued separately. The intended users of the report were the California State Coastal Conservancy, City of Fullerton, Wildlife Conservation Board, Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Natural Resources Agency, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. This report was prepared to Federal Standards in conformance with Yellow Book guidelines and the acquisition was made based on our appraisal.
 Appraisal in Fresno County for the State Department of Water Resources, which included 22 permanent flowage easements and three partial fee acquisitions. Some of the proposed flowage easements overlapped existing road and utility easements which had to be considered. Due to the nature of the flowage easements, substantial severance damages accrued to the remainder parcels which had to be considered. This assignment also included the consideration of orchard and crop values.
 Multiple appraisal assignments for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Appraisal and Valuation Services Office (AVSO) prepared to Federal Standards in accordance with Yellow Book guidelines. These were for acquisition purposes related to the San Joaquin River Restoration Project and for the acquisition land to be acquired for National Wilderness areas.

City Council
17 –
56 2/17/2026

PROFILES

VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES
Vice President, Woodland Hills, CA
E [email protected]
Professional Experience
Nicole Galvez is a Vice President for CBRE’s Valuation & Advisory Services (VAS). Ms.

Galvez began her career in real estate appraisal in 2014.

Her services rendered include appraisal report preparation for vacant land, residential, commercial, industrial, and other income producing properties for institutional and acquisition purposes, partial acquisition valuation, including determination of severance damages and/or benefits for public projects, and preparation of cost studies for budget purposes involving public projects. Types of projects appraised include street widening, freeway, pipeline, and flood control.

Ms. Galvez is experienced in preparing appraisal reports that are compliant with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions. She has extensive experience in valuing large tracts of land for conservation, mitigation, and other purposes. Nicole previously was a Senior Analyst for Integra Realty Resources – Los Angeles.

Courses Completed
Completed the following Appraisal Institute courses:
‒ Basic Appraisal Principles
‒ Basic Appraisal Procedures
‒ National Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice ‒ Real Estate Finance, Statistics, and Valuation Modeling ‒ Business Practices and Ethics
‒ General Appraiser Sales Comparison Approach
‒ General Appraiser Site Valuation and Cost Approach
‒ General Appraiser Income Capitalization Approach, Part I ‒ General Appraiser Income Capitalization Approach, Part II ‒ Advanced Income Capitalization
‒ General Appraiser Report Writing and Case Studies
Completed the following International Right of Way Association courses:
‒ Ethics and the Right of Way Profession
‒ Easement Valuation
‒ Principles of Real Estate Engineering
‒ The Valuation of Partial Acquisitions

‒ Licensed: California Certified
General Real Estate Appraiser
No. 3005597
‒ Member: Appraisal Institute,
Southern California Chapter
‒ Member: International Right of
Way Association
‒ M.B.A., University of Phoenix
‒ B.A., Business Administration,
California State University,
Northridge

City Council
17 –
57 2/17/2026

CBRE Valuation & Advisory Services

Delivering more than just a number
At CBRE, we offer more than expert appraisal services, we consult and advise to help you see the full picture of a property or portfolio.

Valuation & Appraisal
Understand all aspects of value
− Lending & Debt Valuations
− Portfolio Valuations
− Institutional Fund Valuations
− Litigation Support & Testimony
− Right-of-Way & Eminent Domain
− Evaluations/Alternative Valuations

Assessment & Consulting
Understand all aspects of value
− Property Condition Assessments
− Environmental Site Assessments
− Land Surveying
− Seismic Risk Analysis
− Radon, Asbestos, Indoor Air Quality
− Zoning Reports & Compliance

Property & Transaction Tax
Understand all aspects of value
− Assessment Reviews & Appeals
− Real Estate Transaction Tax
− Property Tax Payment Services
− Pre-Acquisition Due Diligence
− Pre-Construction Due Diligence
− Budgeting & Accruals

Quality You Can Count On
Reliable valuations depend on accurate insights. Our quality and risk management (QRM) framework ensures the highest-quality reports and analyses, giving you confidence in our calculations.

Upfront conflict and
qualification checks

Embedded risk detection
and leadership reviews

Landmark training, practice
guidelines and governance

Dedicated, global team
of QRM experts

Industry-leading people, data and technologies

Experience You Can Trust

CBRE is the global leader in commercial real estate services, with more than 100 years of industry experience. We provide unmatched market coverage and sector expertise across every dimension of

90+
U.S. Valuation Offices
80K+
U.S. Yearly Assignments
600k+
Global Yearly Assignments
200+
Global Valuation Offices

cbre.com/appraisal cbre.com/assessment cbre.com/propertytax

City Council
17 –
58 2/17/2026

THRIVE Santa Ana, Inc.

Community Land Trust
1907 West Walnut Street, Unit 100
Santa Ana, CA 92703
thrivesantaana.org
December 3, 2025

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Attn: Mike Garcia
Economic Development Agency
Re: 1901 W Walnut Street
Dear City of Santa Ana, Staff and Council,
Thank you for providing the appraisal of the property. Per the City’s letter and appraisal (attached for reference), the appraised value of the property is $1,030,000. The state grant that THRIVE will be using provides $852,000 for the acquisition of this property. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 53038, THRIVE is requesting an economic development subsidy of $178,000, equivalent to the difference between the appraised value of the property and the grant amount. In other words, THRIVE would acquire the property from the City for $852,000, which is below market value.

We believe this subsidy would result in a tremendously positive fiscal impact for the City. The City would generate $852,0001 in unrestricted revenue directly to the General Fund, whereas under the current ground lease the City would only generate $1,152 over the next 96 years.

Furthermore, the proposed purchase would support the City’s commitment to community land trust strategies in Santa Ana. When the original Disposition and Development Agreement was approved, the City supported an Option to Purchase, such that THRIVE could fully acquire the site and grow the community land trust. This, in turn, builds capacity for affordable and community-led economic development in the future.

La Colmena has already proven to revitalize a vacant, City-owned property into a vibrant community hub that improves the safety and quality of life of the surrounding neighborhood.

The project has already generated at least 3 full-time jobs, 5 part-time jobs, and more than 30 temporary jobs throughout the duration of construction. THRIVE anticipates at least 10 part time jobs and many local contracts will be created as a result of the project over the next 5 years. 1 Minus cost of appraisal, and any closing costs.

EXHIBIT 3

City Council
17 –
59 2/17/2026

We believe the above described fiscal impact to the City and economic development through job creation

not

only

justify

the

subsidy,

but

will

also

have

positive,

compounding

benefits

the

local

community.

the

City

has

any

questions

alternative

suggestions,

THRIVE

readily

available

discuss.

Thank you for your consideration, Luis Sarmiento THRIVE Santa Ana (714)987-2009 c (714)425-5562

City Council
17 –
60 2/17/2026

E
conomic Development Subsidy Report
Pursuant to Government Code Section 53083
For the Sale of City Property to THRIVE Santa Ana, Inc.

P
ursuant to Government Code Section 53083, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana must hold a noticed public hearing and, prior to the public hearing, provide all of the following information in written form and available to the public through the City’s website regarding a proposed economic development subsidy provided by the City pursuant to sale of city-owned property at 1901 W. Walnut Street, Santa Ana, CA 92703, with THRIVE Santa Ana, Inc. Notice was published on February 2, 2026 for a Public Hearing to be held on February 17, 2026.

T
he purpose of this report is to provide the information required pursuant to Government Code Section 53083 in regards to the Purchase and Sale Agreement. This report shall remain available to the public and posted on the City’s website until the end date of the economic development subsidy, as further described in number 2 below. (1
) The name and address of all corporations or any other business entities, except for sole proprietorships, that are the beneficiary of the economic development subsidy, if applicable.

T
he Agreement is with THRIVE Santa Ana, Inc., a 501(c)(3) tax exempt California Public Benefit Corporation.

T
HRIVE Santa Ana, Inc.

P.O. Box 1935
Santa Ana, CA 92702
(2
) The start and end dates and schedule, if applicable, for the economic development subsidy.

U
pon City Council approval of the Purchase and Sale agreement, the start date for the subsidy will commence on February 17, 2026 upon execution of the agreement. (3
) A description of the economic development subsidy, including the estimated total amount of the expenditure of public funds by, or of revenue lost to, the local agency as a result of the economic development subsidy.

T
he economic development subsidy is in the form of accepting a below market value offer to purchase city -owned property at 1901 W. Walnut Street, Santa Ana, CA, 92703. The fair market value of the property based on an appraisal was $1,030,000.

The City Council approved accept ed purchase price was $852 ,000. The estimated amount of lost revenue is $178,000.

N
o expenditure of public funds is anticipated by this agreement.

EXHIBIT 4

City Council
17 –
61 2/17/2026

(4
) A statement of the public purposes for the economic development subsidy.

T
he property at 1901 W Walnut has been vacant for over 12 years. Development of the site as a microfarm brings positive community benefits to the area that include: 1) making organic produce and other healthy options more available in the local neighborhood, 2) implementing a membership- based model to provide monthly baskets of vegetables, fruit and other garden products to members at a low cost, 3) creating worker cooperative jobs, 4) encouraging participation from local residents which can contribute to the local neighborhood economy, civic engagement, and prevention of costly health conditions including obesity and mental health illnesses. (5
) Projected tax revenue to the local agency as a result of the economic development subsidy.

P
roperty tax revenue to the City is anticipated to be approximately $1, 500 per year.

No sales tax revenue would be generated as a result of the economic development subsidy as the sales for a microfarm with organic produce would not be subject to sales tax.
(6
) Estimated number of jobs created by the economic development subsidy, broken down by full-time, part-time, and temporary positions.

T
he microfarm has created 5 full-time jobs, 10 part-time jobs, and 30 temporary positions during construction. THRIVE estimates that at least 10 new part time jobs and many local contracts will be created as a result of the project over the next 5 years.

City Council
17 –
62 2/17/2026

EXHIBIT 5

City Council
17 –
63 2/17/2026

PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
THIS PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this 17th day of February, 2026 (“Effective Date”), by and between THRIVE Santa Ana, INC., a California nonprofit public benefit corporation ( “Buyer”), and the CITY OF SANTA ANA, a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California (“Seller” or “City”). As used herein, Buyer and Seller may be referred to collectively as the “Parties,” and each individually as a “Party.”

RECITALS
A. Seller is the fee simple owner of that certain real property consisting of approximately 16,558 square feet (0.38 acre) property at 1901 West Walnut Street, Santa Ana, California, 92703 (APN 007-332-08) with improvements including a micro-farm, legally described in Exhibit “A” attached to this Agreement and incorporated into this Agreement in its entirety by this reference, (the “Property”).

B. On October 17, 2025, Buyer exercised its option to purchase pursuant to a Ground Lease between the Parties dated December 15, 2022 (#A-2020-044-01) and submitted a Letter of Intent to Seller.

C. On November 8, 202 5, Seller published a notice, that was available for public comment, that it intended to declare the Property exempt surplus land, within the meaning of the California Surplus Land Act (“SLA”), pursuant to Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(B). On December 19, 2025, the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) issued a Surplus Land Act Findings Letter indicating the Property qualifies as “exempt surplus land” under Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(B).

D. The Seller has agreed to issue Buyer an economic development subsidy in the amount of $178,000 (“ Economic Development Subsidy”) as part of the sale of the Property to Buyer. On February 17, 2026, the City made available to the public a document titled “Economic Development Subsidy Report Pursuant to Government Code Section 5 3083 for the Sale of City Property to THRIVE Santa Ana, Inc” (“Subsidy Report”). The Subsidy Report contained all the information required per Government Code Section 53083(a). The Seller provided public notice and a hearing was held February 17, 2026 regarding the Economic Development Subsidy.

E. Seller now desires to sell the Property to Buyer, and Buyer desires to purchase the Property from Seller in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement at fair market value which includes the Economic Development Subsidy.

F. It is Buyer’s intent to continue to operate the Property as a micro-farm (“Project”) which includes the following current and projected Project Description and Project Benefits.

1. Project Description: Operation of a community micro-farm and related activities, including, but not limited to, production and distribution of fresh vegetables, flowers, other ornamentals, and fruit, also hosting weekly open -air markets and community activities that promote health. The site will include r aised garden beds, a work area, produce pick -up counter, EXHIBIT 6

City Council
17 –
64 2/17/2026

-2-

and lunch tables. An on-site parking lot will be used on weekends as an open-air market area. The micro-farm will host community workshops and events in line with the mission of Buyer.

2. Project Benefits: The operation of a micro-farm on the Property brings positive community benefits to the area that include: 1) making organic produce and other healthy options more available in the local neighborhood, 2) implementing a membership-based model to provide monthly baskets of vegetables, fruit and other garden products to members at a low cost, 3) creating worker cooperative jobs, 4) encouraging participation from local residents which can contribute to the local neighborhood economy, civic engagement, and prevention of costly health conditions including obesity and mental health illnesses.

G. Buyer desires to purchase and Seller desires to sell to Buyer the Property, subject to the terms of this Agreement.

AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing Recitals and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows:

1. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals of fact set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Agreement in their entirety by this reference.

2. Purchase and Sale; Purchase Price.

2.1 Purchase and Sale. Seller shall sell the Property to Bu yer and Buyer shall purchase the Property from Seller subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.

2.2 Purchase Price. The purchase price of the Property is One Million Thirty Thousand Dollars ($ 1,030,000), which amount was established as the fair market value. The purchase price is comprised as follows:

2.2.1 Economic Development Subsidy . The Seller has agreed to issue Buyer the Economic Development Subsidy in the amount of One Hundred Seventy -Eight Thousand Dollars ( $178,000), pursuant to Paragraph D of the Recitals . This will operate as a credit to Buyer by Seller.

2.2.2 Purchase Price Balance. The balance of the purchase price, less the Initial Deposit and Economic Development Subsidy, in the amount of Eight Hundred Fifty -Two Thousand Dollars ($852,000) shall be paid by Buyer.

3. Escrow.

3.1 Escrow Instructions . Within three (3) business days following the full execution of this Agreement by the Parties, Buyer will open an escrow ( “Escrow”) with First American Title Insurance Company, 18500 Von Kar man, Suite 600, Irvine, CA 92612, Attn:
_____________ (“Escrow Holder”) for the purchase and sale of the Property. The “Opening of Escrow” shall mean the date on which a fully executed copy of this Agreement has been delivered

City Council
17 –
65 2/17/2026

-3-

to Escrow Holder. Escrow Holder shall confirm the Opening of Escrow to the Parties in writing.

This Agreement constitutes joint escrow instructions to Escrow Holder. The Parties agree to execute such additional instructions consistent with the provisions of this Agreement, which may be required by Escrow Holder. As between the Parties, Buyer and Seller agree that, if there is any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and any Escrow Instructions required by Escrow Holder, the terms of this Agreement shall control. Buyer and Seller shall each furnish Escrow Holder with their respective Federal Tax Identification Numbers and such other information as i s reasonably required by Escrow Holder.

3.2 Payment of Purchase Price . The Purchase Price for the Property shall be payable at Closing . If Seller has deposited into Escrow all documents and amounts required of Seller to close Escrow, including without limitation, the “Grant Deed” (as defined in Section 3.10 below) and complied with all of Seller’s other obligations under this Agreement, then on or before the “Closing Date” (as defined Section 3.3 below) so as not to delay the “Close of Escrow” (as defined Section 3.3 below), Buyer shall deposit into Escrow the following in Acceptable Funds:
(a) the balance of the Purchase Price (Purchase Price less any credits to Buyer under this Agreement) and (b) the Escrow closing costs pursuant to the preliminary Escrow Closing statement furnished by Escrow Holder as provided below.

3.3 Close of Escrow. Subject to Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2, Escrow for the sale of the Property shall close on a date that is no later than April 30, 2026 after the opening of Escrow (“Closing Date”), subject to reasonable extension as necessary in order to satisfy the conditions precedent and other requirements for the Close of Escrow. As used in this Agreement, “Close of Escrow” shall mean the date on -which the “Grant Deed” conveying fee title to the Property to Buyer is recorded in the Orange County Recorder’s Office.

3.3.1 Conditions Precedent to B uyer Obligation to Close . Buyer’s obligation to close Escrow and purchase the Property is expressly conditioned on the satisfaction of the conditions liste d in this Section 3.3.1. If any such condition is not satisfied or waived by Buyer at or prior to the Close of Escrow, for any reason other than a default by Buyer, Buyer may, in its sole discretion and without limiting any of Buyer ’s legal remedies or re medies under this Agreement, terminate this Agreement by written notice to Seller. (1) Title Policy. Escrow Holder has issued or is irrevocably committed to issue to Buyer the “Title Policy” (as defined in Section 3.6 below) showing fee title vested in Buyer subject only to “Permitted Exceptions” (as defined in Section 3.5 below). (2) Representations and Warranties . Each of Seller ’s representations and warranties in this Agreement are materially true and accurate as of the Close of Escrow.
(3) Seller Obligations. Seller is not in material default under this Agreement and each material obligation of Seller to be performed prior to the Close of Escrow, has been performed as required, including, without limitation the delivery of all documents required of Seller under this Agreement.

City Council
17 –
66 2/17/2026

-4-
(4) Possession. Seller is able, at the Close of Escrow to deliver exclusive possession of the Property to Buyer in accordance with this Agreement and does so. (5) Moratoria. There shall be no action taken by any city, county or other public authority or agency ( “Governmental Authority”) or any vote of the citizens of the local jurisdiction (including without limitation any moratoria) that would preclude, prevent, or delay Buyer from obtaining building permits, sewer permits, w ater permits, certificates of occupancy or other development or occupancy entitlements for the Project to be constructed on the Property ( “Public Development Limitation ”); provided that the Buyer ’s inability to obtain approval of entitlements for the Proje ct prior to the Closing Date for reasons other than the occurrence of a Public Development Limitation, shall not be viewed as a failure of this condition. (6) Legal Subdivision. The Property shall be a legal parcel or parcels under the California Subdivision Map Act that can be transferred by Seller to Buyer.

3.3.2 Conditions Precedent to Seller Obligation to Close . Seller’s obligation to close Escrow and sell the Property is expressly conditioned upon the satisfaction of the conditions listed below. If any such condition is not satisfied or waived by Seller prior to the Close of Escrow for any reason other than a default by Seller, Seller may, in its sole discretion and without limiting any of Seller ’s legal remedies or remedies under this Agreement, terminate thi s Agreement by written notice to Buyer.
(1) Representations and Warranties . Each of Buyer ’s
representations and warranties set forth in this Agreement are materially true and accurate as of the Close of Escrow.
(2) Buyer’s Obligations. Buyer is not in material default under this Agreement, and each material obligation of Buyer to be performed prior to the Close of Escrow hereunder has been performed as required.

3.4 Escrow Cancellation.

3.4.1 Charges.
(1) Seller’s Default . If Escrow fails to close due to Seller ’s default, Seller shall pay all Escrow cancellation charges. “Escrow cancellation charges” means all fees, charges and expenses charged or passed on to the Parties by Escrow Holder, including all title expenses. Buyer shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement or bring an action against Seller for specific performance as its sole and exclusive remedies. (2) Buyer’s Default . If Escrow fails to close due to Buyer ’s default, Buyer shall pay all Escrow cancellation charges and Seller shall be en titled to terminate this Agreement or bring an action against Buyer for specific performance as its sole and exclusive remedies.
(3) No Default. If Escrow fails to close and this Agreement is terminated for any reason other than a default by one of the Partie s, Buyer and Seller shall split any Escrow cancellation charges.

City Council
17 –
67 2/17/2026

-5-

3.5 Permitted Exceptions to Title . As soon as reasonably possible after the Opening of Escrow, Escrow Holder shall cause First American Title Insurance Company, in its capacity as title insurer (“Title Company”), to deliver to Buyer and Seller a current preliminary title report (“Title Report”) together with legible copies of all underlying documents referenced therein (together with the Title Report, the “Title Documents ”). The term “Permitted Exceptions” as used in this Agreement shall mean all of the following: (a) the Grant Deed; (b) nondelinquent real property taxes and assessments; ( c) items and exceptions created by or with the written consent of Buyer, including documents to be recorded pursuant to this Agreement, and (d) the title exceptions shown on the Title Report but excluding any (i) “Disapproved Exceptions” as defined below that Seller, in its sole discretion, agrees to remove prior to the Close of Escrow as provided below and (ii ) all monetary liens and monetary encumbrances on the Property, other than non -delinquent real property taxes and assessments which will be removed (meaning removal from title and not the issuance of an endorsement in connection therewith by the Title Company) from title by Seller at its sole cost and expense prior to the Close of Escrow.

If Buyer objects to any title exceptions in its sole and absolute discretion (“Disapproved Exceptions”) Buyer shall deliver written notice (“Objection Notice”) of same to Seller within ten (10) business days of delivery of the initial Title Report to Buyer. Seller shall act in good faith and reasonably to resolve any title exception in the Objection Notice. If Buyer fails to deliver an Objection Notice but delivers a “Notice of Approval” Buyer shall be deemed to have approved title to the Property subject to the Permitted Exceptions. If Buyer delivers an Objection Notice regarding a title exception and Seller, by delivery of written notice to Buyer within five (5) business days following receipt of the Objection Notice elects not to remove a material Disapproved Exception (Seller’s failure to respond to a Buyer Objection Notice shall be deemed such an election) Buyer ’s sole remedies shall be with respect to the delivery of a Notice of Approval or delivery or deemed delivery of a Notice of Termination.

3.6 Title Insurance. Seller shall cause the Title Company to commit to issue to Buyer at the Close of Escrow a standard coverage ALTA Owner ‘ s policy of title insurance w ith mechanics lien endorsement (Seller shall provide, any indemnity or other agreement required by the Title Company as a condition to the issuance of the mechanics lien endorsement) ( “Title Policy”) insuring fee title to the Property vested in Buyer subject only to the Permitted Exceptions, with coverage in an amount equal to the Purchase Price. If Buyer requires an extended coverage ALTA Owners policy of title insurance Buyer shall pay the difference in cost between the standard and extended coverage and the cost of any endorsements (other than a mechanics lien endorsement issued in connection with the standard coverage Title Policy which shall be at the cost of Buyer) (“Buyer Title Costs”). Considering Seller is a City, Seller shall not be responsible for any costs related to the Title Policy or extended coverage (“Seller Title Costs”).

3.7 Possession. Seller shall deliver possession of the Property to Buyer at the Close of Escrow subject only to the Permitted Exceptions and free of any tenancies and/or thi rd party claims of use or ownership.

3.8 Taxes, Assessments and Prorations.

3.8.1 Taxes. Only t o the extent the Seller pays any property taxes or assessments on the Property, all current general and special taxes and assessments on the Property shall be prorated by Escrow Holder based upon the latest available information as shown in the

City Council
17 –
68 2/17/2026

-6-

tax statements provided to Escrow Holder by Seller, using customary escrow procedures in Orange County. Seller shall provide Buyer with written evidence of the payment or satisfaction of such taxes. Should the Property be part of a larger tax parcel ( “Assessment Parcel”) which as of the Close of Escrow remains unsegregated on the County Tax Assessor ’s Roll for the ensuing fiscal year, Escrow Holder shall charge Buyer and credit Seller for taxes and assessments allocated to the Property based on the percentage of the total acreage of the Assessment Parcel located on the Property, which acreage figures for allocation purposes shall be fairly and equitably determined and supplied to Escrow Holder by Buyer and Seller. Buyer and Seller shall cooperate in good faith to cause the Property to be separately assessed and segregated in Buyer’s name on the current tax roll. Any real property taxes or assessments levied under the Supplemental Tax Roll as a result of the sale of the Property to Buyer, shall be the responsibility of Buyer. Any real property taxes or assessments levied under the Supplemental Tax Roll as a result of transfers, improvements or other occurrences before the Close of Escrow shall be the responsibility of Seller.

3.8.2 General. All pro rations provided for herein shall be on an “actual day” basis and a three hundred sixty -five (365) day year. The provisions of this Section shall survive Close of Escrow. If either Party fails to pay its pro rata share of taxes or other expenses by the times herein provided, interest shall accrue on all unpaid amounts from when owing until paid at the maximum rate allowed by law. Any errors or omissions made in calculating adjustments and prorations shall be corrected promptly upon the discovery thereof. If any estimations are made at the Close of Escrow regarding adjustments or prorations, the Parties shall make the appropriate collection promptly when accurate information becomes available. Any corrected adjustment or proration shall be paid to the Party entitled thereto within thirty (30) days after written request therefor and if not so paid interest shall accrue and be payable on same at the maximum rate allowed by law.

3.9 Closing Costs. Buyer shall pay the cost of the Title Policy, the Escrow Fees all other costs and expenses incurred related to the purchase of the Property by Buyer. If required by Buyer’s lender , Buyer shall also pay for the appraisal cost of the Property (col lectively, “Closing Costs”). As soon as reasonably possible following the Close of Escrow, Escrow Holder shall deliver a copy of the final Escrow closing statement to Buyer and Seller.

3.10 Grant Deed. The transfer of ownership of the Property shall be documented through a Grant Deed in the form attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by reference, conveying the Property to Buyer (“Grant Deed”).

3.10.1 Micro-Farm Covenant. The Parties shall execute and acknowledged a Micro-Farm Covenant in the form set forth on Exhibit “ C” attached hereto (“Micro-Farm Covenant”) that shall be recorded immediately after the Grant Deed. The Micro-Farm Covenant contains the following covenants are running with the land:
(1) Micro-Farm: Buyer shall continue to operate the Property and Project as a micro-farm for a period of at least thirty (30) years from the date of the recording of this Micro-Farm Covenant. If the Project or Property is no longer operated as a micro -farm in accordance with the Micro-Farm Covenant, Buyer shall be in default under this Agreement and the Micro-Farm Covenant.

City Council
17 –
69 2/17/2026

-7-

(2) Right of First Offer : Before Buyer offers the Property for sale to any third party or on the open market, Buyer shall first offer the Property for sale b ack to Seller in writing upon all terms and conditions which Buyer is willing to offer to any third person or on the open market (“Notice”). Seller shall notify the Buyer of its acceptance of the offer to purchase set forth in the Notice, less a credit fo r the repayment of the Economic Development Subsidy ($178,000), within sixty (60) days after delivery of the Notice (“Deadline Date”). If Seller fails to notify Buyer of its acceptance to re -purchase the Property by the Deadline Date, Seller’s right of first offer shall be deemed to have automatically and without further notice expired and Buyer shall thereafter have the right to offer the Property to any third person or on the open market on terms and conditions stated in the Notice (or on terms which are better, but not worse, for the Buyer). If Buyer does not consummate a sale of the Property on the terms and conditions set forth in the Offer (or on terms which are better, but not worse, for Buyer) within sixty (60) days of after the Deadline Date, this right of first offer shall revive. If, however, Buyer consummates the sale of the Property to a Third Party within said sixty (60) days after the Deadline Date, this right of first offer shall thereupon automatically without further notice terminate. (3) Economic Development Subsidy Lien : In the event Buyer consummates a sale of the Property to a party other than Seller/City, in accordance with the Right of First Offer detailed above, within thirty (30) years following the Close of Escrow (the “Subsidy Recapture Period”), Buyer shall be required to re -pay the Economic Development Subsidy ($178,000) to Seller upon the completion of such sale. Upon expiration of the Subsidy Recapture Period, the Economic Development Subsidy shall be deemed fully vested and no r epayment obligation shall apply to any sale of the Property to a party other than Seller/City occurring thereafter. If Buyer fails to timely re -pay the Economic Development Subsidy upon sale of the Property during the Subsidy Recapture Period , Seller shall have the right to record a lien against the Property in accordance with this Micro-Farm Covenant. (4) City Use Rights : Seller shall have the right to use the Property once per quarter for City events, without any “use” fee or other similar charges, for a period of five (5) years after the date of recording of this Micro-Farm Covenant. Thereafter, Seller can use the Property for City events under the terms of Buyer’s Space Use Agreement, which includes a minimum fee. Seller and Buyer will work cooperatively to plan City events, upon mutually agreed upon dates between the Parties. The City shall pay for all costs and expenses associated with City events, including clean-up and damages. Buyer may request that Seller sign a license agreement, or other similar agreement, with reasonable terms, concerning City events. (5) Prohibition on Assignment or Transfer : Buyer shall not assign or transfer (including an assignment by operation of law or lease) Buyer’s interest in the Property, or any portion thereof (hereinafter referred to collectively as “Transfer”) without the written consent of Grantor, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed, for a period of thirty (30) years from the date of recording of this Micro-Farm Covenant.

Buyer’s failure to obtain Seller’s written consent to a Transfer shall render such Transfer void.

Existing uses at the Micro -Farm are consented to and allowed to continue, including urban farming, cooperative businesses, café and craft artisanry, without further consent.

3.10.2 The Micro-Farm Covenant shall contain various covenants running with the land including, 1) a commitment that Buyer will continue to operate the Property and

City Council
17 –
70 2/17/2026

City Council
17 –
71 2/17/2026

-9-

3.11.4 Disbursement of Closing Docume nts. As soon as reasonably possible following the Close of Escrow, Escrow Holder shall deliver copies of all closing documents, including, without limitation, those listed above, the Title Policy, any additional escrow instructions and the final Escrow cl osing statement, to Seller ’s counsel and Buyer ’s counsel.

3.12 Seller’s Proceeds. At the Close of Escrow, subject to Section 3.13 below, Escrow Holder is directed to wire funds representing Seller ’s cash proceeds through Escrow to Seller’ s account as directed in separate written instructions to be provided by Seller.

3.13 Cal-FIRPTA Withholding . Unless this transaction is exempt under California Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 18662, Escrow Holder shall be the “withholding agent” and withhold from proceeds due Seller any amounts required under the above code sections to be withheld by Buyer and pay same to the California Franchise Tax Board or Internal Revenue Service in accordance with applicable law.

3.14 Additional Documents . Seller and Buye r shall execute and deliver to Escrow any other documents reasonably required by Escrow Holder including, without limitation, Seller’ s affidavits or statements regarding mechanics liens and /or tenants or parties in possession.

3.15 Termination of Property Con tracts. Seller shall terminate any service contracts or similar agreement relating to the Property that the Buyer does not expressly elect in writing to assume which termination shall be effective as of the Close of Escrow.

4. Real Estate Brokerage Commission. Buyer and Seller each represent and warrant to each other that they have not employed, dealt with or incurred any obligation to any broker, agent or finder in connection with the Property, and that they have not incurred any obligation to pay any other real estate brokerage or other commission or fee in connection with the conveyance of the Property to Buyer. Buyer and Seller agree to indemnify, defend and hold each other free and harmless from and against all costs and liabilities, including without l imitation reasonable attorneys’ fees and the costs and expenses of litigation, for causes of action or proceedings in any way related to or resulting from a breach of the foregoing representation and warranty or a rising out of any action or proceedings which may be instituted by any broker, agent or finder, licensed or otherwise, claiming through, under or by reason of the conduct of the indemnifying Party, respectively, in connection with this transaction.

5. Due Diligence; Inspections.

5.1 Feasibility. Within five (5) business days following the execution of this Agreement by Buyer and Seller, Seller shall deliver to Buyer copies of all maps, permits, applications, contracts, correspondence, studies, reports, appraisals and all other documents, materials or information of any kind that relate to the Property, whether in the possession of Seller or any agent or consultant of Seller (collectively, the “Property Documents ”). Seller will immediately furnish Buyer with copies of any revisions or supplements to the Property Documents and will i mmediately furnish Escrow Holder and B uyer with copies of any revisions or supplements to the Property Documents. Seller shall deliver original versions of the Property Documents (to the extent available) to Buyer at the Close of Escrow.

City Council
17 –
72 2/17/2026

-10-

5.2 License. Seller hereby grants Buyer and its agents, consultants, contractors, subcontractors, employees, representatives, and attorneys (collectively, “Buyer’s Agents ”) a license and permission to enter upon, over, under and/or across the Prope rty in order to conduct visual inspections, physical testing, air samplings, borings, and other samplings, including but not limited to, observing and documenting the Property ’s as -built conditions, exposing and documenting hidden conditions at the Property, by limited removal of interior non-historic fixtures and finishes, performing certain non -destructive testing of materials at the Property, extracting concrete core samples in interior non -historically sensitive locations, in connection with the proposed rehabilitation and reuse of the Property ( “Inspections”). The Inspections shall be completed at Buyer’s sole cost and expense. Buyer or Buyer’s Agent shall contact Seller within one (1) day prior to the time of actual entry onto the Property and provid e notice of the date and time when entry will be made. Seller may refuse access to Buyer if it would be unsafe or inappropriate, in Seller’s reasonable discretion, for Buyer or Buyer’s Agents to be on the Property at the desired time. Seller shall make t he Property available as soon as reasonably practical thereafter. The license and permission to enter upon, over, under and/or across the Property shall commence on the Effective Date and shall expire upon Close of Escrow or termination of this Agreement.

5.3 Limitations. The Buyer shall not conduct any intrusive or destructive testing of any portion of the Property, other than low volume soil samples, without the Seller ’s prior written consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Following the conduct of any Inspections on the Property, the Buyer shall restore the Property to substantially its condition prior to the conduct of such Inspections.

5.4 Insurance. Prior to entry onto the Property, Buyer shall secure, or shall require its contractors, if any, to secure an insurance policy or policies, as described below.

5.4.1 Notwithstanding any inconsistent statement in the insurance policy or any subsequent endorsement attached thereto, the protection afforded by these policies shall be written on an occurrence basis in which Seller, and its respective elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents and representatives (together, “Additional Insureds”) are named as additional insureds on all coverage, except for workers ’ compensation coverage, and shall (on or prior to the Effective Date, Seller shall provide to Buyer the complete legal names of all Additional Insureds):
(a) Name Additional Insureds as additional insureds on a Commercial General Liability policy;
(b) Provide a combined single limit of broad form commercial general liability insurance in the amount of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence, which will be considered equivalent to the required minimum limits, and such insurance shall (i) be written on an occurrence form, (ii) be written with a primary policy form with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence; (iii) be written with one or more excess layers to bring the total of primary and excess coverage limits to not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence, (iv) not be written with a deductible greater than $25,000 per occurrence, (v) contain a waiver of subrogation in favor of Seller;

City Council
17 –
73 2/17/2026

-11-

(c) Provide automobile liability insurance for owned, non - owned, and hired vehicles, as applicable to, or for any use related to, the Work, i n an amount not less than Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) combined single limit, with excess insurance coverage to bring the total amount of automobile liability insurance coverage to an amount not less than One Million Dollars ($ 1,000,000) per ac cident for bodily injury and property damage;

5.4.2 Buyer shall notify Seller not less than thirty (30) days before any expiration, cancellation, or non-renewal of such policy or policies; and

5.4.3 Buyer shall furnish certificates of insurance and endorsements to Seller prior to entry onto the Property.

5.4.4 Buyer, or Buyer’s agents entering the Property, shall comply with Sections 3700 and 3800 of the Labor Code by securing, paying for and maintaining in full force and effect during the Term, and continuing prior to entry onto the Property pursuant to this Section, with the earlier to occur of expiration of the Term complete workers ’ compensation insurance, to statutory limits, with employer’s liability limits not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence, and shall furnish a Certificate of Insurance to Seller prior to entry onto the Property pursuant to this Section, before the commencement of work. All Additional Insureds shall not be responsible for any claims in law or equity occasioned by the failure of Buyer to comply with this section. Every workers’ compensation insurance policy shall bear an endorsement or shall have attached a rider providing that, in the event of expiration or proposed cancellation of such policy for any reason whatsoever, Seller shall be notified, giving Buyer a sufficient time to comply with applicable law, but in no event less than thirty (30) days before such expiration, cancellation, or reduction in coverage is effective or in the event of nonpayment of premium.

5.4.5 If Buyer fails or refuses to produce or maintain the insurance required by this Section or fails or refuses to furnish Seller with required proof that insurance has been procured and is in force and paid for, Seller shall have the right, at its election, t o forthwith terminate this the right of entry provided in this Section.

5.5 Liens. Buyer shall not permit any mechanics’, materialmen’s or other liens of any kind or nature ( “Liens”) to be filed or enforced against the Property arising from Buyer’s entry on the Property. Seller reserves the right, at its sole cost and expense, at any time and from time to time, to post and maintain on the Property, or any portion thereof, or on the improvements on the Property, any notices of non -responsibility or other notice as may be desirable to protect Seller against liability. In addition to, and not as a limitation of Seller’s other rights and remedies under this Section, should Buyer fail, within thirty (30) days of written request from Seller, either to discharge any Lien (to the extent such Lien is prohibited pursuant to this Section) or to bond for any Lien (to the extent such Lien is prohibited pursuant to this Section), or to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Seller from and against any loss, damage, injur y, liability or claim arising out of a Lien (to the extent such Lien is prohibited pursuant to this Section), then Seller, at its option, may elect to pay such Lien, or settle or discharge such Lien and any action or judgment related thereto and all costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees incurred in doing so shall be paid to Seller, as applicable, by Buyer upon written demand.

City Council
17 –
74 2/17/2026

-12-

5.6 Buyer’s Investigation. Buyer shall be entitled to conduct such independent investigations as Buyer deems necessary or appropriate concerning (i) Buyer’s proposed use, sale, development or suitability for development of the Property; (ii) the condition and all other attributes of the Property, including, without limitation all improvements located thereon; (iii) applicable laws, statutes, rules, regulations, ordinances, limitations, restrictions or requirements concerning the use, density, location or suitability of the Property or any existing or proposed development or condition thereof, including but not limited to zoning, subdivision a nd other regulations (collectively, the “Regulations”); (iv) the necessity or availability of any specific plan or general amendments, rezoning, zone variances, conditional use permits, building permits, environmental impact reports, subdivision maps, public reports issued by the California Bureau of Real Estate ( “BRE”) and all other governmental permits, approvals or acts (collectively, the “Permits”); (v) the necessity and existence of all dedications, fees, charges, costs or assessments which may be impo sed by any Governmental Authority in connection with the proposed maintenance of the Property; (vi) the value of the Property; (vii) the availability or adequacy of access to the Property, or of water, sewage, gas, electrical or other utilities serving the Property and (viii) the presence or adequacy of infrastructure or other improvements on, near or concerning the Property. If Buyer disapproves the Property for any reason or for no reason prior to the Closing Date, Buyer may elect to give Seller written notice terminating this Agreement and the parties shall have no further obligations hereunder except those that expressly survive termination of this Agreement.

5.7 No Representations or Warranties. Buyer shall rely solely and exclusively upon the results of its Investigations of the Property, including, without limitation, investigations regarding geotechnical soil conditions, compliance with all laws applicable to the development or use of the Property by the Buyer and any other matters relevant to the condi tion or suitability of the Property for the development or operation of the Project, as the Buyer may deem necessary or appropriate. The Seller makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, to the Buyer relating to the condition of the Property or suitability of the Property for any intended use or development by the Buyer.

5.8 Acceptance of Property “AS-IS.” Buyer shall accept all conditions of the Property, without any liability of the Seller whatsoever, upon the Buyer ’s unconditional and irrevocable acceptance of the condition of the Property in the Property ’s AS IS, WHERE IS,

SUBJECT TO ALL FAULTS CONDITION, WITHOUT WARRANTY AS TO QUALITY, CHARACTER, PERFORMANCE OR CONDITION and with full knowledge of the physical condition of the Propert y, the nature of the Seller’s interest in and use of the Property, all laws applicable to the Property and of any and all conditions, restrictions, encumbrances and all matters of record relating to the Property, and that the Property is being acquired by Buyer as a result of its own knowledge, inspection and investigation of the Property and not as a result of any representation(s) made by the Seller or any employee, official, consultant or agent of the Seller relating to the condition of the Property, unl ess such statement or representation is expressly and specifically set forth in this Agreement. Seller hereby expressly and specifically disclaims any express or implied warranties regarding the Property.

City Council
17 –
75 2/17/2026

-13-

6. Warranties.

6.1 Seller’s Warranties. In consideration of Buyer entering into this Agreement and as an inducement to Buyer to purchase the Property from Seller, Seller makes the following representations and warranties which shall be true and correct as of the Effective Date and the Close of Escrow and each of which is material and being relied upon by Buyer. For all purposes of this Agreement, including Seller’s representations and warranties contained herein, the phrase “to the best of Seller’s knowledge” shall mean the current actual knowledge of Seller. If prior to the Close of Escrow Buyer has actual Knowledge that any representation or warranty of Seller is untrue, inaccurate or incomplete in any material respect (and without waiving any of Buyer’s rights or remedies hereunder at law or in equity with r espect to any material untruth, incompleteness or inaccuracy existing on the Effective Date, that was known of or should have been known of by Seller), Buyer may give Seller written notice of same and Seller shall have seven (7) days from the date of receipt of Buyer’s notice (and the Closing Date shall be extended to permit the running of such seven (7) day period) (“Seller Cure Period”) to correct any factor circumstance that makes such representation or warranty materially untrue or inaccurate to Buyer’s reasonable satisfaction.

If Seller fails to make such correction within the Seller Cure Period, then Buyer by written notice to Seller within three (3) days after the expiration of the Seller Cure Period (and the Closing Date shall be extended to permit the running of such three (3) day period) shall be entitled (a) to terminate this Agreement, or (b) continue this Agreement in full force and effect with no change in terms, but without waiving any legal, equitable or other remedies it may have against Sel ler.

The foregoing is not a waiver or release of any of Buyer ’s rights or remedies for any material untruth, incompleteness or inaccuracy in a representation or warranty of Seller of which Buyer obtains knowledge after the Close of Escrow.

6.1.1 Authorization. Seller has full power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to perform all its obligations hereunder, and has taken all action required by law, its governing instruments or otherwise to authorize the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by Seller. Each individual or entity who has executed this Agreement on behalf of Seller has the right, power, legal capacity and authority to execute, deliver and perform this Agreement on behalf of Seller.

6.1.2 Conflicting Agreements. Neither the execution nor delivery of this Agreement, nor the consummation of the transaction contemplated herein, will conflict with, or result in a breach of, any contract, license or undertaking to which Seller is a party or by which Seller or any of the Property is bound, or constitute a default thereunder. In addition, with respect to any agreements that affect the Property, neither Seller nor any other party or parties to such agreements are in default thereunder nor are there any facts that currentl y exist which with the passage of time would result in any such default. To the best of Seller’s knowledge, the Property is not subject to any prescriptive easements, claims of adverse possession, encroachments or similar rights or claims. The Property is not subject to any leases, options or other similar rights or claims in favor of any third parties. The Property is not subject to a Williamson Act contract or any similar agricultural agreement.

6.1.3 Proceedings. To the best of Seller ’s knowledge, no legal or administrative proceeding is pending or threatened against Seller or the Property nor are there any other facts or circumstances which would adversely affect (i) Seller’s right to convey title to the

City Council
17 –
76 2/17/2026

-14-

Property to Buyer as contemplated in this Agreement, or (ii) Buyer’s ability to own, develop and/or market the Property in the manner disclosed by Buyer to Seller. To the best of Seller’s knowledge, there are no condemnation or eminent domain proceedings pending or threatened with respect to the Property.

6.1.4 Binding Agreement. This Agreement constitutes a legal, valid and binding obligation of Seller enforceable against Seller in accordance with its terms, except to the extent that such enforcement may be limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, moratori um and other principles relating to or limiting the rights of contracting parties generally.

6.1.5 Violations of Law . On the Effective Date and Close of Escrow neither this Agreement nor the Property shall be in violation of any law, ordinance, rule regulation, or administrative or judicial order.

6.1.6 Hazardous Materials. Seller has not stored or released, caused to be stored or released or approved the storage or release on the Property, of any “hazardous materials” (as defined below). To the best of Seller’s knowledge, no prior owner of the Property has stored or caused to be stored any hazardous materials on the Property; (b) no hazardous materials now exist in, on or under the Property in violation of any “environmental law ” (as defined below); (c) there are no underground tanks on the Property nor have there ever been any underground storage tanks on the Property; (d) no use of or operations on the Property have occurred which use or operation has violated any applicable environmental law; and (e) the Property is not on any “Superfund” list under any applicable environmental law. As used herein, “environmental law” shall mean any and all present federal, state or local laws (whether common law, statute, rule, regulation or otherwise), permits, orders and any ot her requirements of Governmental Authorities relating to the environment to any “hazardous materials” (as defined below) (including without limitation the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq.) as amended from time to time and the applicable provisions of the California Health and Safety Code and California Water Code). As used herein, “hazardous materials” shall mean any (a) chemical, compound, material, mixture or substance that is now d efined or listed in, or otherwise classified pursuant to any environmental law as a “hazardous substance, ” “hazardous material, ” “hazardous waste, ” “extremely hazardous waste,” “infectious waste,” “toxic waste,” “toxic pollutant” or any other formulation intended to define, list or classify substances by reason of deleterious properties or effect and (b) petroleum, petroleum by -products, natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas, synthetic gas usable for fuel (or mixtures of natural gas in such synthetic gas), ash, municipal solid waste steam, drilling fluids, produced waters and other wastes associated with the exploration, development and production of crude oil, natural gas or geothermal resources.

6.1.7 No Assumed Obligations . There are no oblig ations or responsibilities of Seller with respect to the Property or otherwise of any kind that are assumed by Buyer.

6.1.8 Endangered Species. To the best of Seller ’s knowledge, (a) there are no endangered or threatened species of animals, plants or insects on the Property, and (b) there are no environmental or biological characteristics of the Property or adjacent property, which

City Council
17 –
77 2/17/2026

-15-

under existing law will adversely affect Buyer’s ability to own, develop and/or market the Property or the cost thereof.

6.1.9 Ownership of Property. Seller is the sole and only party that owns or holds any interest in the Property.

6.1.10 Property Documents . To the best of Seller ’s knowledge, the Property Documents and all other documents and information provided by Seller or its agents or consultants to Buyer are complete, true and accurate and do not omit any material fact and there are no other documents, materials, studies, surveys or other information in the possession or control of Seller that would have a material and adverse effect on Buyer’s ability to own, develop and/or market the Property.

6.1.11 Other Agreements. Except as set forth in the Property Documents and this Agreement, Seller has not made any commitment or representation to or entered into any agreement of any kind with any government authority, or any adjoining or surrounding property owner, group or other third party, which would in any way be binding on Buyer or all or any portion of the Property or would interfere in any way with Buyer’s ability to own, develop, improve and/or market the Property, and will not make any such representations or warranties or enter into any such agreements which would affect the Property or any portion thereof prior to the Close of Escrow, without Buyer’s written consent.

6.1.12 Access. There is full and unobstructed direct access to the Property from public streets, highways or roads that are adjacent to the Property.

6.1.13 Bankruptcy. No “Bankruptcy Event ” (as defined below) has occurred with respect to Seller nor any member or manager of Seller. There is not pending or threatened any case, proceeding or other action seeking reorganization, arrangement, adjustment, liquidation, dissolution or re-composition of Seller or any member or manager of Seller or seeking appointment of a receiver, trustee, cust odian or similar official for Seller or any member or manager of Seller for all or any substantial part of its or their assets. “Bankruptcy Event” means (a) the making by a person of a general assignment for the benefit of such person ’s creditors, (b) the admission in writing by a person of its inability to pay its or their debts as they mature, (c) an attachment, execution or other judicial seizure of any property interest which remains in effect, or (d) the failure to have taken or submission to any action indicating a general inability by a person to meet its financial obligations as they accrue.

6.1.14 Material Change . Seller shall promptly notify Buyer if Seller obtains information that would make any of the representations or warranties contained herein materially inaccurate or misleading.

6.2 Buyer’s Warranties. In consideration of Seller entering into this Agreement and as an inducement to Seller to sell the Property to Buyer, Buyer makes the following representations and warranties which shall be true and co rrect as of the Effective Date and the Close of Escrow and each of which is material and being relied upon by Seller. For all purposes of this Agreement, including Buyer’s representations and warranties contained herein, the phrase “to the best of Buyer’s knowledge” shall mean the current actual knowledge of Buyer. If prior

City Council
17 –
78 2/17/2026

-16-

to the Close of Escrow Seller determines that any representation or warranty of Buyer is untrue, inaccurate or incomplete in any material respect (and without waiving any of Seller ’s rights or remedies hereunder at law or in equity with respect to any material untruth, incompleteness or inaccuracy existing on the Effective Date, that was known of or should have been known of by Buyer), Seller may give Buyer written notice of same and Bu yer shall have seven (7) days from the date of receipt of Seller’s notice (and the Closing Date shall be extended to permit the running of such seven (7) day period) ( “Buyer Cure Period ”) to correct any fact or circumstance that makes such representation o r warranty materially untrue or inaccurate to Seller ’s reasonable satisfaction. If Buyer fails to make such correction within the Buyer Cure Period, then Seller by written notice to Buyer within three (3) days after the expiration of the Buyer Cure Period (and the Closing Date shall be extended to permit the running of such three (3) day period) shall be entitled (a) to terminate this Agreement or (b) continue this Agreement in full force and effect with no change in terms, but without waiving any legal, e quitable or other remedies it may have against Buyer. The foregoing is not a waiver or release of any of Seller ’s rights or remedies for any material untruth, incompleteness or inaccuracy in a representation or warranty of Buyer of which Seller obtains knowledge after the Close of Escrow.

6.2.1 Authorization. Buyer is a nonprofit corporation duly formed in the State of California and validly existing under the laws of the State of California and is qualified to transact business in the State of California. Buyer has full power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to perform all of its obligations hereunder, and has taken all action required by law, its governing instruments or otherwise to authorize the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement. Each individual who has executed this Agreement on behalf of Buyer has the right, power, legal capacity and authority to execute, deliver and perform this Agreement on behalf of Buyer.

6.2.2 Binding Agreement. This Agreement constitutes a legal, valid a nd binding obligation of Buyer enforceable against Buyer in accordance with its terms, except to the extent that such enforcement may be limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, moratorium and other principles relating to or limiting the rights of contracting parties generally.

6.2.3 Compliance with Law . Buyer is required to carry out the development of the Project in conformity with all applicable laws, including all applicable building, planning and zoning laws, including any historic property regulations and environmental laws.

6.3 Natural Hazard Zone Disclosure . No later than seven (7) business days prior to the Property Approval Date, the Seller will, at its sole cost and expense, provide Buyer with a Natural Hazard Zone Disclosure required by applicable law.

6.4 Buyer and Seller Cooperation . Buyer shall, if necessary, submit plans for the Project to Seller, and Seller, in its capacity as the City within which the Project is located, will make the determination as to the required entitlements based upon Buyer’s proposed plans. Buyer may then process and obtain any Project entitlements through Seller in its capacity as the City within which the Project entitlements is located. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to be a prejudgment or commitment with respect to exercise of governmental discretion with regard to

City Council
17 –
79 2/17/2026

-17-

such items, nor a guarantee that such approvals or permits will be granted at all or within any particular time or with or without any particular conditions.

6.5 Seller’s Additional Covenants . Seller hereby covenants and agrees that during the term of this Agreement : Seller (a) will not promote, advertise, market, transfer, lease or convey any of the Property or enter into any agreement to promote, advertise, market, transfer, lease or convey a ny of the Property or modify or amend any lease other than to terminate any leases as to the Property; (b) will not enter into any agreement, that will be or purport to be binding on the Buyer or the Property subsequent to the Close of Escrow; (c) shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain the Property and all improvements thereon , if so required under the Ground Lease, in a reasonable condition and in a manner that complies with all applicable laws and shall continue in full force and effect all propert y and liability insurance with respect to the Property which is in effect 30 days before the Effective Date; (d) will not take, approve or consent to any action or omission that would change the zoning, use, permits or entitlement of or for the Property or that would otherwise adversely affect the Property or Buyer ’s plan for maintenance of the Property or Buyer ’s processing of the entitlements , if necessary ; (e) will promptly give Buyer written notice of any notice or information Seller receives regarding zoning uses, permits, licenses or other entitlements which would have an adverse impact on the ability of Buyer to develop and/or maintain the Property for its anticipated use; (f) shall not record or cooperate in the recording against the Property or any portion thereof, of any lien, encumbrance, agreement, easement, right of way or other matter without Buyer ’s written consent; and (g) will not engage in any act or omission which would result in the Property not being in compliance with the provisions of t his Agreement or any applicable law or which would prevent the Title Company from issuing the Title Policy in accordance with this Agreement.

7. Destruction/Condemnation of Property; Other Notices. In the event that all or any portion of the Property is damaged or destroyed by any casualty under the provisions of applicable law after the Effective Date but prior to the date of Closing, Seller shall give Buyer immediate written notice of the same. Seller shall promptly notify Buyer of any building code violation notices or actions pending, and of any event that causes the representation of Seller under this Agreement to no longer be true or correct.

8. Indemnification.

8.1 Obligations. Seller shall Indemnify Buyer and Buyer shall Indemnify Seller against any wrongful intentional act or negligence of the Indemnitor. Buyer shall also Indemnify Seller against any and all of the following: (a) any damage to the Property caused by the Investigations of the Property by Buyer; and (b) any accident, injury or damage whatsoever caused to any person in or on the Property by Buyer prior to the Closing . Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, no Indemnitor shall be required to Indemnify any Indemnitee to the extent of the Indemnitee’s wrongful intentional acts or negligence.

8.2 Limitation on Liability of the Seller . Following the Close of Escrow, the Buyer is and shall be responsible for operation of the Property and the Project and the Seller shall not be liable for any injury or damage to any property (of the Buyer or any other person) or to any person occurring on or about the Property or the Project, except to the extent caused by the Seller’s wrongful intentional act or negligence.

City Council
17 –
80 2/17/2026

-18-

8.3 Strict Liability . The indemnification obligations of an Indemnitor shall apply regardless of whether liability without fault or strict liability is imposed or sought to be imposed on one or more Indemnitees.

8.4 Independent of Insurance Obligations. Buyer’s indemnification obligations under this Agreement shall not be constru ed or interpreted as in any way restricting, limiting, or modifying Buyer’s insurance or other obligations under this Agreement and is independent of the Buyer’s insurance and other obligations under this Agreement. Buyer’s compliance with its insurance obligations and other obligations under this Agreement shall not in any way restrict, limit, or modify the Buyer’s indemnification obligations under this Agreement and are independent of the Buyer’s indemnification and other obligations under this Agreement.

8.5 Survival of Indemnification and Defense Obligations . The indemnity and defense obligations under this Agreement shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement, until all claims against any of the Indemnitees involving any of the indemnified matters fully, finally, absolutely and completely barred by applicable statutes of limitations.

8.6 Independent Duty to Defend. The duty to defend under this Agreement is separate and independent of the duty to Indemnify. The duty to defend includes claims for which an Indemnitee may be liable without fault or strict liability. The duty to defend applies immediately upon notice of a claim, regardless of whether the issues of negligence, liability, fault, default or other obligation on the part of the Indemnitor or the Indemnitee have been determined.

The duty to defend applies immediately, regardless of whether the Indemnitee has paid any amounts or incurred any detriment arising out of or relating (directly or indirectly) to any claims.

It is t he express intention of the Parties that an Indemnitee be entitled to obtain summary adjudication or summary judgment regarding an Indemnitor ’s duty to defend the Indemnitee, at any stage of any claim or suit, within the scope of the Indemnitor ’s indemnity obligations under this Agreement.

8.7 Indemnification Procedures . Wherever this Agreement requires any Indemnitor to Indemnify any Indemnitee:

8.7.1 Prompt Notice . The Indemnitee shall promptly notify the Indemnitor of any claim. To the extent, and only to the e xtent, that the Inde mnitee fails to give prompt Notice of a Claim and such failure materially prejudices the Indemnitor in providing indemnity for such claim, the Inde mnitor shall be relieved of its indemnity obligations for such claim.

8.7.2 Selection of Counse l. The Indemnitor shall select counsel reasonably acceptable to the Indemnitee. Counsel to Indemnitor ’s insurance carrier that is providing coverage for a claim shall be deemed reasonably satisfactory. Even though the Indemnitor shall defend the action, Indemnitee may, at its option and its own expense, engage separate counsel to advise it regarding the claim and its defense. The Indemnitee ’s separate counsel may attend all proceedings and meetings. The Indemnitor’s counsel shall actively consult with the Indemnitee ’s separate counsel. The Indemnitor and its counsel shall, however, fully control the defense, except to the extent that the Indemnitee waives its rights to indemnity and defense for such claim.

City Council
17 –
81 2/17/2026

-19-

8.7.3 Settlement. The Indemnitor may, with the Indemnitee’s consent, not to be unreasonably withheld, settle a claim. The Indemnitee’s consent shall not be required for any settlement by which all of the following occur: (a) the Indemnitor procures (by payment, settlement, or otherwise) a release of the Indemnitee from the subject claim(s) by which the Indemnitee need not make any payment to the claimant; (b) neither the Indemnitee nor the Indemnitor on behalf of the Indemnitee admits liability; (c) the continued effectiveness of this Agreement is not jeopardized in any way; and (d) the Indemnitee ’s interest in the Project entitlements is not jeopardized in any way.

8.7.4 Insurance Proceeds. The Indemnitor ‘s obligations shall be reduced by net insurance proceeds the Indemnitee actually receives for the mat ter giving rise to indemnification obligation.

9. Miscellaneous.

9.1 Notices. Any notice, request, demand, instruction or other document required or permitted to be given or served hereunder or under any document or instrument executed pursuant hereto will be in writing and will be delivered personally or sent by United States registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid or by overnight express courier, postage prepaid and addressed to the parties at their perspective addresses set forth below, and the same will be effective upon the date of confirmed dispatch, if by electronic communication receipt if delivered personally or via overnight express courier or on the third Business Day after deposit if mailed. A party may change its addre ss for receipt of notices by service of a notice to such change in accordance herewith. Buyer and Seller hereby agree that notices may be given hereunder by the parties’ respective counsel, if applicable, and that, if any communication is to be given hereunder by Buyer’s or Seller’s counsel, such counsel , if applicable, may communicate directly with all principals as required to comply with the provisions of this Section.

If to Buyer: THRIVE Santa Ana, Inc.

P.O. Box 1935
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Attn: Ana Urzua
If to Seller: City of Santa Ana
Community Development Agency
20 Civic Center Plaza, M25
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Attn: Executive Director
with a copy to: City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, M30
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Attn: City Clerk

9.2 Assignment. Seller may not assign its interest in this Agreement, or any of its rights or obligations hereunder, without the prior written consent of Buyer, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. Buyer may not assign its interest in this

City Council
17 –
82 2/17/2026

-20-

Agreement, or any of its rights or obligations hereunder, without prior written consent of Seller.

No transfer or assignment in violation of the provisions hereof shall be valid or enforceable.

Subject to the foregoing, this Agreement and the terms and p rovisions hereof shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the parties.

9.3 No Third Party Beneficiaries. Notwithstanding any provision contained in this Agreement to the contrary, this Agreement is intended as and shall be deemed to be an agreement for the sale of assets and none of the provisions hereof shall be deemed to create any obligation or liability of any person that is not a Party, whether under a third -party beneficiary theory, laws relating to transferee liabilities or otherwise. Buyer shall not assume and shall not be obligated to discharge or be liable for any debts, liabilities or obligations of Seller including, but not limited to, any (a) liabilities or obligations of Seller to its creditors, share holders, members, partners, managers, or owners, (b) liabilities or obligations of Seller with respect to any acts, events or transactions occurring prior to, on or after the Close of Escrow, (c) liabilities or obligations of Seller for any federal, state, county or local taxes, or (d) any contingent liabilities or obligations of Seller, whether known or unknown by Seller or Buyer. Buyer shall have no duty whatsoever to take any action or receive or make any payment or credit arising from or related to any services provided or costs incurred in connection with the Property prior to the Close of Escrow, including, but not limited to, any matters relating to cost reports, collections, audits, hearings, or legal action arising therefrom.

9.4 Further Instruments. Each Party will, whenever and as often as it shall be reasonably requested to do so by the other, cause to be executed, acknowledged or delivered any and all such further instruments and documents as may be necessary or proper, in the reasonable opinion of the requesting Party, in order to carry out the intent and purpose of this Agreement.

9.5 Calculation of Time Periods; Business Day; Time of Essence . Unless otherwise specified, in computing any period of time described herein, the day of the act or event after which the designated period of time begins to run is not to be included and the last day of the period so computed is to be included, unless such last day is not a Business Day, in which event the period shall run until the end of the next day which is a Business Day. The last day of any period of time described herein shall be deemed to end at 5:00 p.m. local time in the state in which the Real Property is located. As used herein, the term “Business Day” means any day excluding Saturdays, Sundays and State and National holidays and any day the City is closed. Subject to the foregoing provisions, time is of the essence of this Agreement.

9.6 Entire Agreement; Amendments . This Agreement (including the documents delivered pursuant to this Agreement), const itutes the entire agreement of the Parties pertaining to the subject matter of this Agreement and supersedes all prior agreements or letters of intent of the Parties. This Agreement may not be amended, modified, or supplemented except by a written instrument signed by an authorized representative of each of the Parties.

9.7 Survival. All covenants, agreements, representations, warranties and indemnities contained in this Agreement shall survive the execution and delivery of this Agreement and the Close of Esc row and the delivery and recordation of all documents or instruments in connection therewith.

City Council
17 –
83 2/17/2026

-21-

9.8 Binding Effect; Enforcement. The covenants, agreements, representations, and warranties contained herein will be binding upon, be enforceable by and inure to the benefit of the representatives, successors, and permitted assigns of the respective parties hereto.

9.9 Applicable Law. This Agreement will be construed and interpreted under, and governed and enforced according to, the laws of the State of California applicable to contracts made and to be performed entirely therein.

9.10 Venue. In the event of any legal action to enforce or interpret this Agreement, the sole and exclusive venue shall be the Superior Court of California in Orange County and the Parties hereby agree to and do hereby submit to the jurisdiction of such court.

9.11 Attorneys’ Fees. If any Party to this Agreement shall bring any action or proceeding for any relief against the other, declaratory or otherwise, in any way arising out of or in connection this Agreement and/or the Property, the losing Party shall pay to the prevailing Party a reasonable sum for attorneys ’ fees and costs (including without limitation expert witness fees) incurred in bringing or defending such action or proceeding or enforcing any judgment granted therein, all of which shall be deemed to have accrued upon the commencement of such action or proceeding and shall be paid whether or not such action or proceeding is prosecuted to final judgment. Any judgment or order entered in such a ction or proceeding shall contain a specific provision providing for the recovery of attorneys ’ fees and costs, separate from the judgment, incurred in enforcing such judgment. The prevailing Party shall be determined by the trier of fact based upon an assessment of which Party’s major arguments or positions taken in the proceedings could fairly be said to have prevailed over the other Party’s major arguments or positions on major disputed issues. For the purposes of this Section, attorneys’ fees shall include, without limitation, fees incurred in the following: (1) post-judgment motions; (2) contempt proceedings; (3) garnishment, levy and debtor and third party examinations; (4) discovery; and (5) bankruptcy litigation.

9.12 Construction. The provisions of this Agreement shall not be cons trued in favor of or against either Party, but shall be construed as if both Parties prepared this Agreement.

9.13 Interpretation. The paragraph and section headings in this Agreement are solely for convenience and will not be d eemed to limit or otherwise affect the meaning or construction of any part of this Agreement. Any pronoun used in this Agreement will be deemed to cover all genders. The terms “include,” “including,” and similar terms will be construed as if followed by the phrase “without being limited to.” The term “or” has, except where otherwise indicated, the inclusive meaning represented by the phrase “and/or.” The words “hereof,” “herein,” “hereby,” “hereunder,” and similar terms in this Agreement refer to this Agreement as a whole and not to any particular provision or section of this Agreement. Words in this Agreement importing the singular number will mean and include the plural number, and vice versa.

9.14 No Waiver. No waiver by a Party of a breach of any of the terms, covenants, or conditions of this Agreement by the other shall be const rued or held to be a waiver of any succeeding or preceding breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained herein. No waiver of any default by a Party shall be implied from any omission by the other Party to take any action on account of such default if such default persists or is repeated and no express

City Council
17 –
84 2/17/2026

-22-

waiver shall affect a default other than as specified in such waiver. The consent or approval by either Party to or of any act by the other requiring the first Party’s consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary the consenting Party ’s consent or approval to or of any subsequent similar acts by the other Party.

9.15 Severability of Pro visions. Wherever possible, each provision of this Agreement will be interpreted in such manner as to be effective and valid under applicable law, but if any provision of this Agreement will be prohibited by or invalid under applicable law, such provision will be ineffective only to the extent of such prohibition or invalidity, without invalidating the remainder of such provision or the remaining provisions of this Agreement.

9.16 Condemnation. From the Effective Date through and until the earlier of Close of Escrow or the termination of this Agreement, Seller shall not exercise the power of eminent domain or similar powers on any portion of the Property, except to the extent required in order for Seller to satisfy its obligations in connection with this Agreement.

9.17 Incorporation of Exhibits . Except as intentionally omitted, all exhibits attached hereto and referred to herein are incorporated into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein.

9.18 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and by different Parties to this Agreement in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered will be deemed original, but all such counterparts, together, will constitute but one and the same instrument. Signature pages may be detached from multiple separate counterparts and attached to a single counterpart so that all signature pages are physically attached to the same document. This Agreement will become effective upon the execution and delivery of a counterpart hereof by each Party to this Agreement. A signature of a Party to this Agreement sent by facsimile, electronic mail (including a scanned portable document format copy sent by electronic mail), or other electronic transmission will have the same force and effect as delivery of an original signature of such Party.

9.19 Amendments. This Agreement may not be modified, changed, supplemented, superseded, canceled or terminated, except by written instrument signed by the Parties hereto.

[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

City Council
17 –
85 2/17/2026

City Council
17 –
86 2/17/2026

1032/028269-0007
15373821.8 a02/09/26 Exhibit “A-1”

EXHIBIT “A”

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
1901 West Walnut Street (“Property”) is situated in the State of California, County of Orange, and the City of Santa Ana. The Property has a lot size of 16,558 square feet (.38 acre) as shown on a Map recorded as parcel 8 in Book 7 on page 332 of Assessor Parcel Maps of Orange County, California. The Property is bounded on its east erly edge by South Daisy Avenue and its southern edge by West Walnut Street. The following is the Property Legal Description:

P BK 54 PG 50 PAR 3

City Council
17 –
87 2/17/2026

1032/028269-0007
15373821.8 a02/09/26 Exhibit “B”

EXHIBIT “B”

FORM OF GRANT DEED
[see attached]

City Council
17 –
88 2/17/2026

1032/028269-0007
15373821.8 a02/09/26
Exhibit “B”
-1-

AT THE REQUEST OF AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza (M-_)
P.O. Box 1988
Attention: City Clerk

SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER’S USE

GRANT DEED

PART ONE
For a valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged:

The City of Santa Ana, a California charter city in the County of Orange of the State of California ( “Grantor” or “City”), hereby grants to THRIVE Santa Ana , Inc., a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (“Grantee”), that certain real property described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference together with (a) all improvements owned by Grantor and located on the Property and all fixtures contained in any such improvements, and (b) any and all easements, rights -of-way, privileges, rights and appurtenances benefiting, appertaining or belonging to the Property, includi ng, without limitation, any and all streets and roads (whether opened or proposed) abutting the Property, riparian rights, water or water rights and stock evidencing any such water rights, and/or oil, gas or other minerals laying under the Property (“Property”).

PART TWO
Covenants Running with the Land . The Property is subject to various covenants running with the land contained in the Micro-Farm Covenant which is recorded concurrently herewith. [signatures on following page]

City Council
17 –
89 2/17/2026

1032/028269-0007
15373821.8 a02/09/26
Exhibit “B”
-2-

EXECUTED ON ___________________, in ________________________, California.

ATTEST: CITY OF SANTA ANA

Jennifer L. Hall Alvaro Nuñez
City Clerk City Manager

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

SONIA R. CARVALHO RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:

City Attorney

By:

Andrea Garcia-Miller Michael L. Garcia
Senior Assistant City Attorney Executive Director
Community Development Agency

City Council
17 –
90 2/17/2026

1032/028269-0007
15373821.8 a02/09/26
Exhibit “B”
-3-

EXHIBIT “A” TO

CITY DEED
1901 West Walnut Street (“Property”) is situated in the State of California, County of Orange, and the City of Santa Ana. The Property has a lot size of 16,558 square feet (.38 acre) as shown on a Map recorded as parcel 8 in Book 7 on page 332 of Assessor Parcel Maps of Orange County, California. The Property is bounded on its easterly edge by South Daisy Avenue and its southern edge by West Walnut Street. The following is the Property Legal Description:

P BK 54 PG 50 PAR 3

City Council
17 –
91 2/17/2026

1032/028269-0007
15373821.8 a02/09/26
Exhibit “C”
-1-

EXHIBIT “C”

MICRO-FARM COVENANT

AT THE REQUEST OF AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza (M-30)
P.O. Box 1988
Attention: City Clerk

No recording fee required; this document is exempt
from fee pursuant to Section 6103 of the California
Government Code
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE

MICRO-FARM COVENANT
For a valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged:

The City of Santa Ana, a California charter city in the County of Orange of the State of California (“Grantor” or “City”), granted to THRIVE Santa Ana , Inc., a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (“Grantee”), that certain real property described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (“Property”) pursuant to the Grant Deed recorded against the Property at the same time as this Micro-Farm Covenant.

1. The Property was conveyed in accordance with and subject to that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement (“Agreement”) dated _________ , entered into between Grantor and Grantee, a copy of which is on file with the City at its offices as a Public Record and which is incorporated herein by reference. The Agreement requires the Grantee to meet all requirements as set forth therein. All defined terms used herein shall have the same meaning as those used in the Agreement.

2. The Agreement acknowledges and agrees that the Property is quitclaimed by the City to the Grantee in its "AS IS," "WHERE IS" and "SUBJECT TO ALL FAULTS CONDITION," as of the date of recordation of this Micro-Farm Covenant, with no warranties, expressed or implied, as t o the environmental or other physical condition of the Property, the presence or absence of any patent or latent environmental or other physical condition on or in the Property, or any other matters affecting the Property.

3. Covenants Running with the Land . As provided in the Agreement, the following covenants are running with the land:

3.1. Micro-Farm: Grantee shall continue to operate the Property and Project as a micro-farm for a period of at least thirty (30) years from the date of the recording of this Micro -

City Council
17 –
92 2/17/2026

1032/028269-0007
15373821.8 a02/09/26
Exhibit “C”
-2-

Farm Covenant. If the Project or Property is no longer operated as a micro -farm in accordance with the Micro-Farm Covenant, Grantee shall be in default under the Agreement and the Micro- Farm Covenant.

3.2. Right of First Offer: Before Grantee offers the Prop erty for sale to any third party or on the open market, Grantee shall first offer the Property for sale back to Grantor in writing upon all terms and conditions which Grantee is willing to offer to any third person or on the open market (“Notice”). Grantor shall notify the Grantee of its acceptance of the offer to purchase set forth in the Notice, less a credit for the repayment of the Economic Development Subsidy ($178,000), within sixty (60) days after delivery of the Notice (“Deadline Date”). If Grantor fails to notify Grantee of its acceptance to re -purchase the Property by the Deadline Date, Grantor’s right of first offer shall be deemed to have automatically and without further notice expired and Grantee shall thereafter have the right to offer the Property to any third person or on the open market on terms and conditions stated in the Notice (or on terms which are better, but not worse, for the Grantee). If Grantee does not consummate a sale of the Property on the terms and conditions set forth in the Offer (or on terms which are better, but not worse, for Grantee) within sixty (60) days of after the Deadline Date, this right of first offer shall revive. If, however, Grantee consummates the sale of the Property to a Third Party within said sixty (60) days after the Deadline Date, this right of first offer shall thereupon automatically without further notice terminate.

3.3. Economic Development Subsidy Lien: In the event Grantee consummates a sale of the Property to a party other than Grantor/City, in accordance with the Right of First Offer above, within thirty (30) years following the Close of Escrow (the “Subsidy Recapture Period”), Grantee shall be required to re -pay the Economic Development Subsidy ($178,000) to Grantor upon the completion of such sale. Upon expiration of the Subsidy Recapture Period, the Economic Development Subsidy shall be deemed fully vested and no repayment obligation shall apply to any sale of the Property to a party other than Grantor/City occurring thereafter. If Grantee fails to timely re-pay the Economic Development Subsidy upon sale of the Property during the Subsidy Recapture Period, Grantor shall have the right to record a lien against the Property in accordance with this Micro-Farm Covenant.

3.4. City Use Rights : Grantor shall have the right to use the Property once per quarter for City events, without any “use” fee or other similar charges, for a period of five (5) years after the date of recording of this Micro-Farm Covenant. Thereafter, Grantor can use the Property for City events under the terms of Grantee’s Space Use Agreement, which includes a minimum fee. Grantor and Grantee will work cooperatively to plan City events, upon mutually agreed upon dates between the Parties. The City shall pay for all costs and expenses associated with City events, including clean -up and damages. Grantee may request that Grantor sign a license agreement, or other similar agreement, with reasonable terms, concerning City events.

3.5. Prohibition on Assignment or Transfer : Grantee shall not assign or transfer (including an assignment by operation of law or lease) Grantee’s interest in the Property, or any portion thereof (hereinafter referred to collectively as “Transfer”) without the written consent of Grantor, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed, for a period of thirty (30) years from the date of recording of this Micro -Farm Covenant. Grantee’s failure to obtain Grantor’s written consent to a Transfer shall render such Transfer void. Existing uses at the Micro-Farm are consented to and allowed to continue, including urban fa rming, cooperative businesses, café and craft artisanry, without further consent.

City Council
17 –
93 2/17/2026

1032/028269-0007
15373821.8 a02/09/26
Exhibit “C”
-3-

3.6. All obligations imposed upon Grantee herein shall bind any and all successors of Grantee (subject to Section 7 below).

4. If Grantee breaches any of the Covenants Running with t he Land above, Grantee shall have fourteen (14) days following written notice of default from the Grantor to cure such default. In the event Grantee fails to cure such default, Grantee shall be liable for liquidated damages in accordance with the Agreement.

5. All covenants contained in this Micro-Farm Covenant shall be covenants running with the land and equitable servitudes thereon. The covenants contained in Sections 3 and 4 herein shall automatically terminate upon (a) thirty (30) years from the date the Micro-Farm Covenant is recorded; or (b) Grantee’s payment of liquidated damages in accordance with the Agreement, without further notice or documentation.

6. The covenants contained herein shall be binding for the benefit of Grantor, the City of Santa Ana and, if applicable, any successor in interest to said parties. Such covenants shall run in favor of the Grantor and such aforementioned parties for the entire period during which such covenants shall be in force and effect, without regard to whether the Grantor is or remains an owner of any land or interest therein to which such covenants relate. The right to exercise all of the right and remedies, and to maintain any actions at law or suits in equity or contained in this Micro-Farm Covenant shall be for the benefit of and shall be enforceable only by the Grantor and such aforementioned parties. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Micro-Farm Covenant, no default by Grantee hereunder shall result in any forfeiture of fee title to the Property.

7. Nothing in this Micro-Farm Covenant shall restrict Grantee from unencumbering the Property with a deed of trust or mortgage. Any amendment to these Micro-Farm Covenant shall require the consent of any mortgagee. No portion of this Micro-Farm Covenant or any amendment or violation thereof shall operate to defeat or render invalid, in whole or in part, the rights or protection of the beneficiary, insurer, guarantor, or holder of any mortgage or deed of trust encumbering any portion of the Prope rty. Notwithstanding anything in this Micro-Farm Covenant to the contrary, in the event of any foreclosure or deed -in-lieu of foreclosure by lender holding a deed of trust or mortgagee on the Property, any successor owner shall acquire fee title to the Property free of any obligations under this Micro-Farm Covenant.

8. The covenants contained herein shall be deemed to be covenants running with the land and shall bind and benefit future purchasers, encumbrances and transferee. [Signatures on following page]

City Council
17 –
94 2/17/2026

1032/028269-0007
15373821.8 a02/09/26
Exhibit “C”
-4-

EXECUTED ON _________________ __, in ____________________, California.

CITY:

THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, a California
charter city in the County of Orange of the State
of California

Dated: ______________________________ By: _________________________________ Name:

Its:

ATTEST:

By: _________________________________
City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_____________________________________
City Attorney

BUYER:

THRIVE SANTA ANA, IN C., a California
nonprofit corporation
By:

Name:

Title:

[NOTE: All signatures must be notarized]

City Council
17 –
95 2/17/2026

SLA0002295
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
December 19, 2025
Julie Castro, Economic Development Specialist III
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza M-25
Santa Ana CA, 92701
SENT VIA EMAIL TO: [email protected]
Dear Julie Castro:

RE: City of Santa Ana - APN 007-332-08 - Surplus Land Act Findings Letter Thank you for notifying the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) of the City of Santa Ana’s (City) determination of Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 007-332-08 (Property), as “exempt surplus land.” Your complete documentation was received on December 1, 2025.

HCD reviewed the City’s Notice of Exemption (Notice) and supporting documentation pursuant to Section 400 of the Surplus Land Act Guidelines. As explained below, HCD finds that the Property qualifies as “exempt surplus land” under Government Code section 54221, subdivision (f)(1)(B).

Analysis
As provided in Government Code section 54221, subdivision (f)(1)(B), “exempt surplus land” includes “[s]urplus land that is less than one-half acre in area and is not contiguous to land owned by a state or local agency that is used for open-space or low- and moderate-income housing purposes.”
According to the Notice, the Property is no longer necessary for the City’s use and is less than one-half acre (0.38 acres) in area. Additionally, the Property is not contiguous to land owned by a state or local agency that is used for open space or low- and moderate- income housing purposes.

On December 1, 2025, the City confirmed that Government Code section 54221, subdivision (f)(2) does not apply to the Property and, therefore, a written notice of availability for open-space purposes is not required.

EXHIBIT 7

City Council
17 –
96 2/17/2026

Julie Castro, Economic Development Specialist III

Page 2 ends

SLA0002295
Conclusion
If the submitted documentation and assertions by the City are complete and accurate, HCD finds that the Property qualifies as “exempt surplus land” under Government Code section 54221, subdivision (f)(1)(B).

If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Gabriel Pena-Lora, Senior Housing Policy Specialist, at [email protected] or submit a request via the Surplus Land Act Portal.

Sincerely,
Lis
a Krause
Section Chief, Surplus Land Act

City Council
17 –
97 2/17/2026

This space for filing stamp only
OR#:

O R A N G E C O U N T Y R E P O R T E R ~ SINCE 1921 ~
600 W. Santa Ana Blvd., Suite 205, Santa Ana, California 92701-4542 Telephone (714) 543-2027 / Fax (714) 542-6841

PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
State of California )
County of Orange ) ss
Notice Type:

Ad Description:

I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer and publisher of the ORANGE COUNTY REPORTER, a newspaper published in the English language in the City of Santa Ana, and adjudged a newspaper of general circulation as defined by the laws of the State of California by the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California, under date of June 2, 1922, Case No. 13,421. That the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:

Executed on: 10/10/2004
At Los Angeles, California
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Signature

O R A N G E C O U N T Y R E P O R T E R
~ SINCE 1921 ~
600 W SANTA ANA BLVD STE 812, SANTA ANA, CA 92701
(714) 543-2027 (714) 542-6841
OR 4007502

ABIGAIL ALCALA

CITY OF SANTA ANA/CITY CLERK
20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA M-30
SANTA ANA, CA - 92701

HRG - NOTICE OF HEARING
PH Notice - THRIVE
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer and publisher of the ORANGE COUNTY REPORTER, a newspaper published in the English language in the city of SANTA ANA, county of ORANGE, and adjudged a newspaper of general circulation as defined by the laws of the State of California by the Superior Court of the County of ORANGE, State of California, under date 06/20/1922, Case No. 13421. That the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
02/02/2026
02/02/2026
ORANGE
!A000007310471!
Email

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF SANTA ANA, CA
The City of Santa Ana encourages
public participation in the decision-
making process. This notice is
provided to inform the public of a
proposed action and to provide an
opportunity to offer comments and
testimony before the City Council
takes action.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
– The City
Council of the City of Santa Ana will hold
a public hearing to receive public
testimony and consider the proposed sale
of City-owned real property at below fair
market value and approval of an
associated economic development
subsidy, as described below.

Project Location
: 1901 W. Walnut St.,
Santa Ana, CA 92706, located within the
Community Commercial (C-2) zoning
district.

Project Applicant:

THRIVE Santa Ana,
Inc.

Proposed Project:

Pursuant to California Government Code
Section 53083, the proposed sale of the
property at below fair market value
constitutes an economic development
subsidy. A written Economic Development
Subsidy Report has been prepared in
accordance with Government Code
Section 53083. The subsidy report will be
made available online before the
scheduled Public Hearing at:
https://www.santa-ana.org/cd/economic-
development-subsidy-reports
The proposed action includes the sale of
City-owned real property located at 1901
W. Walnut Street, Santa Ana, California,
to THRIVE Santa Ana, Inc. at a price
below fair market value and approval of
an associated economic development
subsidy.

Meeting Details:

This public hearing will
be held on Tuesday, February 17, 2026,
at 5:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard, in the City Council
Chamber, 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa
Ana, CA 92701. Members of the public
may attend this meeting in-person or
join via Zoom. For the most up to date
information on how to participate virtually
in this meeting, please visit
https://www.santa-ana.org/agendas-and-
minutes/
Written Comments:

If you are unable to
participate in the meeting, you may send
written comments by e-mail to
[email protected] (reference the
Agenda Item # in the subject line) or mail
to Jennifer L. Hall, City Clerk, City of
Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza – M30,
Santa Ana, CA 92701. Deadline to submit
written comments is 4:00 p.m. on the day
of the meeting. Comments received after
the deadline may not be distributed to the
City Council but will be made part of the
record.

Where To Get More Information
: All
staff reports regarding any item on this
agenda are available for public inspection
in the City Clerk's Office during regular
business hours and posted on the City's
website the Tuesday before a Council
meeting at: https://www.santa-
ana.org/agendas-and-minutes/
Who To Contact For Questions:

Should
you have any questions, please contact
Marc Morley with the Community
Development Agency at mmorley@santa-
ana.org or (714) 647-6544.

Note: If you challenge the decision on the
above matter in court, you may be limited
to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City
Council of the City of Santa Ana at, or
prior to, the public hearing.

Si tiene preguntas en español, favor de
llamar a Bianca Zurita (714) 647-6353.

Nu cn liên lc bng ting Vit, xin
in thoi cho Thai An (714) 647-5499.

Jennifer L. Hall, CMC
City Clerk
2/2/26
OR-4007502#
EXHIBIT 8

City Council
17 –
98 2/17/2026

CITY ATTORNEY
Sonia R. Carvalho

CITY MANAGER
Alvaro Nuñez

CITY CLERK
Jennifer L. Hall
20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA - P.O. BOX 1988, M31 - SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE (714) 647-6900 - FAX (714) 647-6954 - www.santa-ana.org Councilmember-Requested Item Report
DATE
February 17, 2026
TOPIC
Updating Park Rules to Make City Parks More Welcoming and Easier to Use

COUNCILMEMBER-REQUESTED ITEM TITLE
Discuss and Consider Directing the City Manager to Direct Staff to Update Park Rules to Allow Picnicking, Park Vending, Expanded Skate Park Use, and Simplify Permit Requirements

DISCUSSION
In Santa Ana, City parks are shared public spaces that support recreation, family gatherings, youth activities, and community life. Santa Ana’s 49 parks and open space areas comprise five large city parks, 18 community parks, 12 neighborhood parks, 11 pocket parks, and three urban plazas. Many of the rules governing City parks in Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) Chapter 31 were adopted decades ago and no longer reflect how parks are commonly used today.

Under current regulations, activities such as picnicking, small group gatherings, and vending are either prohibited or require permits even when they do not meaningfully impact park operations. In addition, recreation trends have evolved, including increased use of non-motorized scooters in skate parks, yet the SAMC has not been updated to reflect these changes.

The purpose of this item is to modernize park rules to reduce unnecessary barriers to everyday park use, support local small businesses, and make City parks and open spaces more welcoming and accessible, while preserving public safety, accessibility, and the City’s ability to manage park resources effectively.

Picnicking in City Parks
Picnicking is a basic and widely expected park activity for families and community members. Current rules prohibit picnicking and food preparation unless conducted in areas specifically designated by the Parks Director, which can create confusion and unnecessary enforcement challenges. Updating the SAMC to allow picnicking by default reflects how parks are actually used today, while still allowing the City to restrict picnicking in specific areas when needed for fire prevention, resource protection, or to accommodate permitted or reserved uses.

City Council
18 –
1 2/17/2026

CITY ATTORNEY
Sonia R. Carvalho

CITY MANAGER
Alvaro Nuñez

CITY CLERK
Jennifer L. Hall
20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA - P.O. BOX 1988, M31 - SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE (714) 647-6900 - FAX (714) 647-6954 - www.santa-ana.org Vending in City Parks
Allowing vending in City parks supports local businesses, promotes free-market economic activity, and helps activate public spaces for community use. Parks are places where residents gather, socialize, and spend time, and limited access to goods and services can reduce the overall park experience.

A modernized approach could allow roaming vending in City parks, subject to City permitting requirements and clear, objective operational standards that address public safety, pedestrian access, sanitation, and park operations. This approach would encourage small-scale entrepreneurship, increase economic activity in and around parks, and provide park users with convenient access to food and other goods, while maintaining appropriate safeguards to ensure parks remain safe, accessible, and well- managed.

Coordinated amendments to Chapter 26 (Pushcarts) are necessary to ensure consistency across the SAMC and to avoid conflicting provisions that would unintentionally prohibit park vending despite any City Council policy direction that may originate from this agenda item.

Park Reservations and Permit Requirements
Current permit requirements can create unnecessary barriers for families and community groups seeking to use parks for casual gatherings. Requiring permits for activities that do not involve exclusive use of space or significant operational impacts can discourage positive park use and strain staff resources. Updating attendance thresholds and clarifying when permits are required would allow staff to focus on managing uses that truly affect park operations, such as exclusive reservations, amplified sound, temporary structures, or organized events, while reducing friction for everyday park users.

Skate Park Use
Recreation trends have evolved, and many skate parks now accommodate a wider range of self-propelled, non-motorized wheeled transportation apparatus used by youth and community members. Allowing self-propelled, non-motorized wheeled transportation apparatuses in City skate parks would expand access, reflect modern recreation practices, and make skate parks more inclusive for a broader range of users.

Under this approach, motorized devices would continue to be prohibited, and existing safety equipment and operational requirements would remain in place. This update balances expanded access with safety considerations and recognizes how skate parks are commonly used today.

RECOMMENDATION
Discuss and consider directing the City Manager, in coordination with the City Attorney and appropriate departments, to direct staff as follows:

1. Allow picnicking in City parks by preparing amendments to Santa Ana Municipal Code section 31-2.11 to permit picnicking and casual food consumption by default, with targeted restrictions where necessary for safety, fire prevention, resource protection, or permitted and reserved uses.

City Council
18 –
2 2/17/2026

CITY ATTORNEY
Sonia R. Carvalho

CITY MANAGER
Alvaro Nuñez

CITY CLERK
Jennifer L. Hall
20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA - P.O. BOX 1988, M31 - SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE (714) 647-6900 - FAX (714) 647-6954 - www.santa-ana.org

2. Allow vending in City parks by preparing amendments to Santa Ana Municipal Code section 31-2.18 to permit vending in City parks, including roaming vending, subject to City permitting requirements and operational standards related to public safety, pedestrian access, sanitation, and park operations.

3. Coordinate updates to Chapter 26 (Pushcarts) by preparing amendments to Santa Ana Municipal Code Chapter 26 to ensure consistency with Chapter 31, explicitly allow vending in City parks where authorized, and avoid conflicting provisions that would undermine the City’s park vending policy.

4. Update park reservation and permit thresholds by preparing amendments to Santa Ana Municipal Code section 31-3 to increase attendance thresholds that trigger permit requirements and clarify that permits are required primarily for exclusive use of park space, use of City facilities or resources, amplified sound, temporary structures, organized vending, or other uses that materially impact park operations.

5. Modernize skate park regulations by preparing amendments to Santa Ana Municipal Code section 31-5 to allow self-propelled, non-motorized wheeled transportation apparatus in City skate parks, while continuing to prohibit motorized devices and maintaining existing safety equipment and operational requirements.

6. Report back to the City Council with proposed ordinance amendments and an implementation plan within a timeframe determined by the City Manager.

SUBMITTED BY
Councilmember Jessie Lopez

City Council
18 –
3 2/17/2026

Public Works Agency
www.santa-ana.org/pw
Item # 19
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Staff Report
February 17, 2026
TOPIC: City Council Work Study Session Regarding the First Street Multimodal Boulevard Study

AGENDA TITLE
City Council Work Study Session Regarding the First Street Multimodal Boulevard Study

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Discuss and provide direction to staff.

GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES: No

DISCUSSION
Per the approved General Plan Update, First Street between Bristol Street and Tustin Avenue is envisioned as a multimodal corridor through a series of safety and infrastructure improvements and enhancements. The goal of these improvements is to benefit all users of First Street, including pedestrians, cyclists, and public transportation users who utilize Orange County Transportation Authority’s (OCTA) Route 64, identified as one of the highest ridership bus routes in Orange County.

BACKGROUND
On April 12, 2023, OCTA submitted an application to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for Regional Early Action Planning (REAP 2.0) grant funding on behalf of the City. REAP 2.0 seeks to reduce vehicle miles traveled and facilitate the implementation of adopted regional and local plans to achieve these goals.

On July 6, 2023, SCAG awarded OCTA REAP 2.0 grant funds for planning, outreach, transit, active transportation, and transit signal priority projects, which included funding for the First Street Boulevard Multimodal Study. The study examines options to enhance transportation along First Street by evaluating the feasibility of various infrastructure improvements through extensive community outreach, field data analyses, modeling, design, and environmental clearance with the intent of identifying and designing a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). The study evaluates multimodal improvements that promote the safety and transportation goals included in the City’s recently adopted General Plan Mobility Element Update.

City Council
19 –
1 2/17/2026

First Street Multimodal Boulevard Study
February 17, 2026

Page 2 ends

5 5
3 4
A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued on February 25, 2025 seeking qualified firms to provide traffic engineering and transportation planning services for the First Street Multimodal Boulevard Study. On May 20, 2025, HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) was subsequently awarded an agreement to conduct the study. The Study commenced June 4, 2025 with a grant deadline of December 2026. Due to the compressed schedule, selection of an LPA in early 2026 will allow adequate time to develop 100% final engineering and design. OCTA has been awarded grant funding of up to $2 million for the construction of the LPA but this falls significantly short of the amount that will be needed for construction. Both the City and OCTA are concurrently identifying additional funding needed for the construction of this project.

THE STUDY
The First Street Multimodal Boulevard Study is a comprehensive effort to re-envision approximately three miles of First Street from Bristol Street to Tustin Avenue as a safer, more accessible, and more equitable corridor for all users, including people walking, bicycling, riding transit, and driving. Initiated in May 2025, the Study responds to the City’s General Plan Mobility Element and community-identified needs to improve safety, reduce speed-related collisions, enhance access to transit, and better serve the corridor’s diverse and often vulnerable populations. The presentation is included as Exhibit 1.

The analysis, findings, and detailed technical documentation is summarized in a technical memorandum. The Technical Memorandum (Exhibit 2) documents existing conditions, traffic and safety analysis, equity assessment, community outreach, alternatives development, and evaluation of design concepts.

The Study corridor extends approximately three miles from Bristol Street to Tustin Avenue, crossing downtown Santa Ana, the railroad underpass, and the I-5 freeway interchange.

Figure 1: First Street Corridor
The Study evaluated existing conditions, conducted extensive technical analysis, and implemented a robust, multilingual community engagement process that reached more than 1,100 participants. Eight (8) initial multimodal options were developed and

City Council
19 –
2 2/17/2026

First Street Multimodal Boulevard Study
February 17, 2026

Page 3 ends

5 5
3 4
evaluated. Based on performance metrics, policy alignment, and community and stakeholder input, three concepts emerged as the most viable alternatives.

PROJECT BACKGROUND
The City of Santa Ana's First Street Multimodal Boulevard Study aims to transform and improve the First Street corridor between Bristol Street and Tustin Avenue for all modes of transportation. A multimodal street is one that balances the needs of all users, including people walking, biking, riding transit, and driving–while also functioning as a community space that supports social, economic, and environmental vitality. Boulevards and major streets like First Street play a vital role in cities, not only as conduits for mobility, but as central public spaces shared by residents, visitors, and people of all ages and abilities.

In 2022, the City adopted its updated General Plan Mobility Element, identifying First Street as a Pedestrian Opportunity Zone. This designation reflects the corridor’s importance as a place, not just a roadway, and its potential to support walking, bicycling, transit use, economic activity, and community life.

The First Street Multimodal Boulevard Study was initiated to:
Improve safety for vulnerable roadway users;
Reduce vehicle speeds and severe collisions;
Enhance pedestrian comfort, shade, and amenities;
Provide safe, connected bicycle facilities;
Improve transit performance and rider experience; and
Reconnect neighborhoods divided by wide roadway crossings.

Pedestrian Opportunity Zones are defined as an area that supports or should support high levels of pedestrian activity due to its proximity to activity centers, mixed-use development, and transit stops. These zones are intended to foster a walkable and vibrant public realm through improvements such as wider sidewalks, safer crossings, and an enhanced streetscape. Figure 2 shows examples of best street practices for pedestrian facilities. Vibrant urban boulevards with amenities and storefronts should have a minimum width of 15 feet. Urban streets with trees should have a minimum of 12 feet to still allow for comfortable pedestrian space. Streets with small trees and walk zones should have a minimum of 9 feet.

Figure 2: Best Street Practices

City Council
19 –
3 2/17/2026

First Street Multimodal Boulevard Study
February 17, 2026

Page 4 ends

5 5
3 4

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND KEY FINDINGS
A walk audit was conducted, along with traffic modeling, origin-destination travel pattern analysis, safety analysis, and an in-depth assessment of existing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit conditions to establish the existing conditions of the First Street corridor.

An equity assessment was also completed as part of this analysis. The following presents a high-level overview of the existing conditions analysis. Additional information, including methodology, data, and other detail can be found in the Technical Memorandum (Exhibit 2).

Key multimodal findings include:
Continuous sidewalks exist, but widths are often constrained and crossings are infrequent;
No continuous, protected bicycle facilities currently exist, resulting in widespread sidewalk riding;
Posted speeds of 40–45 mph are incompatible with the surrounding land uses and pedestrian activity;
Signalized crossings are spaced far apart, creating barriers between north–south neighborhoods;
Existing tree canopy is inconsistent with limited access to shade; Bus stops lack dedicated shelter lighting, wayfinding signage, and real-time arrival displays;
Pedestrian and bicycle crashes account for approximately 23% of all reported collisions—significantly higher than typical for similar arterials.

Figure 3: Key Findings
Key findings from the existing traffic operations analysis include:
Daily traffic volumes generally operate at level of service (LOS) C or better; Intersections operate at LOS D or better under existing conditions; Excessive speeds outside peak hours are common and strongly correlated with severe crashes.

City Council
19 –
4 2/17/2026

First Street Multimodal Boulevard Study
February 17, 2026

Page 5 ends

5 5
3 4
Per the City’s General Plan Mobility Element (Policy M-1.4, Motor Vehicle Level of Service), intersections of arterial streets shall maintain at least a LOS of D, except in areas planned for high intensity development or traffic safety projects.

EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS
The study area has higher than average rates of poverty, seniors living in poverty, renters who are cost-burdened, and residents with limited English proficiency. Travel behavior analysis shows high rates of walking and transit use, particularly among seniors and lower-income residents.

These findings underscore the importance of prioritizing safety, accessibility, and comfort for those who rely most on walking, bicycling, and transit.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Robust community engagement was conducted from June 2025 through January 2026 using a multi-tiered strategy (Exhibit 3) that included:
In-person and virtual workshops;
Pop-up events at community festivals, events, and meetings; Surveys, dedicated project website, and online tools;
Stakeholder, agency, and interdepartmental meetings;
Community working groups and neighborhood association meetings; Spanish and Vietnamese interpretation.

More than 1,100 people and 35 community partners were engaged throughout the process. Across all phases, consistent priorities emerged:
Strong desire for protected bicycle facilities;
Wider sidewalks, additional and safer crossings, especially near schools and bus stops;
Improved bus stops, lighting, and shade;
Concerns about speeding and traffic safety;
Interest in designs that balance vehicle movement with safety and livability.

CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT
The following presents an overview of the breadth of options developed, including the top options that emerged through the process.

Initial Options
Twelve (12) multimodal design options were developed within the existing right-of-way, varying in:
Number of vehicle travel lanes;
Type and placement of bicycle facilities;

City Council
19 –
5 2/17/2026

First Street Multimodal Boulevard Study
February 17, 2026

Page 6 ends

5 5
3 4
Type, placement, and size of landscaped medians and buffers; Pedestrian zone width;
Transit treatments, including bus lanes.

Four (4) of the 12 options were ruled out due to either technical or operational infeasibility. As such, a total of eight (8) design options were presented at Workshop 2 and evaluated through technical analysis and a variety of public preference activities.

Based on evaluation results and the various public and stakeholder preference surveys, three (3) concepts advanced for detailed technical analysis and public review at Workshop 3. All concepts incorporate certain safety enhancements, including:
New signalized crossings. These four crossings are proposed at Shelton Street, Booth Street, west of Wright Street, and between Golden Circle Drive and Tustin Avenue. Each location would be equipped with a signal, high visibility markings and signage, and a paved area in the median as a refuge island. Tighter curb radii to slow turning vehicles. Most existing curb radii are 35 feet with some larger such as at the I-5 southbound ramps. For all City intersections, the curb radius is tightened to 25 feet, which slows the turning speed of vehicles making right turns and improves safety for pedestrians crossing the street. Intersection improvements. To improve travel time, improvements to intersections will include extending left-turn pockets in areas where queuing has the potential to block through traffic and the provision of new right-turn pockets at locations with high pedestrian and bicycle activity.
High-visibility crosswalks. At all signalized intersections and on STOP controlled side streets, high visibility bicycle crossing and crosswalks are recommended.

Continental style with high retro reflectivity is recommended for maximum visibility at night.
Improved street lighting. This includes evaluating the corridor to ensure minimum lighting requirements are met and adding pedestrian scale lighting within the pedestrian and bicycle zone.
Transit signal priority (TSP). Adding technology to the buses and to the traffic signal to help bus on-time performance is critical to improving access to transit.

The City will work with OCTA to identify the appropriate technology and implementation strategies.
Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP). All traffic signals will include GPS-based preemption technology to turn signals green for emergency vehicles and improve emergency response times.
Improved landscape and streetscape for the corridor. Street trees, low level landscape, drainage swales, and other treatments will be integrated to help reduce the heat envelope along the corridor and to capture urban run- off. Improved bus stops are also key to the overall corridor design. Creating a uniform plant palette and furniture design will create a cohesive feel and character along the corridor.

City Council
19 –
6 2/17/2026

First Street Multimodal Boulevard Study
February 17, 2026

Page 7 ends

5 5
3 4

CONCEPT OVERVIEW
The following presents an overview of the three (3) concepts that emerged as the top based on community input. Preferences for each of the three concepts were nearly equally distributed in terms of preference. Fact sheets for each concept are provided in Exhibits 4, 5, and 6.

Option 1: Multi-Use Path Concept
Maintains six vehicular travel lanes;
Introduces shared pedestrian/bicycle path on the south side at the sidewalk level, an additional one (1) to three (3) feet of width of the sidewalk on the south side only;
Sidewalk on the north side;
Maintains existing vehicle capacity but includes shared spaces. No changes to intersection levels of service, automobile/transit delay, or end-to- end travel times

City Council
19 –
7 2/17/2026

First Street Multimodal Boulevard Study
February 17, 2026

Page 8 ends

5 5
3 4
Option 2: Enhanced Pedestrian and Bicycle Zone Concept
Five travel lanes;
Separated, protected bicycle facilities at the sidewalk level on both sides; Wider sidewalks with landscape buffers between the bicycle lane and pedestrian walkway;
Reallocates one westbound travel lane to prioritize safety and comfort; Includes bus pull outs to maintain traffic flow;
Extends left-turn pocket lengths and introduces new right-turn pockets at intersections identified to have operational impacts;
Some traffic operational tradeoffs, but overall can be implemented without significant impacts to traffic.
oIntersections at Bristol, Flower, and Downtown Plaza experience slight increases to delay and level of service
o2 minutes, 14 seconds faster end-to-end travel time in eastbound direction during the AM peak hour
o30 second increase in end-to-end travel time in westbound direction during the AM peak hour
oNo change to end-to-end travel time in eastbound direction during the PM peak hour
o1 minute, 30 second increase in end-to-end travel time in the westbound direction during the PM peak hour

City Council
19 –
8 2/17/2026

First Street Multimodal Boulevard Study
February 17, 2026

Page 9 ends

5 5
3 4
Option 3: Bus Lanes and Bikeway Concept
Four general-purpose lanes plus dedicated transit-only bus lanes; Protected bicycle facilities on both sides;
Significant transit performance benefits;
Greatest potential mode shift but highest traffic operational tradeoffs. oIntersections at Bristol, Flower, Grand, and Lyon experience significant increases to delay and level of service
oLeft-turn queuing extends into the through lane at almost half the signalized intersections

City Council
19 –
9 2/17/2026

First Street Multimodal Boulevard Study
February 17, 2026

Page 10 ends

5 5
3 4
o49 second increase in end-to-end travel time for automobiles in the eastbound direction during the AM peak hour compared to a 3 minute, 39 second decrease in bus travel times
o1 minute, 48 second increase in end-to-end travel time for automobiles in the eastbound direction during the PM peak hour compared to a 4 minute, 4 second decrease in bus travel times
o27 second increase in end-to-end travel time for automobiles in the westbound direction during the AM peak hour compared to a 35 second increase in bus travel times
o3 minute, 1 second increase in end-to-end travel time for automobiles in the westbound direction during the PM peak hour compared to a 2 minute, 23 second increase in bus travel times

City Council
19 –
10 2/17/2026

First Street Multimodal Boulevard Study
February 17, 2026

Page 11 ends

5 5
3 4
Concepts East of Zoo Lane
For the eastern segment (I-5 to Tustin Avenue), a consistent four-lane configuration to match the existing cross-section of First Street within City of Tustin limits with expanded pedestrian and bicycle zones is proposed across all alternatives, building on a planned City rehabilitation project and Caltrans’ Freeway Ramp Active Mobility Enhancement Study (FRAMES) concept. This configuration is consistent with the vision and design standards included in the Metro East Mixed-Use Overlay Zone. The Fact Sheet for the East Side Concept is provided in Exhibit 7.

TRAFFIC EVALUATION OF CONCEPTS
Traffic modeling using VISSIM was conducted for opening year (2028) and design year (2048) conditions. Detailed traffic operational results are included in Exhibit 1.

Key findings include:
All concepts generally operate at acceptable levels of service in the opening year with targeted intersection improvements;

City Council
19 –
11 2/17/2026

First Street Multimodal Boulevard Study
February 17, 2026

Page 12 ends

5 5
3 4
Some intersections experience increased delay under lane-reduction scenarios, particularly near freeway ramps;
End-to-end travel times increase slightly under the five-lane concept and increase significantly under the four-lane concept;
East-side four-lane configuration operates acceptably in both opening and design years;
Long-term traffic patterns will be further evaluated in coordination with OCTA to account for potential traffic redistribution.

EVALUATION OF CONCEPT BENEFITS
Using the goals of this project, input and feedback from the community, and the technical analysis conducted to date, a comparison of the benefits for each concept was developed. The comparison (“Harvey Ball” rating) is based on how each concept improves conditions by mode compared to the existing conditions. The table below summarizes the results of this exercise (full shade = meets goal; not shaded = does not meet goal).

City Council
19 –
12 2/17/2026

First Street Multimodal Boulevard Study
February 17, 2026

Page 13 ends

5 5
3 4

NEXT STEPS
Staff will carefully review the analysis, findings, and community input and prepare a Final Technical Memorandum. Based on community input and technical analysis, staff will return to Council with a recommendation for selection of the Locally Preferred Alternative.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
There is no environmental impact associated with the action.

City Council
19 –
13 2/17/2026

First Street Multimodal Boulevard Study
February 17, 2026

Page 14 ends

5 5
3 4

FISCAL IMPACT
The City has secured grant funds for the design phase of the project only. Staff will coordinate with OCTA to identify funding strategies to potentially fund the construction of the Locally Preferred Alternative.

EXHIBIT(S)

1. Presentation

2. Technical Memorandum

3. Outreach and Engagement Fact Sheet

4. Option 1: Multi-Use Path Concept Fact Sheet

5. Option 2: Enhanced Pedestrian and Bicycle Zone Concept Fact Sheet

6. Option 3: Bus Lane and Bike Lane Concept Fact Sheet

7. East Side Concept Fact Sheet
Submitted By: Rodolfo Rosas, P.E., Acting Executive Director – Public Works Agency Approved By: Alvaro Nuñez, City Manager

City Council
19 –
14 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 1
First Street Multimodal
Boulevard Study
Work Study Session

City Council
19 –
15 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 2
Why First Street?
Citywide Statistics
• 55% of population with no access to a private vehicle1 • 21,916,743 combined bus boardings and alightings2
• Over 17,000 daily bicycle trips and 53,000 daily pedestrian trips3 1 US Census Bureau, 2018 American Community Survey, Means of Transportation 2 OCTA Bus Ridership by City, Santa Ana 2024
3 Santa Ana Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2012 (extrapolated to 2024)

City Council
19 –
16 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 3
Why First Street?
First Street Corridor Statistics
250+ Bikes per Day
85% on Sidewalk
*All data collected in March 2025
20,000 to 36,000
vehicles per day
Up to 2,900
Daily Boardings
1,300+ Pedestrians
per Day

City Council
19 –
17 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 4
Why Improve First Street?
Why First Street?
Collision Data
Comparison of Collision Data on Streets with Similar Volumes (2022-2025) 6 fatalities
2 fatalities
Location Total collisions
Total
Injured
Average number
of days between
collisions
Average number
of days between
injuries
Ped/Bik
e
Ped/Bike
Injury
1st from Bristol to Standard 323 249 1.13 1.47 38 33
Harbor from McFadden to Westminster 211 142 1.73 2.57 28 22 17th from Santiago to Tustin 154 121 2.37 3.02 22 21
An average of 1
collision every 27
hours

City Council
19 –
18 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 5
Travel Experience on First Street

City Council
19 –
19 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 6
Existing Environment on First
• 6 Lanes
• 16 Traffic Signals
• Signals are
Coordinated
• Routes 65
• 12 Stops (each
direction)
• No Transit
Signal Priority
• 9-10' Sidewalks
• Controlled Crossings
Only at Signals
• 84' to Cross First
• No Existing
Bicycle Facilities

City Council
19 –
20 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 7
Vulnerable Populations
Senior Population
Student Population

City Council
19 –
21 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 8
Existing Sidewalks
Narrow Sidewalks Curb Ramps

City Council
19 –
22 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 9
Pedestrian Exposure
Up to 1/2 Mile Between
Marked Crosswalks
Up to 82 Feet
Across First Street

City Council
19 –
23 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 10
Traffic Flow
Buses Block Lane Left Turn Pocket Queue

City Council
19 –
24 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 11
Bus Stops & Lighting
Bus Stop Safety &
Access
Lack of Lighting

City Council
19 –
25 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 12
Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety
Bicycles on Sidewalk E-bikes

City Council
19 –
26 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 13
Project Background
• Funded through REAP 2.0 grant administered by OCTA and SCAG
• Grant focuses on improving access for low-income housing through improved multimodal options within existing right-of- way
• Scope includes existing conditions assessment, community engagement, alternatives analysis, feasibility studies, and 100% design of the Locally Preferred Alternative
• December 2026 grant deadline, condensed schedule
• HDR Inc., a global traffic engineering and transportation planning firm, was awarded contract in May 2025

City Council
19 –
27 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 14
Project Goal
The project's goal is to improve the travel environment along First Street and connect people to places through a variety of reliable, safe, and affordable travel options.

City Council
19 –
28 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 15
Comprehensive Data Collection
Traffic/Bike/Ped Counts
Field Visit
LiDar Survey
Traffic Modeling
Bus Rider Experience
Equity Studies
Walk Audit

City Council
19 –
29 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 16
Safety Assessment
–Long distance between
marked / controlled
crosswalks across First Street
–High traffic speed
–Visibility (lighting and at
intersections)
–Absence of or discontinued
bike facilities
–Pedestrian signal violation

CATEGORY

NUMBER OF REPORTED CRASHES IN YEAR
TOT
AL
%
SHA
RE
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

CRASH SEVERITY
[PEDESTRIAN-INVOLVED]
Fatal Injury 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 6 10.7%
Severe Injury 1 1 0 0 2 1 2 2 9 16.1%
Minor Injury 5 3 0 0 5 4 8 2 27 48.2%
Complaint of Pain 4 1 0 0 1 1 4 3 14 25.0%
All Reported Crashes 10 6 1 1 10 6 15 7 56 -
CRASH SEVERITY [BICYCLE-
INVOLVED]
Fatal Injury 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 3.9%
Severe Injury 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1.9%
Minor Injury 5 0 0 0 1 8 6 4 24 46.2%
Complaint of Pain 4 3 0 0 3 6 1 8 25 48.1%
All Reported Crashes 9 3 0 0 6 15 7 12 52 -
Source: Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), 2017- 2024

City Council
19 –
30 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 17
Posted Speed vs. Observed Speed
85th Percentile Speeds
43 to 46 mph

City Council
19 –
31 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 18
Survival Rates by Age and Speed

City Council
19 –
32 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 19
Directional Volume and CapacityExisting Daily Traffic Volumes 0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Baker to
Shelton
Parton to
Ross
West of
Spurgeon
East of
Garfield
Standard to
Grand
West of
Wright
West of
Cabrillo Park
Drive
Golden
Circle to
Tustin
AvenueEastbound Westbound
3 lanes
2 lanes
(16,900)
(25,300)

City Council
19 –
33 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 20
Benefits &
Trade-Offs
Analysis (3)
Community
Workshop 2
Community
Workshop 1
Existing
Conditions
Analysis
Community
Workshop 3
Narrow to 8
Options
Technical
Analysis
Feasibility
Assessment
Present
Options to
Stakeholders
Identify
Potential
Options
Identify
Issues
Identify 3
Potential
Concepts
Initial
Benefits &
Trade Offs
Analysis (8)
Workshops Held at Roosevelt-Walker Community Center
Data
Collection
Field
Walk

City Council
19 –
34 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 21
How people use First Street today,and
the improvements that would make it
safer and more comfortable to travel.

What we heard:
• Need for safer walking and biking
access
• Missing crosswalks in several
locations
• Mixed feedback on adding bike
lanes
• Interest in improved sidewalk
amenities (bus stops, lighting,
shade)
• Concerns about peak-hour traffic
increases
Reviewed eight preliminary design
alternatives developed from community
input, technical analysis, and feedback
from the virtual survey. What we heard:
• Preference for six-, five-, and four-
lane travel lanes, with bus lane
options.
• Protected bike paths from street
traffic and transit signal priority at
intersections
• More shade trees and landscape
areas
• Mid-block-controlled crossings to
reduce jaywalking and improve
pedestrian access
• Need for sidewalk safety and street
lighting improvements
Reviewed three redefined design
concepts developed from community
input, technical analysis, and a virtual
poll. What we heard:
• Support for a design that
balances traffic with safety,
accessibility, and environmental
enhancements
• Urgency for pedestrian and
bicyclist safety, calling for raised
crosswalks, protected
intersections, complete
sidewalks, and fully separated
bike paths
• Travel congestion concerns and
mixed support on reducing
travel lanes

City Council
19 –
35 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 22
Community Input Summary
• Safety
• Lighting
• Landscaping
• Bikes in Dedicated
Space
• Traffic Flow
• Existing Bus Stop
Safety

City Council
19 –
36 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 23
In-Person Touch Points
Workshops – 185 participants
Workshop Series #1 (one in person, one
virtual)
36 people, 102 comments
Workshop Series #2 (two in person, 3
hours each)
67 people, 88 comments
Workshop Series #3 (two in person, 2
hours each)
82 people, 237 comments

City Council
19 –
37 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 24
In-Person Touch Points
Pop Up Events
• Jim Rodeo (Jim Thorpe Elementary School)
• Fiestas Patrias
• SEVA Food Pantry Drive Thru (2)
• Chicano Heritage Festival
• Latino Health Access Senior Group
• Walk to School Day
• Santa Ana High School Youth Club Meeting
• Santa Ana College Career Fair
• ATP Mixer
• Coffee with the Mayor
• Faith Leaders Meeting
• Neighborhood Association Leadership Meeting

City Council
19 –
38 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 25
In-Person Touch Points
Neighborhood Association Meetings (11)
• Artesia Pillar (1)
• Downtown, Flower Park, and Artesia Pillar Combined (1) • Heninger Park (2)
• Pacific Park (3)
• Pico Lowell (1)
• Saddleback View & Zoo District Combined (1)
• Willard (1)
• Valley Adams, Centennial Park, Laurelhurst, and Shadow Run (1)

City Council
19 –
39 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 26
Online Participation
Website
3,180 visits – Aug 2025 to Present
English – 2,091
Spanish - 552
Vietnamese - 537
Online Surveys
521 Responses
Q&A Survey (2 weeks, Sept 2025)
First Street issues, challenges
feedback
• Responses: 120
Video with Design Options
Survey (1 month, Oct 2025)
Feedback on eight design options
• Responses: 207
• Comments: 194
Social Media
8,584 unique
interactions
and impressions

City Council
19 –
40 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 27
Focused Meetings
Stakeholders (28)
• City of Santa Ana
• City of Tustin
• County of Orange
• Caltrans
• OC Health Care Agency
• OCTA
• Orange County CEO's Office
• Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA)
• Santa Ana Senior Center
• Environmental and Transportation
Advisory Committee (ETAC)
Stakeholders Contacted (28),
• Orange County Business
Council
• Santa Ana Chamber of
Commerce
• Mercy House
• Santa Ana Historical
Preservation Society
• Thrive Community Land Trust
• LIUNA - Local 652
• SEIU USWW - Local 1877

City Council
19 –
41 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 28
Stakeholders (28)
Focused Meetings
• Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD)
• Raymond A. Villa Fundamental Intermediate School
• Carver Elementary
• Garfield Elementary School
• John F. Kennedy Elementary School
• Roosevelt-Walker Academy
• Santa Ana City College
• Martin R. Heninger Elementary School
• Santa Ana High School
• Edward B. Cole Academy
• Rancho Santiago Community College District

City Council
19 –
42 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 29
Focused Meetings
City Department Meetings (5)
• Santa Ana City Projects Review Meeting
• Orange County Fire Authority
• Santa Ana Police Department
• Community Development Agency
• Planning and Building Agency
Community Based Organizations (5)
• The Bicycle Tree
• Orange County Environmental Justice
• Santa Ana Active Streets
• Latino Health Access
• Orange County Communities Organized for
Responsible Development (OCCORD)

City Council
19 –
43 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 30

City Council
19 –
44 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 31
Elements Included in All Options
Improvements to sidewalk quality,
landscape and trees, curb ramps,
new high-visibility crosswalks, ADA
access, and transit signal priority
will be included & emergency pre-
emption (GPS), fire hydrants
adjacent to curbs.

City Council
19 –
45 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 32
New Controlled Pedestrian Crossings
• Shelton St.
• Booth St.
• New Signal at Lacy
St.
• Between McClay St.
& Wright St.
• East of Cabrillo Circle

City Council
19 –
46 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 33
West Side
3 Concepts Developed
(Bristol Street to Zoo Lane)
East Side
1 Concept
(Zoo Lane to Tustin Avenue)

City Council
19 –
47 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 34
West Side Concepts (3)
West Side
(Bristol Street to Zoo Lane)

City Council
19 –
48 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 35
Multi-Use Path Concept
Maintains six (6) travel lanes with a shared pedestrian and bicycle path on the south side
Concept 1

City Council
19 –
49 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 36
Multi-Use Path Concept
Six (6) travel lanes with a shared pedestrian and
bicycle path on the south side
Concept 1

City Council
19 –
50 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 37

City Council
19 –
51 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 38
Five (5) travel lanes with a sidewalk and a separated bikeway at the sidewalk level on each side
Enhanced Pedestrian and
Bicycle Zone Concept
Concept 2

City Council
19 –
52 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 39
Five (5) travel lanes with a sidewalk and a separated
bikeway on each side
Enhanced Pedestrian and
Bicycle Zone Concept
Concept 2

City Council
19 –
53 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 40

City Council
19 –
54 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 41
Bus Turnouts (WB)

City Council
19 –
55 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 42
Bus Lanes and Bikeway
Concept
Four (4) travel lanes and two (2) bus lanes with a sidewalk and bikeway on each side
Concept 3

City Council
19 –
56 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 43
Bus Lanes and Bikeway
Concept
Four (4) travel lanes and two (2) bus lanes with a sidewalk and bikeway on each side
Concept 3

City Council
19 –
57 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 44

City Council
19 –
58 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 45
Enhanced Pedestrian &
Bicycle Concept
Travel Time Comparison (Opening Year)
EB:

WB:

EB:

WB:

EB:

WB:

AM PM
-2:05
-0:03
-0:09
-0:59
-2:12
+0:30
0:00
+1:30
+0:49
+0:27
+1:48
+3:01
AUTO:

Multi Use Path
Concept
Bus Lane/Bike
Lane Concept
1 2
3 City Council
19 –
59 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 46
Enhanced Pedestrian &
Bicycle Concept
Travel Time Comparison (Opening Year)
EB:

WB:

EB:

WB:

EB:

WB:

AM PM
BUS:

Multi Use Path
Concept
Bus Lane/Bike
Lane Concept
-3:57
+2:12
-2:17
+0:43
-4:11
+2:58
-2:01
+1:35
-3:39
+0:35
-4:04
+2:23
1 2
3 City Council
19 –
60 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 47
 Limited separated pedestrian &
bicycle facilities
 Narrow sidewalk for utilities,
lighting and streetscape
 Highest increase in travel time
 2-minute bus travel time savings
 Dedicated pedestrian & bicycle
facilities
 Narrowest crossing distance across
First Street
 Maximum area for landscape
 Minimal change in travel time
 Westbound right turn pockets and
bus turnouts
 Widens sidewalk on one side
 Maintains or improves travel times
 Limited safety improvements
1 2 3

City Council
19 –
61 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 48
East Side Concept (1)
East Side
(Zoo Lane to Tustin Avenue)

City Council
19 –
62 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 49
Four (4) travel lanes with a sidewalk and a separated
bikeway on each side
4 Lanes with Enhanced Pedestrian &
Bicycle Zone

City Council
19 –
63 2/17/2026

[First Street Multimodal]
[Public Works, Traffic]
[February 17, 2026]
Slide 50
Questions

City Council
19 –
64 2/17/2026

Memo
Date: Thursday, January 15, 2026
Project: First Street Multimodal Corridor Study
To: Mike Arizabal, Senior Transportation Analyst, City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency From: Dawn L. Wilson, PE TE, Project Manager , HDR
Subject: First Street Multimodal Corridor Study Project Overvie w Initiated in May 2025, HDR has been working closely with City of Santa Ana to develop multimodal improvements that address mobility barriers for all users along First Street.

Project extents reach from Bristol Street to Tustin Avenue, approximately 3 miles through downtown, past two schools, passes under the railroad tracks, and crosses through the I-5 interchange. This technical memorandum provides an overview of the project’s progress and the tasks completed through December 2025, which included existing conditions assessment, development of 8 options and refinement to three corridor concepts, technical analysis of the options, and extensive outreach with the public, stakeholders and community groups.

Project Background
The City of Santa Ana's First Street Multimodal Boulevard Study (Study) aims to transform and improve the First Street corridor between Bristol Street and Tustin Avenue (see Figure 1) for all modes of transportation. A multimodal street is one that balances the needs of all users, including people walking, biking, riding transit, and driving–while also functioning as a community space that supports social, economic, and environmental vitality. Boulevards and major streets like First Street play a vital role in cities, not only as conduits for mobility, but as central public spaces shared by residents, visitors, and people of all ages and abilities.

In 2022, the City of Santa Ana (City) updated its General Plan Mobility Element (Mobility Element) and identified First Street as a Pedestrian Opportunity Zone to be reconfigured for multimodal improvements.

Vibrant urban boulevards with amenities and storefronts should have a minimum width of 15 feet. Urban streets with trees should have a minimum of 12 feet to still allow for comfortable pedestrian space. Streets with small trees and walking zones should have a minimum of 9 feet.

A walk audit was conducted, along with traffic modeling, origin-destination analysis, and an in-depth assessment of existing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit conditions to establish the

City Council
19 –
65 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

2 existing conditions of the First Street corridor. This information in conjunction with the technical multimodal analysis and traffic modeling and community input resulted in the development of three potential concepts that will improve the travel environment on First Street. Ultimately, these three concepts will be reviewed by City Council, and a locally preferred alternative will be selected. The City has funding to advance this alternative into final design and is in the process of securing funding for construction.

Figure 1. Project Corridor

Figure 2. Examples of Best Street Practices for Pedestrian Facilities

City Council
19 –
66 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

3 Funding
The project was funded through a REAP 2.0 grant administered by OCTA and SCAG. The grant focuses on improving access for low-income housing through improved pedestrian, bicycle and transit options. While the City did receive a short extension, the grant will expire in December 2026. Additional funding may be needed to complete the design (depending upon the timing and elements of the locally preferred alternative and the limits of the improvements). The City is working closely with OCTA to secure additional funding for construction engineering and construction of the selected improvements.

Goals and Objectives
The goal of this project is as follows:

Improve the travel environment along First Street and connect people to places through a variety of reliable, safe and affordable travel options.

This can be achieved by:
• Prioritizing vulnerable roadway users. The success of implementing improvements should be measured by its ability to improve safety and accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Reducing vehicle speeds and address basic safety.
• Adding trees and landscape to create shade and make the corridor visually appealing. Creating a unified design for the corridor will improve the quality of the travel experience.
• Adding new north-south crossings to improve connectivity across the street. With a limited number of existing controlled crossings, First Street serves as a barrier between communities north and south of the corridor.
• Creating a continuous, high-quality bike network that connects to north-south regional routes. Most bicyclists currently travel on the sidewalk due to safety concerns riding in the street. Providing wider sidewalks to accommodate either a Class 1 multiuse path or Class IV bikeways improves safety for both pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Enhancing and improving transit performance and the rider experience. Provide features such as dedicated lanes or bus priority to improve the efficiency of buses along this highly traveled route.

Existing Conditions
Pedestrians and Bicycles
For this analysis, First Street is grouped into three segments, each with distinct characteristics that coincide with neighborhoods and districts identified in the City’s General Plan. While district boundaries outside the city core are more flexible and may overlap due to shared characteristics such as architectural style, scale, and overall character, the

City Council
19 –
67 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

4 introduction of newer large-scale commercial and mixed-use developments is expected to create clearer, more defined boundaries in Santa Ana. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Analysis Technical Memorandum (attached separately) provide a more detailed assessment of the findings presented in this section.

West Bristol Hub: Bristol Street to Main St
• Neighborhoods: Flower Park, Downtown, Pico-Lowell, Heninger Park • Character: Heavily commercial with shopping centers, civic uses, and surface parking
Downtown Historic Center: Main Street to Grand Avenue
• Neighborhoods: Downtown, French Park, Lacy, Logan, Pacific Park • Character: Historic downtown, civic buildings, smaller retail, denser housing, transitions into mixed residential eastward.

East City Gateway: Grand Avenue to Tustin Avenue
• Neighborhoods: Saddleback View, Zoo District, Lyon Street. • Character: Motels, Santa Ana Zoo, mix of offices, high-density residential, freeway edge conditions.

This section summarizes existing pedestrian and bicycle conditions along First Street and its intersection crossings. The analysis uses a customized ranking system based on the Pedestrian Environmental Quality Index (PEQI), typical First/Last Mile evaluation criteria, and Level of Traffic Stress (LTS), with adjustments tailored to the study area. This approach emphasizes the pedestrian experience and provides a more qualitative measure of walkability and bikeability.

Walkability

Bicycle Conditions
• Land Use & Neighborhood
Character
• Streetscape Design (roadway,
traffic speeds, sidewalk,
landscape, & lighting*)
• Pedestrian Access
• Connectivity & Safety
• Intersection Safety
* Lighting is not evaluated but should be studied
further in coordination with the City’s Lighting
Masterplan

• Facility Quality
• Intersection Safety
• Bicycle Network Connectivity
• Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)

City Council
19 –
68 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

5 Level of Traffic Stress or LTS is a common measure of bicyclist comfort when traveling along a roadway, with LTS 1 being very comfortable and LTS 4 being highly challenging. Below are descriptions of each LTS category and Photo 6 shows examples of LTS 1 through 3 bicycle facilities:

LTS 1: Strong separation from all but low-speed, low-volume traffic; simple crossings; suitable for children.

LTS 2: Physical separation from higher-speed or multilane traffic; easy crossings; comfortable for most adults, especially the “interested but concerned.” LTS 3: Requires interaction with moderate-speed or multilane traffic, or in close proximity to higher-speed traffic; suitable for “enthused and confident” riders.

LTS 4: Requires interaction with or in close proximity to high-speed traffic; suitable only for “strong and fearless” riders.

Photo 6: Examples of LTS 1 (Left), LTS 2 (Right), LTS 3 (Bottom) Bicycle Facilities

City Council
19 –
69 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

6 West Bristol Hub: Bristol Street to Main Street
This segment of First Street combines commercial land uses (small scale retail, shopping centers and surface parking lots) on the east and western edges with high-density housing and schools focused near the center, between Flower Street and Broadway. The street features a landscaped median, mature shade trees, and 7 to 8 feet sidewalks with tree wells, supporting comfortable pedestrian activity. Striped shoulders are present but are below standard in width for a bicycle lane and are not clearly marked. Several cyclists were observed using sidewalks during a site walk to avoid high speed traffic.

Two schools are located on the south side, Santa Ana High School and Martin R. Heninger Elementary School, which also include recreational facilities. Key crossings at Flower and Ross Streets serve students, highlighting the need for safe, well-connected pathways. North- south access would be greatly improved by adding signalized pedestrian crossings along the half-mile stretch between Bristol Street and Flower Street.

Overall, the segment balances commercial, residential, and educational uses while offering potential for improved multimodal connectivity. Figure 3 shows the walkability and bikeability ratings for West Bristol Hub with an example photo of typical conditions.

Figure 3. West Bristol Hub Pedestrian and Bicycle Existing Conditions

City Council
19 –
70 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

7 Downtown Historic Center: Main Street to Grand Avenue This segment of First Street defines the southern edge of the City’s designated Downtown Core and Transit Center District. Main Street provides a key connection north to the Downtown Santa Ana Historic District and the new OC Streetcar, which links east to the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center. The corridor is characterized by small-scale retail and shopping centers with surface parking lots. A landscaped median and mature shade trees contribute to a consistent streetscape, while sidewalks (7-8 feet wide with tree wells) support a comfortable pedestrian environment. The key exception is the section from Standard Avenue to Grand Avenue, where First Street narrows to four lanes. Figure 4 shows the walkability and bikeability ratings for the Downtown Historic Center with an example photo of the railroad undercrossing where there are four travel lanes.

Challenges emerge in the quarter-mile stretch between Standard Avenue and Grand Avenue, where the Metrolink underpass creates a hostile walking environment with narrow 5-foot sidewalks, no shade, and no buffer from traffic. Bicycle facilities are minimal–aside from a short block between Main Street and Bush Street/Cypress Avenue, there are no designated bike lanes along this segment.

The intersection of First Street and Downtown Plaza is a critical node for pedestrians– serving local residents, families, shoppers, bus riders, and students from the Edward B. Cole Sr. Academy. However, pedestrian safety improvements are needed. Additionally, between Downtown Plaza and Standard Avenue, the corridor has long block lengths without a north- south crossing (approximately half a mile) posing barriers to pedestrian connectivity.

Figure 4. Downtown Historic Center: Main Street to Grand Avenue

City Council
19 –
71 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

8 East City Gateway: Grand Avenue to Tustin Avenue
This eastern segment of First Street is a combination of commercial (motels, small scale retail, shopping centers, office buildings and surface parking lots) and mixed-use high- density housing. The corridor is separated by the I-5 freeway with the motels and Santa Ana Zoo to the West and a mixture of office buildings and high-density housing to the east.

Overall, the lack of shade trees, and motel activity make the corridor unfriendly to walk and was rated fair to poor. Figure 5 shows the walkability and bikeability ratings for East City Gateway.

Typical roadway width in this segment is upwards of 85 feet, including both landscaped and paved medians. Via Google Earth images, it appears that there were once shade trees in the median that seem to have been removed. Sidewalk widths range from 9 to 11’ with tree wells, but unless added with new development, the existing mature shade trees are sporadically dispersed throughout the corridor.

While the zoo is a major destination in the area, First Street is not the primary access point and may not see increased traffic during hours of operation. Overall, the lack of shade trees, and motel activity make the corridor unfriendly to walk and was rated fair to poor.

Figure 5. East City Gateway: Grand Avenue to Tustin Avenue

City Council
19 –
72 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

9 Overall Corridor Conditions
Pedestrian and bicycle conditions along First Street reveal significant safety and accessibility challenges, with gaps in infrastructure, inconsistent facilities, and environmental factors that collectively create barriers to safe and comfortable travel for all users. The following observations highlight opportunities for improvement in the redesign of First Street.

Street Conditions
• Continuous sidewalk access on both sides of the street. • High frequency of driveways with no clear ADA pathway.

Bicycle Facilities
• No existing bicycle facilities provided.
• Posted speed limits (40-45 mph) have proven fatal for cyclist/vehicle collisions. • Predominance of sidewalk cycling impacts pedestrians. • No bike-protected intersections at key north/south wheel facility connections (Bristol Street, Flower Street, Ross Street, Standard Avenue, Grand Avenue, Tustin Avenue).
• Need connections to other bike routes, safe crossings under Metrolink & over freeway.

Intersections & Controlled Crossings
• Signalized crossings are infrequent (16 traffic signals along the 3-mile corridor) and often located far apart (approximately 1 mile west of Main Street and approximately

0.25 mile east of I-5).
• Long distances between north-south signalized crossings (typically 1/2-mile). • Major intersections with long crossing distances (100–140 feet). • Marked crosswalks are not high-visibility continental type. • Directional curb ramps (single ramp) are unsafe at intersections with large curb radii & high turning speed.
• Dangerous jaywalking near activity hubs with vulnerable populations. • No protected bicycle intersections.

Climate Impact
• Extreme weather threatens people with disabilities.
• Existing tree canopy is inconsistent.
• Limited access to shade & seating.
• Surrounding hardscape, landscape & buildings affect pedestrian comfort.

City Council
19 –
73 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

10 Transit
OCTA Route 64 runs east-west along First Street, connecting Larwin Square in the City of Tustin to the Westminster Mall in the City of Huntington Beach. Route 64 has local and express stops along First Street.

In addition, OCTA provides multiple north-south bus routes that intersect First Street and provide connectivity across Orange County (OCTA Routes 57, 150/151, 55, 53, 553, 59, 83, and 71). Key transfer points along the corridor include Bristol Street, Flower Street, Main Street, Grand Avenue, and Tustin Avenue.

The Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center is less than half a mile north of the project corridor and serves regional transit services, including Amtrak, Metrolink, OCTA, and Greyhound. The station sits west of the railroad tracks at the intersection of Santa Ana Boulevard and Santiago Street. From First Street, several north-south roadways—such as Main Street—provide direct access to Santa Ana Boulevard. Riders can reach the station by taking OCTA Route 64 westbound and transferring to Route 59 northbound at Tustin Avenue.

Ridership
Daily boarding information for Route 64 was provided by OCTA for October 2024, April 2025, and May 2025. Ridership was analyzed for each stop along the project corridor in the eastbound and westbound direction (see Table 1). The highest average boarding across the three time periods occurs at Bristol Street eastbound and Main Street westbound. The busiest stops are on the west side from Bristol Street to Downtown Plaza and at Grand Avenue. Ridership is lower at local stops between Downtown Plaza and Standard Avenue and at Cabrillo Park Drive and Golden Circle Drive.

Bus Stop Amenities
A field check was completed to document the existing amenities at local and express bus stops between Bristol Street and Tustin Avenue. While the amenities at each stop varied, all stops included seating and signage. The provision of bus shelters aligns the busiest stops and is constructed and maintained by the City. Photo 1 shows the bus stop near Bristol Street.

All stops lack dedicated shelter lighting, wayfinding signage, and real-time arrival displays.

Each bus stop has basic route information from OCTA. Most bus stops have a concrete bus pad for boarding, and buses usually stop in the outside travel lane. The only exception is the westbound stop on Flower Street, which includes a dedicated bus turnout, shown in Photo 2.

Individuals experiencing homelessness were observed occupying seats at some locations, leaving other riders to stand.

City Council
19 –
74 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

11 Table 1. Ridership by Stop

Daily Boardings
Stop Direction Oct-24 Apr-25 May-25
5957-1st-Bristol E 368 327 342
5987-1st-Bristol W 252 223 228
5961-1st-Flower E 114 104 112
5984-1st-Flower W 173 165 165
5962-1st-Ross E 71 65 71
5983-1st-Ross W 135 122 129
5964-1st-Main E 189 187 200
5981-1st-Main W 332 315 324
5965-1st-Maple E 112 104 105
5980-1st-Downtown Plaza W 194 183 191
5966-1st-Hickory E 36 33 32
5978-1st-Lacy W 71 73 79
5967-1st-Cedar E 36 26 24
5976-1st-Standard W 42 38 38
5968-1st-Grand E 62 58 64
5975-1st-Grand W 243 228 225
5974-1st-Lyon W 131 126 129
5970-1st-Cabrillo Park E 9 8 7
5973-1st-Cabrillo Park W 48 44 43
5971-1st-Golden Circle E 37 27 27
5972-1st-Golden Circle W 159 148 142
7152-1st-Tus tin E 33 34 33
7165-1st-Tus tin W 141 140 138
Note: Colors depict the range of boardings from highest to lowest in 50 boarding increments where green = highest number of boardings and red = lowest number of boardings.

City Council
19 –
75 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

12 Photo 11: Bust Stop near Bristol Street

Photo 22: Bus Turnout at Flower Street

City Council
19 –
76 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

13 Traffic Operations
First Street is currently a six-lane divided roadway with a raised median and dedicated turn pockets at intersections. The road has a capacity of 56,300 vehicles per day at LOS E. The threshold for acceptable level of service (LOS D) is 50,600 vehicles per day. Within the study area there are 16 signalized intersections and several unsignalized intersections. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph) despite the presence of several school and senior facilities within the study area.

To assess the existing traffic conditions along the corridor, peak hour intersection volumes (vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles) and daily volumes (speed, volume and classification) were collected at locations along the corridor during a typical weekday in March 2025.

Daily Volume Analysis
Daily traffic volumes were collected at eight spot locations along the corridor. Table 2 below summarizes the volume and the existing level of service based on the City’s level of service thresholds for roadway segments.

Table 2. Existing Roadway Segment Level of Service
Segment
Daily Traffic Volume (vehicles per day)
LOS EB WB Total
Baker Street to Shelton Street 20,526 18,862 39,388 B
Parton Street to Ross Street 21,155 19,046 40,201 C
West of Spurgeon Street 20,773 16,490 37,263 B
East of Garfield Street 18,417 15,626 34,043 B
Standard Avenue to Grand Avenue 18,373 14,924 33,297 A
West of Wright Street 18,476 15,598 34,074 B
West of Cabrillo Park Drive 14,451 10,603 25,054 A
Golden Circle Drive to Tustin Avenue 10,373 8,766 19,139 A

As shown, all of the segments currently operate at LOS C or better. To understand the peaking characteristics along the corridor, the daily volumes at the locations with highest volume (Parton Street to Ross Street) and lowest volume (Golden Circle Drive to Tustin Avenue) were evaluated on an hourly basis. Figure 6 illustrates the volumes over a 24-hour period, which shows at both the highest and lowest volume locations there are similar peaking characteristics, which occur in the AM (7:00 to 9:00AM) and in the PM (3:30 – 5:30PM).

City Council
19 –
77 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

14 Figure 6. Distribution of Volume Across a 24-Hour Period

Traffic Speeds
The posted speed limit along First Street is primarily 40mph in each direction. Table 3 shows the 85th percentile or prevailing speed along the corridor . As shown, the 85th percentile is generally within 5 mph of the posted speed limit.

Table 3. 85th Percentile Speeds by Study Segment
Segment
85th Percentile Speed (miles per
hour)
Vehicles Per
Day Traveling
Over 40 mph
(% of ADT) EB WB Total
Baker Street to Shelton Street 41 40 40 5,899 (15%)
Parton Street to Ross Street 41 41 41 7,158 (18%)
West of Spurgeon Street 37 35 36 2,087 (6%)
East of Garfield Street 42 44 43 8,687 (26%)
Standard Avenue to Grand Avenue 42 40 41 6,017 (18%)
West of Wright Street 43 42 43 8,160 (24%)
West of Cabrillo Park Drive 40 38 39 2,754 (11%)
Golden Circle Drive to Tustin
Avenue
42 40 41 3,525 (18%)

While the 85th percentile speeds are within a reasonable range of the posted speed limit, many vehicles were recorded traveling at or above the posted 40 mph speed limit. These excessive speeds tend to occur outside of the peak hours when the volume on the roadway is well below capacity. The lack of traffic and friction that is caused by the proximity of vehicles close to one another results in drivers traveling faster than the posted speed limit – even when they are not aware they are doing so.
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Vehicles Per Hour
Parton Street to Ross Street Golden Circle Drive to Tustin Avenue

City Council
19 –
78 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

15 The section east of Garfield (between Garfield Street and Standard Avenue) experienced the highest percentage of daily traffic traveling at a speed greater than 40mph at 8,687 vehicles per day or 26% of the daily traffic on the segment.

Why is this important? Figure 7 illustrates the probability of fatality in a pedestrian- vehicle crash based on vehicle speeds . The curves represent different age ranges . According to data collected by the Automobile Club of A merica (AAA) and illustrated by ProPublica in an interactive graph, a 70-year-old person has a 70% chance of being killed by a vehicle traveling at 40mph. While young adults have a higher chance of surviving a crash at 40mph, the probability of fatality increases exponentially as speeds increase with the chance of any pedestrian surviving being struck by a vehicle moving at 60mph of less than 10%. Identifying solutions to reduce the traffic speeds of these high- speed vehicles will significantly improve safety and reduce both severe injury crashes and fatalities .

Figure 7. Fatality Rates as a Function of Traffic Speed

Source: “Impact Speed and a Pedestrian’s Risk of Severe Injury or Death”, Brian Tefft (1998) – AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

City Council
19 –
79 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

16 Intersection Analysis
Daily traffic volume and speed are two metrics by which to analyze the existing traffic along the corridor and provide the travel patterns throughout the day. Intersections and travel time are two other key metrics that focus on the traffic during the peak four hours of the day – 7:00 to 9:00AM and 4:00 to 6:00PM.

Two models were used to understand the existing traffic conditions along the corridor . The City recently updated their Synchro model to update the signal timing along First Street. This model was used to evaluate the intersection LOS using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology for urban signalized intersections. This method evaluates the intersection operating conditions in isolation using the signal timing and volumes collected for the corridor . Table 4 summarizes the results of the intersection analysis using Synchro.

Table 4. Existing Condition Synchro HCM Results
# INTERSECTION AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay
(s) LOS Delay
(s) LOS

1 1s t St. at Bristol St. 49.3 D 55.0 D
6 1s t St. at Flower St. 35.4 D 37.8 D
8 1s t St. at Ross St. 16.3 B 11.3 B
10 1s t St. at Broadway 29.7 C 31.6 C
11 1s t St. at Sycamore St. 4.2 A 5.4 A
12 1s t St. at Main St. 43.8 D 36.2 D
13 1s t St. at Bus h St. 6.4 A 7.6 A
14 1s t St. at DT Plaza 14.9 B 28.5 C
21 1s t St. at Standard Ave. 33.3 C 26.0 C
22 1s t St. at Grand Ave. 40.9 D 39.2 D
25 1s t St. at Lyon St. 24.0 C 16.0 B
26 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 28.0 C 32.3 C
27 1s t St. at I-5 SB 6.1 A 28.9 C
28 1s t St. at Cabrillo Park Dr. 19.3 B 22.0 C
29 1s t St. at Golden Circle Dr. 19.6 B 14.3 B
30 1s t St. at Tus tin Ave. 21.6 C 26.1 C

The analysis shows that all intersections along the corridor operate at LOS D or better during the peak hours. The greatest level of congestion is reported from Grand Avenue to Zoo Lane approaching the I-5 southbound freeway ramps.

The second model used to assess the operating conditions along the corridor is a microsimulation model VISSIM. This tool simulates vehicle travel along the corridor based on driver behavior assumptions. Where as Synchro looks at the volume at each intersection,

City Council
19 –
80 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

17 VISSIM looks at each vehicle as is travels along the network. This allows for more accurate operational analysis and travel time modeling by travel model (passenger vehicle versus bus for example).

In order to accurately assess traffic conditions using VISSIM, multiple model runs are conducted, and the results are averaged. The model is then compared to existing conditions and calibrated until the delay and travel time accurately reflects the analyzed and observed conditions. Table 5 reports the intersection delay using VISSIM for each of the study intersections.

Table 5. Existing Condition VISSIM Results
# INTERSECTION AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay
(s) LOS Delay
(s) LOS

1 1s t St. at Bristol St. 41.2 D 42.3 D
6 1s t St. at Flower St. 32.6 C 33.3 C
8 1s t St. at Ross St. 10.7 B 6.8 A
10 1s t St. at Broadway 30.5 C 34.3 C
11 1s t St. at Sycamore St. 10.0 A 10.8 B
12 1s t St. at Main St. 30.6 C 30.4 C
13 1s t St. at Bus h St. 8.2 A 11.7 B
14 1s t St. at DT Plaza 13.3 B 22.5 C
21 1s t St. at Standard Ave. 32.0 C 22.5 C
22 1s t St. at Grand Ave. 36.6 D 46.4 D
25 1s t St. at Lyon St. 59.5 E 49.2 D
26 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 40.3 D 48.2 D
27 1s t St. at I-5 SB 8.1 A 5.5 A
28 1s t St. at Cabrillo Park Dr. 15.2 B 17.9 B
29 1s t St. at Golden Circle Dr. 14.4 B 10.3 B
30 1s t St. at Tus tin Ave. 24.0 C 27.4 C

City Council
19 –
81 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

18 Travel Time
While traffic counts were collected in March 2025, travel time data was also collected that was then used to calibrate and validate the existing VISSIM model. Table 6 summarizes the travel times collected in the field using the floating car method and the VISSIM calibrated travel times.

Table 6. Existing and Calibrated VISSIM AM and PM Peak Hour Travel Times # START LOCATION END LOCATION

AM TRAVEL TIME
Field
(mm:ss)
Vissim
(mm:ss)
1ST STREET EASTBOUND
1 1s t St. at Bristol St. 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 11:06 8:02 2 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 1s t St. at Tus tin Ave. 01:04 01:15 Eastbound Total 12:10 09:17
1ST STREET WESTBOUND
4 1s t St. at Tus tin Ave. 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 01:28 01:45 5 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 1s t St. at Bristol St. 06:22 06:49 Westbound Total 07:50 08:34

# START LOCATION END LOCATION

PM TRAVEL TIME
Field
(mm:ss)
Vissim
(mm:ss)
1ST STREET EASTBOUND
1 1s t St. at Bristol St. 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 08:32 08:03 2 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 1s t St. at Tus tin Ave. 01:10 01:13 Eastbound Total 09:42 09:16
1ST STREET WESTBOUND
4 1s t St. at Tus tin Ave. 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 00:58 01:26 5 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 1s t St. at Bristol St. 10:02 06:56 Westbound Total 11:00 08:22

City Council
19 –
82 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

19 Safety Assessment
The posted speed limit along First Street is 40 miles per hour, but field observations and crash data indicate that speeding is a persistent issue throughout the corridor. This behavior significantly contributes to safety concerns, particularly for vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and bicyclists. Over the past eight years, approximately 25% of all reported collisions were attributed to unsafe speed as a primary contributing factor. These speed- related crashes tend to be more severe, often resulting in serious injuries or fatalities. The combination of high travel speeds with limited physical separation between vehicles and pedestrians, and long crossing distances at intersections, creates a hazardous environment that demands targeted traffic calming and safety interventions.

Existing available crash data was used to identify potential safety concerns or historic trends.

Crash data for the most recent 8-year period (2017-2024) was obtained from the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) crash database then ‘scrubbed’ to address inconsistencies in how the data was logged.

Table 7 summarizes the results of the crash analysis including the severity, crash type and crash factor. Of the 479 crashes reported over the eight-year period, 28 resulted in a fatality or severe injury. The majority of the crashes report were either broadside or rear end.

Common causes of broadside crashes include:
• Running red lights or stop signs.
• Failure to yield right of way, particularly at uncontrolled or side street-controlled intersections.
• Distracted driving
• Speeding and/or aggressive driving
Common causes of rear end collisions include:
• Distracted driving
• Tailgating or aggressive driving
• Speeding
• Heavy traffic
Most crashes reported were a result of unsafe speed or right of way violations, which align with the crash types. Evaluating traffic patterns at the side street stop-controlled intersections, narrowing the roadway to reduce crossing and turning distance, physical improvements to reduce speeds and enforcement are potential measures to offset the current crash trends and patterns along First Street.

City Council
19 –
83 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

20 Table 7. Crash Data Summary

The most vulnerable users along First Street
are those on foot, on bike, rolling or strolling
along the sidewalks and crossing across the
corridor. Of the 479 traffic collisions recorded
along First Street, 12% involved pedestrians
(56 collisions) and 11% involved bicycles (52
collisions), summarized in Figure 8.

According to the Federal Highway
Administration, the average crash rate for
pedestrians and bicycles along similar
corridors is approximately 4 to 5%, indicating
that the frequency of pedestrian and bicycle
crashes is higher than a typical six-lane corridor.

Figure 8. Pedestrian and Bicycle
Involved Reported Crashes

City Council
19 –
84 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

21 General Traffic Conditions
Based on the existing conditions analysis, the following general conditions exist along First Street:
• Daily traffic volumes along most of the corridor fall below the LOS D threshold for a six-lane arterial.
• Eastbound volumes are higher than westbound volumes on all segments for both peak periods.
• All study intersections operate at LOS D or better.
• The highest congestion occurs eastbound between Grand Avene and Zoo Lane (approaching the I-5 freeway southbound ramp)
• Speeds are at or near the posted speed limit during the peak hour. Outside of the peak hour, speeds tend to increase with a greater occurrence of speeds 10 mph or more above the posted speed limit.
• Crash data indicates that speed and right-of-way issues along the corridor account for approximately half of the crashes reported over an eight-year period. Rear-end crashes and broadside crashes are the most common types of crashes, which align with the causes identified.
• Pedestrian and bicycle involved crashes make up approximately 23% of all crashes reported indicating a higher than average crash rate for the most vulnerable users.

Equity Assessment
This section summarizes key equity findings from the demographics, transportation, and land use analyses within the study area and identify disparities in access and/or barriers to quality of life parity experienced by marginalized communities, compared to more resourced, abled, and affluent neighbors and communities. Key data sources for this analysis include Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the United States Census Bureau.

Marginalized Groups and Vulnerable Road Users
Marginalized groups and vulnerable road users are among those at risk of being most adversely impacted by changes to infrastructure and operations of a public right-of-way. This risk is due to these populations being less likely to have additional mobility options, less likely to be included in public decision-making, and more likely to have other existing barriers and challenges to accessing resources or navigating changes to the local environment.

The Equity Study prepared determined that the study area has a proportionately higher poverty rate than the City and Orange County as a whole, and especially high rates of seniors living in poverty, especially on the northwest side of the corridor (refer to Figure 9). This area of the study also overlaps with proportionally higher populations of residents that speak an Asian/Pacific Island language (likely Vietnamese) and English “less than well.” The corridor study area also has proportionally higher populations of residents that speak Spanish as well as English “less than well” than other parts of the City and Orange County as a whole, primarily on the south side of the First Street corridor (refer to Figure 10). Over 40% of the City’s residents identify as immigrants, and the study area reflects this trend. Notably, more than half of residents in Census block groups north of First Street identify as immigrants. These demographics demonstrate significant populations that are likely to have fewer mobility options and fewer opportunities to be civically engaged (in transportation investment decisions, for example) in a welcoming language or format compared to other residents in the City.

City Council
19 –
85 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

22 Figure 9 . Poverty Rates within First Street Equity Study Area

Figure 10. Map of Hispanic/Latinx Residents that Speak English Less than “Well”

City Council
19 –
86 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

23 The City has a high proportion of renters, compared to Orange County, and the study area has an even higher proportion, over half of whom are cost-burdened by their housing costs (refer to Figure 11). This demonstrates a majority of study area residents that live in housing insecurity due to a high proportion of their income devoted to housing, which increases risk of defaulting on rent payments and potential eviction.

Figure 1 1. Renter Households within First Street Equity Study Area

The Origin-Destination Analysis conducted for the two-mile area around the corridor shows that the highest origin-destination pairs for people living within a half mile of the corridor also had notably high proportions of people walking, ranging from 24-38% of all travel modes. Further, trips from resident originating near the cluster of seniors living in poverty on the north side of the corridor and ending in the downtown civic center area had a relatively high proportion of transit trips (5%), although these areas are less than a half mile from each other. These travel patterns show that there are very high percentages of people walking to destinations near and on the corridor, as well as higher rates of people taking transit near senior housing. This demonstrates a vulnerable road user presence in and around the corridor that may benefit greatly from safe, accessible, and comfortable mobility options.

Considerations for Community Engagement and Multimodal Concept Development These demographics, land uses, and road user findings overall provide important context for the advancement of the First Street Multimodal Boulevard Study.

The prevalence of marginalized demographics and vulnerable road users inform project approaches to community engagement, such as targeted outreach to include community members that are older and/or have limited safe and accessible mobility options, speak languages other than English, are more likely to experience housing insecurity, and are more likely to walk or take transit. Members of these key study demographics are typically not centered in traditional outreach methods but are likely to be disproportionately impacted by not having their needs considered in street design and operations, as they are likely to have fewer resources and alternatives to adapt to environmental changes. Figure 12 illustrates the relationship between residents over Age 65 and the poverty rate within the area.

City Council
19 –
87 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

24 Figure 1 2. Residents Over Age 65 and Poverty Rate within Equity Study Area

Considerations for multimodal concept development include recognizing specific access needs for people walking/rolling, education and intuitive design for new street configurations, and focusing improvements on traffic safety and reduction of conflicts between different travel modes, especially vehicles and pedestrians. Examples of these considerations may include any placement of a new bi-directional bicycle facility or shared- use path on the southern side of the corridor, where there is less concentration of senior housing developments, or identifying controlled mid-block crossing locations that can better facilitate vulnerable road users access to transit. Another consideration is for providing longer crossing times for slower moving members of the community including the elderly, disabled and young children.

Built Environment and Exposure to Harm
This section summarizes key points of findings from this memorandum that focus on the existing conditions, built environment, and exposure to harm, specifically for marginalized and vulnerable populations. The corridor study area has a presence of community assets (grocery stores/farmers market, community centers, hospitals, libraries) that serve and are open to the public, but little green or open space. This showed that while there may be important resources, such as access to fresh food and health services, there may be inconsistent access to these resources for community members in the study area based on insurance coverage and food insecurity rates, as well as limited existing opportunities for physical activity.

Most of the formal employment opportunities in the study area are within the civic or health and manufacturing sectors (refer to Figure 13). Additionally, preliminary findings show that one in three workers are in a blue-collar sector, with over one in four in the service sector. This may demonstrate a relatively steady commute demand throughout a 24-hour period that includes traditional 9 AM to 5 PM hours, as well as late night or early morning shifts.

As described above, a robust informal economy of street vendors has been observed along the corridor. In the observational survey, conducted over a period of four days, the consultant team observed 30 vendors, slightly more than half serving food. In line with SB 946 and the City’s and County’s regulatory framework and given the placement of many street vendors along the

City Council
19 –
88 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

25 sidewalk infrastructure, the study will assess sidewalk design and dimension needs that balance the use of space by permitted vendors and people walking and rolling.

The study area shows some cleanup sites along and near the corridor (refer to Figure 14), as well as higher Disadvantaged Communities rankings, which measure environmental pollution exposure and social vulnerability, around the east side of the corridor, just west of the I-5 freeway and near several cleanup sites. Given preliminary level of service assessment findings of vehicle congestion around this part of the corridor, this may reflect the value of shifting travel modes away from single occupancy driving to reduce vehicle miles traveled and emissions.

Figure 1 3. Major Employers and Employment Hubs Near First Street

Figure 1 4. Identified Hazardous and Clean Up Site
Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control (2025)

City Council
19 –
89 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

26 Community Engagement
Community engagement is a key component of identifying barriers to mobility along First Street. Beginning in June 2025 and wrapping up in December 2025, the outreach strategy reached over 900 participants, summarized in Figure 15.

In order to achieve balanced input throughout this process, a multi-tiered outreach strategy was conducted, which included:
• Broad community outreach
through workshops, pop up
events and targeted small
group meetings.
• Stakeholder engagement with
both city and government
officials as well as active
organizations in the
community
• Community working group
meetings with community-
based organizations who
assisted with driving
participation at the community
events and bringing
awareness to the project.
• Presentations to
Neighborhood Associations
along the corridor.

Information at key points in the project was disseminated through workshops and then shared with the community through on-line surveys, pop up events, videos, and presentations at stakeholder, community working group and neighborhood association meetings. The timeline for sharing information about the project is summarized in Figure 16.

In this section, the results of Workshop 1 are summarized. Input from the community from Workshop 2 and Workshop 3 are summarized in the Options and Concepts sections of this technical memorandum as the results align with preference surveys and input collected related during those phases of the project.

Figure 15: Multi-tiered Outreach Strategy

City Council
19 –
90 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

27 Figure 16. Community Engagement Timeline

Workshop 1: Barriers to Mobility
The first set of workshops and outreach events provided an opportunity to introduce the First Street Multimodal Boulevard Study and gather community input on making First Street a healthier and safer experience for all residents who utilize the corridor.

The goals of the workshops were to encourage participants to connect with the Project Team, share experiences traveling along First Street, suggest improvements to access and travel options, and learn more about the project.

To provide multiple opportunities to learn about the project and provide feedback, the Project Team hosted one in-person workshop (Tuesday, August 26, 2025), one virtual workshop (Wednesday, August 27, 2025), conducted an on-line survey, and attended multiple in- person pop-up events in the community. A total of 40 people attended the two workshops and over 60 people were engaged during the Chicano Heritage Festival. Photos 3 through 5 on the following pages illustrate activities at both the pop-up event and at the in-person workshop.

Feedback received during the in-person and pop-up events regarding improvements the public would like to see along First Street indicated protected, off street bicycle facilities; wider sidewalks and mid-block crossings for pedestrians; improved transit stops with real- time bus information; and shade with places to sit along the corridor were amongst the top priorities for those who participated in the preference survey. Figures 17 to 19 summarize the results of the survey.

For the virtual meeting and through the on-line poll, participants were asked to share information about their travel experience and their travel barriers. Results of the on-line surveys are summarized below in Figure 20.

City Council
19 –
91 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

28 Photo 33: Chicano Heritage Festival Booth
Photo 44: Preference Survey Boards from Workshop and Pop-Up Events

City Council
19 –
92 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

29 Photo 55: Workshop 1 Activities

City Council
19 –
93 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

30 Figure 17. Bicycle Improvements Preferences

Figure 18. Pedestrian Improvements Preferences

Figure 19. Safety Improvement Preferences

21%
12%
5%
4%
8%10%
21%
6%
13%
Off-street bike path or shared-use trail
Protected or separated bikeway
Bike lane
Bike lane with painted buffer
Shared transit/bike lane
Bike-friendly intersection
Protected intersection for bicyclists
Bike repair station
Bike parking
8%
14%
12%
22%
4%
9%
15%
16%
Wide/extended sidewalks
Mid-block crossing with signals
Sidewalk lighting
Shade Trees
Wayfinding and signage
Street furniture/places to sit
Bus stop improvements and amenities
Real-time bus information
11%
5%
4%
5%
29%
46%
Curb ramps
High visibility crosswalks
Sidewalk repair or replacement
Landscaping and medians
Street Lighting
Raised Medians

City Council
19 –
94 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

31 Figure 20. Summary of On-Line Survey

City Council
19 –
95 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

32 Options Development and Workshop 2
The development of potential multimodal improvements along the corridor began with the development of options. A total of eight options were developed that integrated a variety of pedestrian, bicycle, transit and vehicular features within the existing 100’ to 104’ right of way available along the corridor. The options were presented at Workshop 2.

Each of the options are presented on the following pages. Table 8 below summarizes and compares the features of each option considered.

Table 8. Summary of Options Presented at Workshop 2
Option
Roadway
Features
Pedestrian
Features
Bicycle
Features
Transit
Features
Number of Lanes
Curb to Curb Width (ft)
Shared Pedestrian-
Bicycle Path
Dedicated Sidewalk
Shared Pedestrian-
Bicycle Path
Bi-Directional Bikeway
Directional Bikeway
Buffered Bicycle Lanes
Share Bus/Vehicle
Shared Bus / Bicycle
Dedicated Bus
Existing Conditions
6 Lanes with Sidewalk 6 83’ B EB &
WB
6 Lane Option
Option 1
6 Lanes with Multi-use Path 6 76’ S N S EB &
WB
4 Lane Options
Option 2
4 Lanes with Bike Lanes & Path 4 74’ S N B EB &
WB
Option 3
4 Lanes with Directional
Bikeway
4 58’ B B EB &
WB
5 Lane Option
Option 4
5 Lanes with Directional
Bikeway
5 62’ B B EB &
WB
Option 5
5 Lanes with Bi-Directional
Bikeway
5 66’ B N EB &
WB
Bus Lane Options
Option 6
4 Lanes with Bike Lane & Bus
Lane
4 86’ B B EB &
WB
Option 7
4 Lanes with Shared Bike/Bus
Lane
4 78’ B EB &
WB
Option 8
5 Lanes with WB Bus Lane &
Directional Bikeway
5 78’ B WB
Note: N = North side of the Street, S = South side of the street, B = Both sides of the street, WB = Westbound, EB = Eastbound

City Council
19 –
96 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

33 City Council
19 –
97 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

34 City Council
19 –
98 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

35 City Council
19 –
99 2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

36 City Council
19 –
100
2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

37 City Council
19 –
101
2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

38 City Council
19 –
102
2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

39 City Council
19 –
103
2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

40 City Council
19 –
104
2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

41 Workshop 2 Input
The in-person workshop was held over two consecutive days (September 17 and 18 from 5:00 to 7:00PM) as an open house style with Spanish and Vietnamese interpreters on hand to assist participants. A series of stations were set up to help participants navigate the eight options being presented (refer to Photo 7). The stations included “Existing Conditions”, “Design Options”, “Aerial Maps”, “Curb Space and Bus Stops”, and “Railroad Tracks Configuration” as well as a welcome table and a family table. Workshop participants were encouraged to provide feedback on potential design options for the corridor, connect with the Project Team, suggest improvements to access and travel options, and learn more about the next stages of the project.

A total of 69 attendees signed in at the workshop over the course of the two days and 30 comment cards were collected. Participants were encouraged to participate in a preference activity where they placed pom-pom balls in containers that represent the options that they liked. While three pom-pom balls were provided to each participant, additional balls were provided if requested.

The preference activity (pom-pom balls) revealed a strong preference for bus lanes. Figures 21 and 22 below break down the results of the preference survey by lane configuration and by pedestrian and bicycle zone configuration.

Figure 21. Percent of Responses Related to Number of Lanes by Option

Figure 22. Percent of Responses Related to Pedestrian and Bicycle Zone Configuration

15%
12%
24%
36%
13% Six Lanes
Four Lanes
Five Lanes
Four + Bus
Five + Bus
15%
5%
63%
11%
6% Multi Use Trail
Multi Use Trail + Bike Lanes
Sidewalk + Directional Bikeway
Sidewalk + Bi-Directional Bikeway
Shared Bus - Bike Lane

City Council
19 –
105
2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

42 The following is a summary of comments received:
• Like the smooth connectivity of buses, bikes and cars in Option 6 • Consider bicycle parking
• Protected bike lanes are a must
• Take bicycles off the sidewalk; put bikes on the street • Prefer bicycles at sidewalk level, not in a bus lane
• Like the separated bicycle lane on both sides of the street • Consider at grade bus boarding at bus stops
• Maintain ADA access at all bus stops for wheelchair users • Need traffic calming at all intersections
• Reduce crossing distance for pedestrians and shorten distance between crosswalks across First Street
• Add a crosswalk at the First Street and Halladay intersection • Add a crosswalk at Hickory intersection
• Need additional street lighting between Standard and Spurgeon • Like the trees or landscape separating bicycles and pedestrians • Homeless take up the bus stops and benches – creates safety concerns walking or taking the bus
• Homeless walking and biking on First Street cause hazards. Address the issue before adding bicycle facilities
• Keep the six lanes – traffic piles up
• If there is a bus lane, make sure it is shared with traffic • Consider a center running bus lane and move the bicycles to Chestnut or parallel streets
• Eastbound from Standard (or DMV) to Zoo Lane traffic backs up especially in the morning
• Opposed to removing lanes, adding bicycle lanes or crosswalks. Keep traffic moving • Don’t start construction until Bristol Street is complete

Photo 6: Participants Engaging in Interactive Stations and Preference Survey

City Council
19 –
106
2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

43 Concept Development
Based on feedback from the community, technical analysis and field assessments, three Concepts were developed for the corridor. Conceptual layouts in plan view, illustrative renderings and cross sections were developed to illustrate the components of the design concepts that were then shared with the public during Workshop 3.

Technical analysis, including traffic modeling and pedestrian / bicycle analysis, was conducted to assess the benefits of each alternative compared to the existing conditions.

In response to the existing conditions assessment and concerns about safety and pedestrian access, the following features were integrated into all the concepts presented:
• New
Mid-Block Crossings – These four
crossings are proposed at Shelton Street, Booth Street, west of Wright Street and between Golden Circle Drive and Tustin Avenue. Each location would be equipped with a HAWK signal, high visibility markings and signage and a paved area in the median as a refuge island, as shown in Figure 23. With these crossings, the average distance between controlled crossings is approximately 0.25 miles and a controlled crossing is located at or near an existing bus stop.
• Tighter Curb Radius – Most existing curb radii are 35’ with some larger such as at the I-5 southbound ramps. For all City intersections, the curb radius is tightened to 25’, which slows the turning speed of vehicles and improves safety for pedestrians. • High Visibility Crosswalks – At all signalized intersections and on STOP controlled side streets, high visibility bicycle crossing and crosswalks are recommended.

Continental style with high retro reflectivity is recommended for maximum visibility at night. Crosswalks near school zones should be evaluated for yellow markings and signage.

Figure 23. New Controlled Crossing at
Shelton Street

City Council
19 –
107
2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

44 • Improved Street lighting – This includes evaluating the corridor to ensure minimum lighting requirements are met and adding pedestrian scale lighting within the pedestrian and bicycle zone.
• Transit Signal Priority – Adding technology to the buses and to the traffic signal to help bus on-time performance is critical to improving access to transit. The City will work with OCTA to identify the appropriate technology and implementation strategies.
• Improved Landscape and Streetscape for the Corridor – Street trees, low level landscape, drainage swales and other treatments will be integrated to help reduce the heat envelope along the corridor and to capture urban run-off. Additional places to rest and improved bus stops are also key to the overall corridor design. Creating a uniform plant palette and furniture design will create a cohesive feel and character along the corridor. Potential plant options, consistent with the City’s design guidelines, are presented in Figure 24.

City Council
19 –
108
2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

45 Figure 24. Potential Street
Tree Options for First
Street

City Council
19 –
109
2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

46 West Side and East Side Concepts
Due to planned projects along First Street, the corridor was divided into a west side and an east side when developing concepts. The west side extends from Bristol Street to Zoo Lane, which aligns with the Caltrans right-of-way. The east side extends from Zoo Lane over the I- 5 freeway to Tustin Avenue.

Caltrans has developed concept plans for First Street as part of the Freeway Ramp Active Mobility Enhancement Study (FRAMES), illustrated in Figure 25. Concepts illustrated in this technical memorandum reflect the recommendations in that report. However, the City is currently working with Caltrans to identify alternative solutions that align with the concepts for the west side of the corridor. Modifications to this section may be proposed based on the ongoing coordination with Caltrans and the locally preferred alternative for this project.

Figure 25. Recommendations in Caltrans FRAMES

Source: Caltrans, February 2024. Freew ay Ramp Active Mobility Enhancement Study (FRAMES).

Based on traffic volumes for the existing and future conditions east of I-5, the concept developed for the east side of the corridor assumes the four-lane condition. Narrowing the road to widen the sidewalks builds upon the Public Realm Plan for this area by extending the curb to construct 17’ to 20’ wide pedestrian zones. This allows additional improvements within the pedestrian and bicycle zones as described later in this section and is consistent with the City’s Metro East Mixed-Use Overlay Zone.

A complete set of conceptual layouts for the three West Side and the one East Side concept is provided as an attachment to this technical memorandum.

City Council
19 –
110
2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

47 West Side Design Concepts
Multi-Use Path Concept
This concept includes a multi-use path on the south side of First Street. This space is shared by pedestrians and bicyclists and is approximately 14’ wide. This area would narrow to 10’ near trees, light posts, utilities and bus stops. Distinct colors or textures on the pavement could be used to help delineate areas for pedestrians and bicycles within this space; however, there would be no physical separation between those who are walking or rolling and those on a bicycle. On the north side of the street, a sidewalk would be provided for pedestrians. As such, the bicyclists would be permitted only on the south side of the street.

Illustrations of this concept are provided in Figure 26.

This concept provides six travel lanes and left turn pockets at intersections, consistent with existing conditions. To provide additional space on the south side of the street for the multi- use trail, existing lane widths are narrowed to 11’ and the center median is narrowed to 12’.

Figure 26. Illustrations of the Multi-Use Path Concept

City Council
19 –
111
2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

48 Enhanced Pedestrian and Bicycle Zone Concept
This concept includes directional Class IV bikeways on each side of First Street (north and south side) as well as a dedicated sidewalk. With 17’ feet within the pedestrian zone, there is sufficient space to construct a physical barrier such as a plantable strip between the bikeway and the sidewalk and provide trees along the curbline. Distinct color or texture on the pavement could also be used to help delineate areas for pedestrians and bicycles. At 66’ feet wide curb to curb, this concept is the narrowest of the three concepts developed.

Illustrations of this concept are provided in Figure 27.

This concept provides five travel lanes and left turn pockets at intersections. As shown in the existing conditions section of this technical memorandum, the traffic volume in the eastbound direction is higher than in the westbound direction in each peak hour as well as over a 24-hour period. Therefore, this option removes one travel lane in the westbound direction to provide the space within the pedestrian zone. Lane widths in this option are 10 to 11’ wide and the median is 12’ wide.

Figure 27. Illustrations of the Enhanced Pedestrian and Bicycle Concept

City Council
19 –
112
2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

49 Bus Lanes and Bikeway Concept
This concept includes directional Class IV bikeways on each side of First Street (north and south side) as well as a dedicated sidewalk. With 12’ feet within the pedestrian zone, a 6’ bikeway and a 6’ sidewalk can be delineated. Bicycles would travel closest to the roadway and would need to weave around bus stops, trees or other landscape areas and utilities such as streetlight poles. Where these obstructions occur in the bikeway, the bicycles would merge with the pedestrians in a shared 10’ to 13’ space. This may create a sort of meandering bikeway visually but will require careful navigation through these shared areas.

Distinct color or textures on the pavement should be used to help delineate areas for pedestrians and bicycles. Figure 28 illustrates the features of the Bus Lane and Bikeway Concept.

This concept provides four travel lanes, two bus only lanes and left turn pockets at intersections. As discussed in the existing conditions section of this report, Route 64 is one of the highest traveled routes in Orange County and experiences over 2,900 boardings and alighting each day within the study area.

Figure 28. Bus Lane and Bikeway Concept

City Council
19 –
113
2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

50 Providing a bus lane provides benefits to vehicular traffic and buses. Vehicles may enter the bus lane to make a right turn at intersections.

This moves the decelerating vehicles into the bus lane and reduces the potential for rear end crashes. With buses in a dedicated lane, there would be no queuing of vehicles behind buses at bus stops. Vehicles maneuvering around stopped buses is also a potential cause of rear-end and sideswipe crashes that would be reduced with this option. Bus on-time performance and delay would also improve. Coupled with bus priority, travel time for buses along the corridor are forecast to improve significantly. This City has discussed with OCTA options to increase frequency of bus service along the route if dedicated. Additional discussion and analysis are needed to determine if expanded or more frequent service is possible.

East Side Design Concepts
From Cabrillo Park Drive to Tustin Avenue, the City will be constructing new medians and buffered bicycle lanes. This project will also reduce First Street from six lanes to four lanes.

While this will improve the bicycle amenities on this portion of the corridor compared to existing conditions, feedback during community outreach meetings suggests that bicyclists would prefer to be at sidewalk level as opposed to street level. Figure 29 provides the cross section and the pedestrian and bicycle zone illustrations.

Figure 29. East Side Illustrations

City Council
19 –
114
2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

51 Therefore, a four-lane concept was developed that provides for 17 to 20’ pedestrian and bicycle zones, four travel lanes and a raised median. With these improvements, the median constructed by the City would remain in place the curbs on the north and south sides of the street would be moved to the edge of the buffered bicycle lanes thereby bringing the bicycles to sidewalk level. This would allow for directional bikeways on each side of the street, physically separated from the sidewalk by a low planting strip or other edge treatment.

Traffic Analysis
The VISSIM microsimulation model was used to forecast the intersection delay and travel time along the corridor for each of the three design concepts on the west side of the corridor in the AM and in the PM peak period. Two study years were evaluated – Project Opening Year (2028) and Project Design Year (2048). Future year volumes were determined by applying a growth rate to existing conditions traffic volumes. The growth rate of 0.6% per year was determined using the OCTA OCTAM model.

Tables 9 and 10 summarize the results of the level of service from Bristol Street to the I-5 SB Freeway Ramps in the AM and PM Peak Period for the No Build (maintain existing roadway lanes, intersection configuration and signal timing) and for each of the three concepts presented (Multi-Use Path Concept, Enhanced Pedestrian and Bicycle Concept and Bus Lane/Bikeway Concept) for the west side of the corridor for the Opening Year and Design Year. Turn pocket lengths, signal timing and intersection configurations in addition to the modification to the number of lanes were modified in the VISSIM network for each of the concepts presented.

Since only one concept was developed for the east side (I-5 SB Ramps to Tustin Avenue), Tables 11 and 12 summarize the intersection LOS for the Opening Year and Design Year.

The City has approved a new traffic signal at the intersection of First Street and Lacy Street.

Currently this intersection is side-street stop controlled. As the signal is fully funded and currently in the final design stage, this new traffic signal has been added to all study scenarios, including the No Build condition.

West Side Opening Year Conditions
As shown in the tables on the following page, most intersections operate at LOS D or better under all study scenarios by year 2028 in the AM Peak Period. The exceptions to this are the intersections at Bristol Street and Flower Street under the Bus Lane / Bike Lane option. It should be noted that under the No Build condition, Lyon Street is forecast to operate at LOS F. Signal timing and geometric improvements in the three Options address queuing issues at Lyon Street that improve the delays and queues.

In the PM Peak, most intersections continue to operate at acceptable LOS D or better.

However, the intersections at Bristol Street, Flower Street, Downtown Plaza, Grand Avenue and Lyon Street are all forecast to operate at LOS E or F under for at least one concept in either the AM or the PM per period. Lyon Street experiences the greatest increase in delays.

This is largely due to the reduction in right turn lanes onto the I-5 freeway southbound from one shared right-through and one dedicated right turn lane to a single right turn lane.

Additional analysis is being conducted at all these intersections to determine geometric modifications and signal timing improvements to determine if delay can be improved to an acceptable range.

City Council
19 –
115
2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

52 West Side Design Year
For all study scenarios, the future year volumes are based on an average growth rate of

0.6% per year applied to the existing ground count traffic volumes, which suggest no changes in traffic patterns over the next 22 years. The results of the Design Year analysis indicate that with the reduction in lanes to either five lanes or six lanes, there will be a significant increase in delays if traffic patterns remain unchanged. The City is currently working with OCTA to run the OCTAM model for the five lane and the four-lane with bus lane conditions to determine if the lane reduction would result in a redistribution of traffic to other routes. As this is currently a grid network and there are several parallel or alternative routes in the area, this model will help provide more accurate long-term travel patterns. Results of the Enhanced Pedestrian and Bicycle Concept and Bus Lane/Bike Lane Concept will be re- evaluated once the model runs are completed.

East Side Analysis
Operational analysis for the east side evaluated the baseline six-lane option and the proposed four-lane option. The results of the analysis show that all intersections east of I-5 are forecast to operate at LOS D or better with the four lanes under both Opening Year and Design Year Conditions.

Travel Time Analysis
Travel time calculations were conducted for the west side (Bristol Street to Zoo Lane) and the east side (Zoo Lane to Tustin Avenue) for the Opening Year and Horizon Year for all study scenarios. Travel times were calculated for both buses and passenger vehicles in order to understand the benefits and the impacts to each mode. Tables 13 and 14 summarize the Opening Year and Design Year travel times for the corridor for automobiles and Tables 15 and 16 report the same data for buses.

City Council
19 –
116
2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

53 Table 9. Opening Year Delay and Level of Service (VISSIM) – West Side

City Council
19 –
117
2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

54 Table 10. Design Year Delay and Level of Service (VISSIM) – West Side

AM PEAK HOUR [7:30am -8:30am ]
1 1 s t S t. at Bris tol S t. 4 6.9 D 48. 9 D 5 1. 6 D 113 . 1 F 6 1 s t S t. at Flower S t. 39. 6 D 4 6.0 D 50 .1 D 95.6 F 8 1 s t S t. at Ros s S t. 12 . 1 B 9.6 A 11. 5 B 24 .8 C 10 1 st St. at Broadw ay 3 4 .9 C 30 .7 C 3 1. 6 C 4 5.5 D 11 1 s t S t. at S ycamore S t. 12 . 7 B 14 . 8 B 17 . 8 B 22.5 C 12 1 s t S t. at Main S t. 33. 5 C 40. 3 D 4 7.2 D 4 5.1 D 13 1 s t S t. at Bus h S t. 8 .4 A 10 . 8 B 16 . 5 B 2 1. 9 C 14 1 s t S t. at DT Plaz a 13 . 5 B 8 .2 A 17 . 9 B 15 . 8 B 18 1 s t S t. at Lacy S t. 4 .4 A 16 . 7 B 2 1. 5 C 22.5 C 21 1 st St. at Standard Ave. 40. 5 D 38 .2 D 44. 8 D 4 2.4 D 22 1 st St. at Grand Ave. 62. 6 E 48. 2 D 4 6.7 D 44. 6 D 25 1 s t S t. at Lyon S t. 18 1. 4 F 117 . 7 F 12 1. 0 F 8 6.7 F 26 1 st S t. at Zoo Ln. 52. 8 D 98 .9 F 1 08. 1 F 98 .2 F 27 1 s t S t. at I-5 S B 15 . 3 B 12 . 4 B 12 . 8 B 11. 8 B PM PEAK HOUR [5: 00pm -6: 00pm ]
1 1 s t S t. at Bris tol S t. 4 9.9 D 54 .8 D 63.0 E 1 39.3 F 6 1 s t S t. at Flower S t. 37. 6 D 4 7.9 D 60 .0 E 97.2 F 8 1 s t S t. at Ros s S t. 7 .7 A 8 .3 A 29.9 C 37.5 D 10 1 st St. at Broadw ay 39. 1 D 33.5 C 4 2.4 D 4 6.1 D 11 1 s t S t. at S ycamore S t. 14 . 8 B 2 1. 2 C 30 .9 C 24 .2 C 12 1 s t S t. at Main S t. 3 4 .2 C 40. 7 D 4 7.1 D 4 2.4 D 13 1 s t S t. at Bus h S t. 12 . 3 B 12 . 5 B 50 .0 D 53.8 D 14 1 s t S t. at DT Plaz a 23. 5 C 12 . 4 B 76.3 E 55.5 E 18 1 s t S t. at Lacy S t. 6 .5 A 10 . 8 B 57.1 E 48. 8 D 21 1 st St. at Standard Ave. 3 8 .1 D 38 .5 D 60 .5 E 8 3.3 F 22 1 st St. at Grand Ave. 88. 1 F 66.1 E 67.7 E 84. 3 F 25 1 s t S t. at Lyon S t. 1 73.9 F 1 55.1 F 14 5 . 7 F 1 25.5 F 26 1 st S t. at Zoo Ln. 4 9.3 D 53.2 D 57.9 E 5 1. 7 D 27 1 s t S t. at I-5 S B 5 .6 A 9.3 A 9.3 A 9.3 A
Delay
(s)
LOS
# INTERSECTION
No Build Multi-Us e Path Enhanced Bike/Ped Bus/Bike
Delay
(s)
LOS Delay
(s)
LOS Delay
(s)
LOS

City Council
19 –
118
2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

55 Table 11. Opening Year Delay and Level of Service (VISSIM) – East Side # INTERSECTION
NO BUILD Four Lane Option
Delay
(s) LOS Delay
(s) LOS

AM PEAK HOUR [7:30a m-8:30a m]
28 1st St. at Cabrillo Park Dr. 14.8 B 14.9 B
29 1st St. at Golden Circle Dr. 14.7 B 17.5 B
30 1st St. at Tustin Ave. 24.1 C 24.9 C
PM PEAK HOUR [5:00pm-6:00pm]
28 1st St. at Cabrillo Park Dr. 18.0 B 18.0 B
29 1st St. at Golden Circle Dr. 9.8 A 9.3 A
30 1st St. at Tustin Ave. 26.3 C 26.1 C

Table 12. Design Year Delay and Level of Service (VISSIM) – East Side # INTERSECTION
NO BUILD Four Lane Option
Delay
(s) LOS Delay
(s) LOS

AM PEAK HOUR [7:30a m-8:30a m]
28 1st St. at Cabrillo Park Dr. 16.4 B 15.2 B
29 1st St. at Golden Circle Dr. 15.0 B 17.6 B
30 1st St. at Tustin Ave. 24.5 C 25.2 C
PM PEAK HOUR [5:00pm-6:00pm]
28 1st St. at Cabrillo Park Dr. 18.9 B 18.6 B
29 1st St. at Golden Circle Dr. 10.6 B 9.3 A
30 1st St. at Tustin Ave. 26.8 C 26.0 C

City Council
19 –
119
2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

56 Table 13. Opening Year Travel Time
# START LOCATION END LOCATION
AVERAGE TRAVEL TIME (mm:ss)
NO
BUILD
Mul ti-
U s e Path
Enhanced
Ped -Bike
Bus/Bike Lanes
Base TSP
AM PEAK HOUR [7:30a m-8:30a m]
1 1s t St. at Bristol St. 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 10:00 07:59 07:53 10:27 10:53 2 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 1s t St. at Tus tin Ave. 01:16 01:12 01:11 01:11 01:11 Eastbound Total 11:16 09:11 09:04 11:38 12:05
4 1s t St. at Tus tin Ave. 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 01:48 01:36 01:39 01:35 01:36 5 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 1s t St. at Bristol St. 06:50 06:59 07:29 07:30 07:29 Westbound Total 08:38 08:35 09:08 09:05 09:05
PM PEAK HOUR [5:00pm-6:00pm]
1 1s t St. at Bristol St. 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 10:37 10:27 10:36 12:34 12:24 2 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 1s t St. at Tus tin Ave. 01:12 01:12 01:12 01:11 01:12 Eastbound Total 11:48 11:39 11:48 13:46 13:36
4 1s t St. at Tus tin Ave. 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 01:29 01:21 01:21 01:21 01:22 5 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 1s t St. at Bristol St. 07:26 06:35 09:04 10:06 10:34 Westbound Total 08:55 07:56 10:25 11:26 11:56

Table 14. Design Year Travel Time
# START LOCATION END LOCATION
AVERAGE TRAVEL TIME (mm:ss)
NO
BUILD
Mul ti-
U s e Path
Enhanced
Ped -Bike
Bus/Bike Lanes
Base TSP
AM PEAK HOUR [7:30a m-8:30a m]
1 1s t St. at Bristol St. 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 14:26 10:28 10:40 13:19 13:41 2 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 1s t St. at Tus tin Ave. 01:18 01:13 01:12 01:12 01:12 Eastbound Total 15:44 11:41 11:52 14:30 14:53
4 1s t St. at Tus tin Ave. 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 02:25 01:43 01:45 01:46 01:39 5 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 1s t St. at Bristol St. 07:21 07:10 08:09 07:58 08:22 Westbound Total 09:46 08:54 09:55 09:44 10:01
PM PEAK HOUR [5:00pm-6:00pm]
1 1s t St. at Bristol St. 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 14:46 14:02 13:05 16:55 16:25 2 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 1s t St. at Tus tin Ave. 01:13 01:12 01:13 01:13 01:13 Eastbound Total 15:59 15:15 14:18 18:08 17:38
4 1s t St. at Tus tin Ave. 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 01:32 01:23 01:23 01:24 01:25 5 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 1s t St. at Bristol St. 08:25 06:56 12:24 13:17 14:04 Westbound Total 9:57 8:19 13:47 14:41 15:29

City Council
19 –
120
2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

57 Table 15. Opening Year Travel Time - Buses
# START LOCATION END LOCATION
AVERAGE TRAVEL TIME (mm:ss)
NO
BUILD
Mul ti-
U s e Path
Enhanced
Ped -Bike
Bus/Bike Lanes
Base TSP
AM PEAK HOUR [7:30a m-8:30a m]
1 1s t St. at Bristol St. 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 15:03 11:27 11:19 11:12 11:53 2 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 1s t St. at Tus tin Ave. 02:35 02:14 02:08 02:12 02:06 Eastbound Total 17:38 13:41 13:27 13:24 13:59
4 1s t St. at Tus tin Ave. 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 02:53 04:03 03:57 03:57 03:34 5 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 1s t St. at Bristol St. 11:17 12:19 13:11 12:06 11:11 Westbound Total 14:10 16:22 17:08 16:03 14:45
PM PEAK HOUR [5:00pm-6:00pm]
1 1s t St. at Bristol St. 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 16:22 14:23 14:38 12:45 12:41 2 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 1s t St. at Tus tin Ave. 02:27 02:09 02:10 02:10 02:05 Eastbound Total 18:49 16:32 16:48 14:55 14:45
4 1s t St. at Tus tin Ave. 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 02:57 02:38 02:37 02:37 02:38 5 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 1s t St. at Bristol St. 12:25 12:02 14:21 11:23 10:22 Westbound Total 15:23 14:40 16:58 14:01 13:00

Table 16. Design Year Travel Time - Buses
# START LOCATION END LOCATION
AVERAGE TRAVEL TIME (mm:ss)
NO
BUILD
Mul ti-
U s e Path
Enhanced
Ped -Bike
Bus/Bike Lanes
Base TSP
AM PEAK HOUR [7:30a m-8:30a m]
1 1s t St. at Bristol St. 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 19:46 12:57 12:57 11:39 12:08 2 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 1s t St. at Tus tin Ave. 02:34 02:18 02:09 02:10 02:10 Eastbound Total 22:20 15:16 15:06 13:49 14:18
4 1s t St. at Tus tin Ave. 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 03:09 04:06 03:51 04:08 03:39 5 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 1s t St. at Bristol St. 12:24 12:33 13:39 12:00 11:30 Westbound Total 15:32 16:40 17:30 16:08 15:09
PM PEAK HOUR [5:00pm-6:00pm]
1 1s t St. at Bristol St. 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 21:00 18:00 17:21 12:58 12:44 2 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 1s t St. at Tus tin Ave. 02:18 02:12 02:14 02:09 02:06 Eastbound Total 23:18 20:12 19:35 15:07 14:51
4 1s t St. at Tus tin Ave. 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 03:06 02:40 02:39 02:42 02:39 5 1s t St. at Zoo Ln. 1s t St. at Bristol St. 13:01 12:26 17:39 12:01 11:12 Westbound Total 16:07 15:05 20:18 14:44 13:51

City Council
19 –
121
2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

58 Evaluation of Concept Benefits
Using the goals of this project, concerns raised by the community and the technical analysis conducted to date, a comparison of the benefits for each concept was developed. The comparison is based on how each concept improves conditions by mode compared to the existing conditions. Table 17 below summarizes the results of this exercise.

Table 17. Comparison of Three Design Concepts

City Council
19 –
122
2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

59 Workshop 3
Workshop 3 was conducted on December 9 and 11, 2025 at the Roosevelt Walker Community Center. Over the course of the two days, 82 attendees signed in representing a broad range of representatives from the community including youth. Participants were encouraged to visit stations around the room that provided information on the three west side concepts, the east side concept and landscaping and then completed a feedback form (refer to Photo 8). The form asked them to share what elements of the concepts presented would improve their travel along the corridor. Responses to each concept are summarized on the following pages.

General Comments
Aside from the specific comments on each concept presented and the landscape design, the following comments were received either in the “Other Notes” section of the comment form, on comment cards or on the available note pads.
• Community feedback strongly emphasizes pedestrian and bicyclist safety, calling for raised crosswalks, protected intersections, complete sidewalks, and fully separated bike paths.
• Lighting, reflective elements, and tree shade are requested to improve usability and safety, especially for students and daily walkers.
• Residents express concern about maintaining vehicle travel lanes to avoid worsening traffic congestion while recommending design features like narrower lanes and speed controls to ease traffic.
• There is also strong support for underground utilities, clear sidewalks, and separated bus lanes.
• The community is interested in a design that balances traffic with safety, accessibility, and environmental enhancements.
• Appreciation expressed for the workshop and answers provided.

Photo 8: Participants Involved in Interactive Stations at Workshop 3

City Council
19 –
123
2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

60 Multi- Use Path Concept:

Six travel lanes with a shared pedestrian
and bicycle patch on the south side of
First Street

Bicyclist Improvements

• Requests for dedicated, clearly
marked bike lanes on both sides
of the street, buffers/barriers
between bike lanes and
sidewalks, and improved bike
and bus separation.
• Support for protected bike paths rather than shared paths, clear pavement markings, and signage to identify bike zones.
• Concerns about bike lanes accumulating trash and debris. • Some people support expanded bike lanes for safety while others oppose additional bike lanes due to concerns about traffic impacts.

Pedestrian Improvements

• Requests for additional crosswalks near schools, churches, and bus stops. • Requests for elevated crosswalks, all-way crossings, and shorter crossing distances at smaller intersections.
• Support for wider sidewalks, sidewalks flush with street, and trees that supply shade for pedestrians.
• Reduction of obstruction in pedestrian zones such as utility boxes and poles.

Safety improvements

• Requests for traffic signals for controlled pedestrian crossings, restrictions for right turns at red lights, additional guardrails, barriers, and buffers. between pedestrians, cyclists, buses, and vehicle lanes. • Requests for additional street lighting and illuminated/glowing crosswalks. • Concerns regarding vehicle speeds.

Roadway/Driver Improvements

• Support for lane reductions to reduce traffic speeds and support for separation of vehicles, buses, bikes, and pedestrian zones. • Suggestions to reduce it to two lanes in each direction and eliminate or consolidate turn lanes.
• Request for dedicated bus lanes, improved bus operations, and improve mobility for bus turning movements.
• Opposition towards reduced travel lanes due to congestion concerns.

City Council
19 –
124
2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

61 Enhanced Pedestrian & Bicycle Zone
Concept:

Five travel lanes with a sidewalk and a
separated bikeway on each side of First
Street

Bicyclist Improvements
• Support for separated and
protected bike
lanes highlighting this concept
as the most bike-friendly and most
complete.
• Support for bike lanes on both sides of street, bi-directional bike lanes rather than one-sided, and barriers between bikes and traffic such as curbs and planters. • Requests for complete bike paths through intersections, bike-specific signals, separation between cyclists and pedestrians, and enhanced striping positioning for bike lane (green conflict zone on North Lyon Street).
• Requests for multilingual bike signage (English, Spanish, Vietnamese).

Pedestrian Improvements

• Requests for additional and clearly marked crosswalks, z-crossings near schools, and all-way crossings at major intersections.
• Requests for elevated and protected sidewalks at underpass at N McClay Street and widened sidewalks.
• Requests for guardrails, reflective lighting, and improved lighting for pedestrian visibility.

Safety Improvements

• Support for concept citing it is the safest, most complete, and best option. • Support for the narrow streets for reduction in traffic speeds as well as raised/protected crosswalks.
• Requests for protected intersections, curb extensions, and barriers between traffic and bicyclists for accident prevention.
• Concerns raised for blind spots near buildings and trash/debris from vehicles affecting safety.

Roadway/Driver Improvements

• Support for concept citing it accommodates high volumes of pedestrians and cyclists as well as balances safety improvements with traffic.
• Support for five lanes or three lanes in one direction to manage congestion as well as support for lane reductions for safety and walkability. • Support for adding bus lanes on the three-lane side of street and dedicated bus lanes to improve reliability and encourage ridership.
• Requests for bioswales in medians, simpler driveway access, shorter crossings • Interest in learning more regarding hours for bus lanes (all day or rush hour). • Concerns of bus lanes increasing congestion.

City Council
19 –
125
2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

62 Bus Lane & Bikeway Concept :

Four travel lanes and two bus
lanes awith a separate dedicated bikeway
and a sidewalk on each side of First Street

Bicyclist Improvements

• Requests for continuous bike
paths through intersections,
protected bike lanes with physical
barriers like curbs and planters, and clear signage in English and Spanish. • Support for bi-directional bikeways and lanes on both sides of the street. • Concerns for bicyclists traveling around buses, lack of separation/barriers, and single bike lane provided.

Pedestrian Improvements

• Requests for additional crosswalks near schools, z-crossings to address jaywalking, and curb extensions to shorten crossings and improve visibility.
• Requests for improved push button placement and countdown signals, longer crossing times for wheelchair users, and improved curb ramp alignment for accessibility.
• Concerns for drainage and potential flooding at corners.

Safety Improvements

• Support for separation among all modes of transportation, reduction in intersection width, protected curbs at intersections, traffic signals and crossings spaced throughout corridor.
• Requests for left and right turn signals and enforcement tools such traffic signal cameras for pedestrian safety.
• Concerns for pedestrians and bicyclists about travel conflicts in shared areas as well as visibility issues without curb extensions.
• Improved vendor and pedestrian safety due to exclusive bus lane.

Roadway/Driver Improvements

• Support for dedicated bus lanes due to improved bus reliability, better wait times, incentivized public transit, and mitigation of traffic impacts on buses. • Mixed opinions on bus lane impacts to traffic. Some note it will improve flow while others feel it will worsen congestion.
• Suggestion to add dedicated bus signals at busy intersections. • Interest in learning if bus lanes will have dedicated hours (full-day or peak) and if two car lanes in each direction are necessary.

City Council
19 –
126
2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

63 Enhanced Pedestrian & Bicycle
Zone Concept:

Four travel lanes with a sidewalk and a
separated bikeway on each side of
First Street
Bicyclist Improvements
• Support for extended bike
infrastructure
throughout corridor and separate and protected bike lanes/paths • Requests for physical buffers and barriers to protect bike lanes such as planters.

Pedestrian Improvements
• Support for the concept specific to separating pedestrian walkways for safety and comfort.
• Requests for all-way pedestrian crossings, incorporation of cross paths at all intersections, and curb bulb-outs to shorten crossing distances and protect pedestrians.
• Concerns for physical pedestrian obstruction near Caltrans parking lot.

Safety improvements
• Support for this design, citing it is the safest for all modes of transportation due to separation, can reduce accidents, and narrows roadway widths leading to slower traffic speeds.
• Improved safety outcomes through buffers, planters, and curb extensions.

Roadway/Driver Improvements
• Request to narrow the roadway to slow traffic speeds, reallocate space from wide lanes or medians to protect bike and pedestrian zones.
• Concern for traffic impacts with new bike lane.

Streetscape and Landscape
Participants also provided input on potential street trees for the corridor. The results of the input are summarized below:
• Use California native plants and trees, particularly within bioswales. • Discouraged the use of Mediterranean climate plants and expressed frustration with overplanted species, such as crepe myrtle, citing poor appearance and overuse in the area.
• Clear support for prioritizing native vegetation in the project’s landscape design.

City Council
19 –
127
2/17/2026

City of Santa Ana | First Street Multimodal Corridor
Technical Memorandum

64 Next Steps
With the development of the three concepts, the next step in the project is to select a locally preferred alternative. In order to select that option, the following steps will be completed:
• Complete the OCTAM model and assess the redistribution of traffic related to potential lane reductions and update the levels of service. • Conduct meetings with the Stakeholder Group and the Community Working Group to receive additional feedback on the three Concepts.
• Present and receive direction from City Council.

Once a locally preferred alternative is selected, the project team will move forward with the final engineering, feasibility study and environmental document for the corridor. Due to project funding, this phase of the project will need to be completed by December 2026. The City is currently seeking funding to finalize the engineering, prepare bid documents and construct the project; however, additional funding may be needed for construction depending upon the concept selected.

City Council
19 –
128
2/17/2026

FIRST STREET MULTIMODAL BOULEVARD STUDY
Community Feedback Summary
From August through December 2025 , a robust outreach effort was conducted engaging more than 1,100 people at in-person events, 10,000 interactions through on-line platforms, presentations to 11 neighborhood organizations, and coordination with 35 community partners to gather meaningful input.

Workshops &
Meetings
Community
Events &
Pop-ups
Printed &
Virtual
Survey

City Council
19 –
129
2/17/2026

FIRST STREET MULTIMODAL BOULEVARD STUDY
Community Outreach Overview
Moving
Forward
on First
Design
Concepts
Community
Feedback
Technical
Analysis
Preference
Survey WE ARE
HERE
Workshop 1
July - August 2025
This workshop looked at how
people use First Street today
and what improvements would
make traveling the corridor
safer and more comfortable.

What we heard:
• Need for safer walking and
biking access
• Several locations missing
crosswalks
• Mixed feedback on adding
bike lanes
• Interest in improved sidewalk
amenities (bus stops, lighting,
shade)
• Concerns about peak-hour
trafﬁc increases
September - November 2025
This workshop reviewed eight
preliminary design alternatives
developed from Workshop 1
input, technical analysis, and
feedback from the virtual survey.

What we heard:
• Preference for six lanes, ﬁve
lanes, and four travel lanes
with bus lane options
• Protected bike paths from
street trafﬁc
• Transit signal priority at
intersections
• More shade trees and
landscape areas
• Mid-block controlled crossings
to reduce jaywalking and
improve pedestrian access
• Need for sidewalk safety and
street lighting improvements
December 2025
This workshop will review three
reﬁned design concepts
developed from Workshop 2
input, technical analysis, and
the virtual poll. Community
feedback gathered during this
workshop will be presented to
City Council in early 2026. The
goal is to identify a locally
preferred alternative and move
forward with ﬁnal engineering
in 2026.

Workshop 2 Workshop 3
Informed by the three-phased workshop process, technical analysis, and results from the preference survey, we are now advancing concepts that are shaped by the community’s stated priorities.

Key Community Ideas for First Street
○ Improve safety and access for people of all abilities. ○ Add shade trees to improve sidewalk comfort.
○ Provide safer, more comfortable bicycle facilities.
○ Calm traffic and reduce vehicle speeds.
○ Enhance bus stops with upgraded amenities.
○ Improve pedestrian lighting and visibility along
sidewalks.
○ Add controlled pedestrian crossings, especially
near schools and businesses, and in areas with
long gaps between existing crosswalks.

Communi ty Input Received at Workshops

City Council
19 –
130
2/17/2026

Stay Updated
bit.ly/MovingForwardOnFirst

FIRST STREET MULTIMODAL BOULEVARD STUDY
Multi-Use Path Concept
6 travel lanes with shared
pedestrian and bicycle path
on south side of First Street
1 Wider sidewalks support safer pedestrian movement and allow room for landscaping and streetscape elements.

Added street trees provide essential shade and improve
comfort for people walking or rolling by buffering the
sidewalk from trafﬁc.

Shared pedestrian/bike path provides a wider and safer
space for walking and rolling on the south side.

Six travel lanes are maintained to keep existing trafﬁc patterns and overall corridor ﬂow.

Raised center median provides a pedestrian refuge at new mid-block crossings, helps slow and separate trafﬁc, and adds landscaping that strengthens the corridor’s character.

Curb-lane bus operation keeps existing bus service moving as it does today.
2 3
4 5
6 6 65
Conceptual View Looking east on First St near Shelton St 2 11
1 3 3
4 Shared Pedestrian/
Bicycle Path
Parkway/
Lighting
Zone
Bike
Zone
View
Location Bristol St
Flower St
Main St
Grand Ave
Tustin Ave
Metrolink
Shelton St
First St

City Council
19 –
131
2/17/2026

FIRST STREET MULTIMODAL BOULEVARD STUDY
Conceptual View Looking east on First St near Shelton St Multi-Use Path Concept
○ Shared pedestrian/bicycle path creates a
dedicated, predictable zone that increases
separation from roadway trafﬁc, enhancing safety
by supporting more comfortable walking and
rolling on the sidewalk.
○ Additional safety improvements (not pictured)
include enhanced pedestrian crossings with
tighter curb radii, improved crosswalk visibility,
and new signalized crossings for safer, more
consistent crossing opportunities. Transit
signal priority will be integrated into signalized
intersections to help improve bus operations and
on-time performance.

Change in Travel Time: Opening Year (AM/PM)
Level of Service: Opening YearBenefit Assessment

City Council
19 –
132
2/17/2026

FIRST STREET MULTIMODAL BOULEVARD STUDY
Enhanced Pedestrian &
Bicycle Zone Concept
5 travel lanes with a sidewalk and
a separated bikeway on each side
of First Street
5 Conceptual View Looking east on First St near Shelton St 11 22
1 3 3
4 Sidewalk with
Separated Bikeway
Parkway/
Lighting
Zone
Separated
Bikeway
View
Location
Bristol St
Flower St
Main St
Grand Ave
Tustin Ave
Metrolink
Shelton St
1 Extra-wide sidewalks create more room for ADA access
and accommodates a separated bikeway.

Separated bikeway improves safety for pedestrians
and bicyclists by moving faster moving bicycles into a
dedicated space.

Added street trees provide essential shade and improve
comfort for people walking or rolling by buffering the
sidewalk from traffic.
66’ roadway width shortens pedestrian crossing
distances at intersections and controlled crossings.

Raised center median provides a pedestrian refuge at
new mid-block crossings, helps slow and separate traffic, and adds landscaping that strengthens the corridor’s
character.

Reducing to five travel lanes slows traffic speeds, with some increased delay and travel time.

Curb-lane bus operation keeps existing bus service
moving as it does today.
2 3
4 5
6 7
67 7
First St

City Council
19 –
133
2/17/2026

FIRST STREET MULTIMODAL BOULEVARD STUDY
Conceptual View Looking east on First St near Shelton St Enhanced Pedestrian & Bicycle Zone
○ Extra-wide sidewalks with separated bikeways
create dedicated, predictable zones that increase
separation form roadway traffic, enhancing safety
by providing more comfortable ADA access for
walking, and rolling on both sides of First Street.
○ Additional safety improvements (not pictured)
include enhanced pedestrian crossings with
tighter curb radii, improved crosswalk visibility,
and new signalized crossings for safer, more
consistent crossing opportunities. Transit
signal priority will be integrated into signalized
intersections to help improve bus operations and
on-time performance.

Change in Travel Time: Opening Year (AM/PM)
Level of Service: Opening YearBenefit Assessment

City Council
19 –
134
2/17/2026

FIRST STREET MULTIMODAL BOULEVARD STUDY
Bus Lanes &
Bikeway Concept
4 travel lanes and 2 bus lanes with
a sidewalk and bikeway on each
side of First Street
Conceptual View Looking east on First St near Shelton St 1 1
3 1
Sidewalk with
Bikeway
View
Location
Bristol St
Flower St
Main St
Grand Ave
Tustin Ave
Metrolink
Shelton St
2A
2A
2B
2B
2B
Shared multi-use path accommodates street trees, parkways and lighting.

Sidewalk with separated bikeway clearly defines bicycle and pedestrian zones along the sidewalk, and cannot
accommodate street trees or other pedestrian amenities
given the width constraints.

Raised center median provide a safe pedestrian refuge at new mid-block crossings, helps slow and separate traffic, and adds landscaping that strengthens the corridor’s character.

Reducing to four travel lanes slows traffic speeds but
results in higher delays, longer travel times, and some potential diversion to other routes.

Two dedicated bus lanes enhance transit service reliability and travel times.
3 4
4 5
5 5
Separated
Bikeway
First St
1 Wider sidewalks support safer pedestrian movement and allow room for landscaping and streetscape elements.

City Council
19 –
135
2/17/2026

FIRST STREET MULTIMODAL BOULEVARD STUDY
Conceptual View Looking east on First St near Shelton St Bus Lanes & Bikeway
○ Wide sidewalks with a separated bikeway
improve ADA access and provide safer, more
comfortable space for walking and rolling on
both sides of First Street.
○ Additional safety improvements (not
pictured) include enhanced pedestrian
crossings with tighter curb radii, improved
crosswalk visibility, and new signalized crossings
for safer, more consistent crossing opportunities.

Transit signal priority will be integrated into
signalized intersections to help improve bus
operations and on-time performance.

Change in Travel Time: Opening Year (AM/PM)
Level of Service: Opening YearBenefit Assessment

City Council
19 –
136
2/17/2026

Stay Updated
bit.ly/MovingForwardOnFirst

FIRST STREET MULTIMODAL BOULEVARD STUDY
East Side - 4 Lane
Pedestrian & Bicycle Zone
4 travel lanes with a sidewalk
and a separated bikeway on each
side of First Street
(Zoo Ln to Tustin Ave)
5 5 11
22 3 3
4 Sidewalk with
Separated Bikeway
1 Extra-wide sidewalks improve pedestrian access and
create space for upgraded bus stops and amenities, with flexibility to use any of the three sidewalk concepts shown for the west corridor.

Note: The four lane concept aligns with the lower traffic volumes and the Public Realm Plan (Mixed Use Overlay Zone) on the east side of Interstate 5 (I-5). Therefore, one concept was developed for the roadway cross section on the east side.

Separated bikeway creates clearly defined bicycle and
pedestrian zones at the sidewalk level.

Added street trees provide essential shade and improve
comfort for people walking or rolling by buffering the
sidewalk from traffic.
65’ roadway width shortens pedestrian crossing
distances for at intersections and controlled pedestrian crossings.

Reducing to four travel lanes slows traffic speeds, with increased delay and travel time.
2 3
4 5
View
Location
Bristol St
Flower St
Main St
Grand Ave
Tustin Ave
Golden Circle Dr
Metrolink
First St
Conceptual View Looking east on First St near Golden Circle Dr Separated
Bikeway
Parkway/
Lighting
Zone
1 City Council
19 –
137
2/17/2026

Stay Updated
bit.ly/MovingForwardOnFirst

FIRST STREET MULTIMODAL BOULEVARD STUDY
East Side Concept
○ Extra-wide sidewalks with separated bikeways
create dedicated, predictable zones that increase
separation form roadway traffic, enhancing safety
by providing more comfortable ADA access for
walking, and rolling on both sides of First Street.
○ Additional safety improvements (not pictured)
include enhanced pedestrian crossings with
tighter curb radii, improved crosswalk visibility,
and new signalized crossings for safer, more
consistent crossing opportunities. Transit
signal priority will be integrated into signalized
intersections to help improve bus operations and
on-time performance.

Caltrans Conceptual Plan developed for their Freeway Ramp Active Mobility Study recommends reducing First Street to four lanes east of Zoo Lane and ramp improvements at I-5 SB Ramps Level of Service: Opening Year

City Council
19 –
138
2/17/2026

Santa Ana City CouncilFebruary 17, 2026

Santa Ana City Council
February 17, 2026